Nationalisation or Privatisation?

Want to hear opinions on the privatisation or nationalisation of natural monopolies.
Pic semi-related.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=e-BZylziBKI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Things like railroads should be owned by the government at a federal level
Utilities should be owned at a municipal level

everything should be comunally owned.
it's the only correct way

Privatize as much as you can without becoming anarcho capitalist. Anarcho capitalism comes after we save the western genocide and generally 1488.

Cuck vs faggot. What is the difference?
Both are shit.

Why didn't you jump to the other side of the wall then.

You fuckers hate the east of your country, you want to guess why?

I dunno mang, I just want to ride trains all day. I want a train thats essentially just a house on wheels, traveling across the land living off of deliveries and goods from different cities.

My friends are very pro-nationalisation, but I'm not sure on it's merits, particularly as passenger numbers in the UK shot up after privatisation, and BR wasn't the best run corporation

Privatise to nationalists

Lots of things should be nationalized, land/resources, transportation/infrastructure for the most part, healthcare, some insurance, some housing. Most shouldn't be fully nationalized.

When you put people on public healthcare, it's one of the steps to making people fully slaves to the goverment.

How do you transition from nationalisation to privatisation without forming some oligopoly? Divi it up evenly? Seriously, I'm curious.

Very basic public healthcare is fine i think.
Then you have the option to go private

Cant. Somebody has to rule, if its not you its someone else.
You just need to choose who will serve your interest.

Well in America people are slaves to private healthcare insurers and the costs necessary to fund them. If anything having more disposable income would make one less of a slave. Besides, public healthcare should only be an option and private healthcare should still be available.

The government doesn't have a great track record though.

All should be privatised.
Government is useless

Neither do you

Anti-trust laws, for the most part.

Basically, when the cartels get abusive, the government bullies them and then they have to reorganize and that provides an opportunity for reform from within.

What are you talking about?

Our council is a 2% stakeholder in the local bus company and we are regularly nominated best bus service in the u.k. Privatized rail is shit but totally public ones were fairly shit too.

I say add competition for the other railway companies by adding a partially publicly owned service provider to keep prices down and service up. Best of both worlds.

Whats your track record?

if you could keep the leftists from turning nationalized industries into jobs factories nationalization would be a good thing. only if national industries were run with an eye to making the economically viable.

>Hitler was right again

When the Soviet Union broke up, equal stocks of the companies where given to each Russian citizen. If course they were not familiar with capitalism so most Russians sold their stock for quick cash and that's how it transitioned to oligarchy so fast

Pretty decent. If you must know.

Thats why the solution is privatise to nationalists

Youve run a country before? Which one

Didn't know that, so basically
they should have gone long
on that one.

I think nationalisation is really circumstantial. Like the dirigism of De Gaulle.

De Gaulle and dirigism are based.

>nationalisation is really circumstantial
This is the only correct answer.
You don't want national healthcare to be privatised, but you might want nationalized roads, etc.

That says more about human nature, so
the solution should be proper education aan
vitue?

They just crammed more people onto each train. Making everyone miserable.

Nationalisation all the way. If the goverment is nationalistic and stops immigration.

I never actually thought about it that way but that might work. If any place could try it and have it work out it would be Singapore.

To me, the pros of each are

Private:
- Incentive to improve efficiency and effectiveness
- The obsolete dies and makes space for the new
- Innovation
- Risk is spread out across many
- Jobs and tax revenue

Public:
- Accessibility
- "Monopolies we can trust"

Nationalizing a specific service is mostly a question about accessibility, and it's what most socialists weigh much higher than the pros of keeping them private. Some services are more easily nationalized than others, and those are the ones that otherwise don't really see much of the pros for privatization. An example could be unemployment benefits: the business model is literally "get money from X and give it to Y when needed", and it can be nationalized without much effort or negative impact on the markets. Other examples, to some extent, could be health care and education. There are many good examples of functional public education and health care systems around the world.

However, my own largest problem with nationalization a service is the risk allocation. The wonderful thing about competition, is that in order to gain an advantage, you first have to face the risks involved. R&D is not free, and can lead nowhere or prosperity. Industries and markets that demand a high degree of innovation and risk-taking are unfit to be nationalized, simply because public monopolies cannot afford to make a wrong step. This usually goes hand in hand with the tendency for nationalized services to be "bloated with bureaucracy", for the sake of control and oversight.

