State ownership of companies

[geared]

Because when they ran East Coast Mainline it worked and made a profit, yet when sold off they immediately raised prices.

 

So government can runs things efficiently, can make a profit and I'd much rather that than the public get bent over and screwed every year with price rises whilst profits are given to shareholders rather than reinvested.

 

Do you have any other example other than East Coast Mainline, because it's getting worn pretty thin already.

 

Seriously there are tons of examples of public ran, or non-profit organisations that have been a complete mess.

 

It'd be utterly moronic to expect everything to be a repeat of East Coast Mainline.

[El Cid]

Do you have any other example other than East Coast Mainline, because it's getting worn pretty thin already.

 

 

Lehman Brothers, makes some publicly owned companies look very well run.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2015 at 11:28 ----------

 

Woolworths

[unbeliever]

Lehman Brothers, makes some publicly owned companies look very well run.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2015 at 11:28 ----------

 

Woolworths

 

Let them fail.

That's all you have to do.

Companies that are badly run or otherwise weak need to be allowed to fail.

Then they get replaced by stronger better run ones.

[El Cid]

Over 100,000 companies in the UK went bankrupt in 2007, I wonder how many were state owned?

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2015 at 11:31 ----------

 

Let them fail.

That's all you have to do.

 

Like the UK banks?

[unbeliever]

Over 100,000 companies in the UK went bankrupt in 2007, I wonder how many were state owned?

 

None.

 

If a state run company loses money, the tax-payers just quietly bail it out.

That means that weak nationalised industries survive when they should fail. They continue to operate with poor customer service, poor standards, low productivity and bad management. As a result they're almost always an expensive disaster.

 

Those 100,000 companies were weak and so they failed. In doing so, they made room in the market for superior companies and we all get better products and services as a result.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2015 at 11:35 ----------

 

 

Like the UK banks?

 

Yes like the banks. They should damn well have been allowed to fail.

The government would have insured the depositors' money and that's all. Gordon Brown messed up. Again.

Edited August 10, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

Do you have any other example other than East Coast Mainline, because it's getting worn pretty thin already.

 

 

Bus deregulation has failed because bus passenger journeys have fallen and fares have risen faster than inflation.

[geared]

Bus deregulation has failed because bus passenger journeys have fallen and fares have risen faster than inflation.

 

Is that failure on the bus companies or a failure on the passengers though?

Private car ownership has risen significantly since bus deregulation.

[El Cid]

Is that failure on the bus companies or a failure on the passengers though?

Private car ownership has risen significantly since bus deregulation.

 

It is really difficult to compare private vs public, but the press always seem to latch onto the public waste, never the private waste, like the banks.

 

I would always try to have both private and public, I work in school transport, and that is what happens.

[Cyclone]

The main arguments for having public companies are when a service is essential or vitally important, when it's open to monopoly abuse or when the state is best placed to provide it.

 

IMO privatising gas and electricity production was a mistake, rail and bus I'm not so sure about, bus seems to work well enough, but it's easy for small operators to enter the market and so competition works well to keep the businesses lean and prices down.

[unbeliever]

It is really difficult to compare private vs public, but the press always seem to latch onto the public waste, never the private waste, like the banks.

 

I would always try to have both private and public, I work in school transport, and that is what happens.

 

The problem with mixing public and private is that the state has the tax-payer as an under-writer and that gives it an enormous advantage. It skews the market.

Look at the BBC skewing the media market.

 

Something should be either public sector or not. Cyclone has a point. Infrastructure is often a natural monopoly and there are advantages in having the state run it.

Mixtures are a mess.

 

Once again. The banks were only a problem because the government decided to rescue them.

Edited August 10, 2015 by unbeliever