So in short, it really depends on what service or industry we're looking at, but as rule of thumb, I'd say keeping things private is the priority, while nationalization can be necessary.

Hahaha singapore doesnt have nationalists

Yeah but I was just saying from the prospect of actually running it efficiently, I feel like pretty much any other place or country would inevitably fuck it up somehow barring extremely specific circumstances and an ideological bent, like Nazi Germany.

The regulations in the US does not allow private healthcare across state borders, rendering the free market obselete. That is why some rural counties in places like Tennessee or Kentucky have no healthcare providers. Having private and public healthcare will make the public healthcare the best, because it doesn't run for a profit. Then, when private healthcare is all but eliminated, public healthcare will be shit because something compulsory tends to do so

>1980s
>British Rail working on a high-tech tilting train that could reduce journey times without upgrading the tracks.
>Budget pressures make them do a test run early, being a prototype technology it fails and gets eviscerated
>Eventually they're made to sell the technology and data to the Italians and scrap the project, even though a good number of the bugs had been worked out
Fast forward to the 90s
>Virgin gets the franchise for high speed trains.
>Goes to Italy to buy shiny new fast trains
>Fast trains that tilt around corners to reduce journey times

Nationalize: beak it up in smaller
compartments:let compartments
compete implement the solution
which is most effective. Implement
across the Board Rinse and Repeat?

I would say nationalisation.

But really our politicians have no fucking clue what they're doing.

So i think there is are a few options.

1. Nationalise it.
2. Regulate it so hard that the benefits of it being nationalised are realised, and its profits margins are minuscule, while stopping its profits from being off-shored to Europe.
3. If we were to nationalise, maybe we could make it a charitable business.

Singapore is being run exactly the way the elites want it to be run, if thats what you mean

ancap here, I can roll with this

Speaking about trains Mussolini definetly made them arrive on time.

Government ownership will ensure high prices, no accountability, decay of the system etc. It sounds great on paper but anyone with any life experience knows better.

(((Privatization)))

I would agree the private benefits are true in most cases. However, it is not true in the case of the national railway since its a natural monopoly. You don't have a rail network for every company, you have only 1 rail network that every company uses. The incentive to improve is non-existent, beyond the government kicking the companies dragging and screaming into reinvestment. Moreover, they know that if they fuck up they will just get government investment.

Same shit with BT, they get billions to update the network and at least half of that just got filtered out as profits, then they complained to gov that they didn't have enough £££ to meet gov targets, so we gave them more £££.

Gov is full of fucking mugs

It does work in practice. The State of Nebraska has public municipal electricity and sells their surplus to other states

You say that, but in Europe it was 10 euro from 1 country capital to another, on the spot ticket purchased at the station.

In England i had to purchase a ticket in advance by 3 weeks, it was a one way ticket for £25, and it was only travelling 100 miles, from a town to a city.

I saw you guys are making interesting progress in bringing some power plants and possibly other utilities into public hands as per Also that's my opinion.

BR was a disaster back then but so was BT etc. Look at East Midland (I think), where when the Govt took it back off the franchisee, it was actually making good profit. I think we can and should renationalise the railways. And could possibly mark out a route to bring more companies into public ownership.

Oh i forgot to add, when I arrived on the return journey after my holiday I had a ticket also 3 weeks in advance to get back to my town. It cost £30, there was a train leaving 1 hour earlier, I didn't fancy sitting around for an hour. SO i went to see if i could switch train. They said it would cost £110 pound. So i waited and got to see an almost empty train leave the station that I could have been on and the train company could have made £££ if they were reasonable.

This is what public services do already. Question becomes: how many tax dollars should be spent on R&D in the public sector, granted that it may lead to to absolutely nowhere?

Public services don't have the luxury of just being able to scale down their operation. "Yeah we had to cut the amount of nurses by 20% because our R&D was shit, so now waiting time for treatments are expected to increase significantly".

Mostly the innovation in the public sector is on the operational level: working smart and not hard, which is fine by itself. The expensive innovation and "game changing" stuff is best left for the private sector to tackle.

The most ridiculous is the way our trains – devastated by John Major's mad privatisation scheme – are falling into the hands of foreign state railways.

So, while the Government cannot bear to have railways run by the British state, it is happy to have them run by the German, Dutch, French or even Hong Kong state systems.

What is going on? What principle is at work here? Privatised railways have never been real private companies. Their jaws are clamped firmly to the public teat, and when they fail they can just stroll away from the mess they have made.

The increase in traffic they claim to have brought about was in fact caused by the hopeless overcrowding of roads and insane house prices, which produced a great surge in long-distance commuting.

I have been a long-distance commuter myself for more than 30 years and I long for the return of British Rail. Its undoubted arrogance and sloth were as nothing compared with its private successors, and its trains were faster and more comfortable.

It looked after its track far better and – given the money – it would never have made the mess its successors are now making of electrifying the Great Western line, which is years behind schedule, partly abandoned and vastly over budget.

Yet in the 20 years to 2013, state subsidies to the rail sector roughly tripled in real terms, while fares continued to rise. This is a small slice of our national life of which I have direct daily experience. None of it works properly.

I am apologised to, meaninglessly, by computerised voices, a dozen times a day. They do the same thing hours or days later. Nobody is really sorry. My trains are almost always late, frequently very badly so. But they get more expensive all the time.

Lets use trains/public transport as an example.
When the government, or a commune, owns railroads and bus routes paid for by taxpayers, if they are willing or not. This means the state not only have a monopoly of the transport market, but if they want another service than the one offered by the state, you have to pay for that AND your taxes.
In a free market, if people deem the service unsatisfactory, people will want an alternative which will force the business to either go bankrupt or have to improve their service.
If it is state owned, there is no insensitive to improve, because you get the taxmoney either way, and as mentioned before, if you want another service, you have to pay twice, essentially.

That being said, I'm not an anarchist. Services as fire departments, courts, prisons, police force, intelligence and military are most effective when nationalized and in co-operation (especially the military). This could be paid for by property tax, as the land your nation has is constant (mostly), so the state wont be able to grow out of control on the success of other people

Most innovation comes out of Universities, which are mostly funded by government research grants.

But universities do not properly exploit this IP and thus it goes much to waste until a private company comes along and either copies it or buys rights to it.

What does Sup Forums think about this man?

things built with public money need to be owned by the public. privatization is theft

When someone hacks your GP/healthcare professional and holds their computer systems for ransom.

You can get treatment somewhere else.

scandalous desu

Looks like a fucking kike. What self-respecting man would want to look like that?

Kike. If you want to listen to a real british nationalist
youtube.com/watch?v=e-BZylziBKI

Why not both?

Well public accountability doesn't come from consumer choice it comes from political activity.

So you cannot compare one with the other in relation to incentive as they function differently.

That being said in a privately owned model trains cannot function properly, because they are a natural monopoly. There is only one national rail, like there is only one national grid. You can cut it up as much as you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

>like there is only one national grid.
You know what rubs me the wrong way? When I go to visit family and see a "National Grid" truck running the local gas pipelines, and knowing full well it's not "National" at all but rather a foreign country running our critical public infrastructure.

Absolutely agree, and it's a very complicated task to find a solution to something like the efficiency/effectiveness of railways. On one hand, you have Japan with a private system that works VERY well, and Scandinavian ones that are public, and also very good.

>Most innovation comes out of Universities, which are mostly funded by government research grants.
I do not think that's true. Perhaps for certain areas of science, but private R&D is literally enables one company to prosper and others to die. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics for this.

I don't agree. The two railway lines would compete prices down to the level where there would be no profits. As a result the new railway line would not be able to pay off the huge expense of laying down tracks, demolishing houses, building stations, etc.
Essentially, the market only tends to support a single line.

Look at examples throughout the world, this is what i see:

Nationalised System
>Monopoly
>Rarely operates in profit
>Profits are individual (ie: bonus payouts, etc)
>Losses are collectivized (ie: inject tax payer money)

Privatised System
>Open to competition
>Operates in profit
>Profits are individual
>Losses are individual

competition in infrastructure is a big fat fucking meme

...

>attack Japan : 21.2%
I'm not sure I understand.
I think I do, but I'm not sure.

Also,

As soon the government interferes with subsidies, 3 things happen:
> Corruption Skyrockets
> Inefficiency Skyrockets
> People that don't use the service pay for it indirectly though taxes (If i don't use the rail network why the fuck am i being taxed for it?)

Specifically talking about railways, the UK government should:
> Cut all subsidies
> Nationalize all infrastructure (rails & train stations)
> Allow open competition for the same route (currently the UK government hands out contracts that only allow 1 company to hold usage rights on a particular route)
> Charge train companies per usage of rail.

TLDR version:
- Nationalize the infrastructure
- Privatize train service

Koreans hate the japanese a lot.

Transparent media

Break up the big corps and end insurance/usury

What are the chances of that happening? By now the railway tycoons are rich enough that they will always lobby for, and achieve, high subsides.
The solution is to cut our losses, buy back the railways, and follow the same model already practised successfully throughout Europe.

Any form of nationalisation is good. It means far more of the profit is pumped back into the service or prices drop.

Privatisation literally means people get a chance to make massive amounts of cash out of it.

God bless Labour and their manifesto. Giving the normal man the power back. Shocking the amount of sheeple on Sup Forums slating them. You're are either shills or just very easily manipulated.

Privatize railway companies but keep the railroads and train stations under government control

On the other hand, freeways should be nationalized

They have been brainwashed by Americans into toxic individualism

It shouldn't work but it does in practice, the UK is a shining example of why privatising something won't necessarily fix it.

Labour abandons national identity though, Mr. Commie Shiil.

the trouble with corbyn is that he'll assassinate bashar al-assad and coddle islamic state

Theresa May is the one who wants Assad gone.

true also

In America, maybe.
But even here I'd rather have the gov. manage the train or letter system rather than Jewish corps.

Daily reminder that this is the third election in a row Tories promise to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands

Corbyn says he will reduce 'migrant exploitation' by bosses, which would reduce total immigration

>successfully throughout Europe.

Depends on what you consider successful, here is my experience with Portuguese national rail service:

> Service and costs are ok
> Railway service is never profitable
> Taxpayer money is always injected year after year
> Train operators get paid almost 10 times more than the minimum wage
> Train operators & staff go on strike all the time because they want more money or benefits (via trade unions)
> People get pissed because trains aren't running, pressure the government
> Government sinks more money into rail service to appease operators and end the strike
> Sometime later, REPEAT cycle.

If you factor in that tax payer money is always flooding in the Rail Service is crazy expensive.

Besides, in Scandinavia (i.e countries with very low corruption) the nationalised transport systems work fine.

yeah be cause (((nationalisation))) by the ((soviet))) was better

nationalize infrastructure, banking, and natural resources

the free market will fix everything else, including education and healthcare

what do burgers pay taxes for apart from kike wars and getting shot by the po po?

the fuck are you talking about faggot? Corbyn wants to leave syrians to clean up their own mess

he also wants a "migration impact fund", funded by visa levies, to help areas affected by migration

wouldn't need a migration impact fund if migration weren't high enough to impact areas, jeremy

>profit is pumped back into the service or prices drop.

Kek

That is what you think it happens in theory, but it's not what happens in practice.

> There will be no profit most of the time
> If there is any profit, government cronies will take it as bonus payments for how well they performed
> Tax payer money will likely be used to cover any loss

>Daily reminder that this is the third election in a row Tories promise to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands
Tories are cancer nothing new and I never vote for them.

>Corbyn says he will reduce 'migrant exploitation' by bosses, which would reduce total immigration
That does nothing to address out of europe migration, which is an even bigger issue than EU migration.

You also never addressed the fact that Labour do indeed completely abandon national identity as a platform; remembering that national identity is the only platform a socialist regime has ever been even remotely successful on.

Gibmedats.

privatize education ? from a swede ?
last time i checked when your government started introducing private ownership in universities it failed horribly: the guys in charge started employed cheap under qualified teachers and cut deeply in the budget of universities which led to course being aborted mid school year

just fire all the staff and automate it

come on, this is trivial stuff