5 ms·

Maybe nationalization should be an option when a company, say PG&E for example, has poorly maintained equipment that starts forest fires. It seems reasonable th

Maybe nationalization should be an option when a company, say PG&E for example, has poorly maintained equipment that starts forest fires. It seems reasonable that an option like that should be on that table as a deterrent reserved for the worst actors. I don't think that anything like that should have happened here, but the fine of ~$10 a laptop does seem a bit low for MitM.

Zhenya 8y ago
Why would nationalization ensure that the equipment is well maintained?
- paranoidrobot 8y ago
  This descends pretty quickly into politics, but Nationalised infrastructure should be managed by a government organisation who's goal is to deliver a quality product at (or slightly above) cost. These organisations in turn report to the executive government of the day, who's interests should be aligned with that of the citizens they were elected to represent.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Nationalized infrastructure is a good way to create poor service, and a long lasting debt. Look at pretty much every country in Europe with national railtracks and rail lines: massively bleeding money, with worse and worse service and low levels of investements because there is no incentive to do so.
    - Joakal 8y ago
      Is there a private train company that has good service, regularly invests and is profitable without government assistance?
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        Yup. Numerous private train companies in Japan.
        xanipher 8y ago
        Most of the Japan railway system was built by the state and privatized later.
        SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        Building it isn't the difficult part, keeping it running efficiently is. See: Britain.
        mcintyre1994 8y ago
        Not too sure what you're getting at, but the only part of Britain's rail network that runs acceptably is TFL which isn't privatised.
        Lio 8y ago
        Ironically most of the railways in Britain were built independently by private companies then nationalised then privatised again.
        ekianjo 8y ago
        So what? what is expensive on a daily basis is maintenance and operations. That's the killer.
        bildung 8y ago
        In Japan the government kept essentially all the companies' debt, and incurred the cost of the 80k employees that were fired. And even now the profitable companies seem to get their profits from shops at the train stations. And from the 6 companies the public railroad was split into, not all are successful: "JR Hokkaido expects to incur a record pretax loss of ¥23.5 billion in the year that ended in March [2017], with the company’s president likening its loss-making business structure — due to loss of passengers caused by falling local populations and the expansion of expressway networks — to “a bucket with holes in the bottom." https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/04/editorials/privatization-jnr-30-years/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/04/editorials/p...
    - bildung 8y ago
      Actually the opposite is true. For example the UK was at the forefront of modern railtrack privatization, and it went horribly wrong: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-... There are countless examples in Europe were privatized infrastructure actually has been bought back by the public because it has been neglected by the private holder.
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        It's not because there are failures of the private sector that it dooms the idea completely. But failures of operating train lines under national supervision is rather the rule than the exception. Look at the TGV in France, which is a complete commercial failure that needs constant government intervention to keep it afloat. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-reform-sncf-debt/france-to-absorb-35-billion-euros-rail-operator-sncf-debt-les-echos-idUSKCN1IM24O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-reform-sncf-debt/f... Same thing for Deutsche Bahn in Germany: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/09/11/germanys-deutsche-bahn-faces-challenging-times/ https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/09/11...
    - ionised 8y ago
      Not everything needs to make a profit. In fact it's better that some things don't. And using European trains as an example of poor service is mind-boggling. They are far, far better than the US or UK offerings (which are privatised, offer piss-poor service and are overpriced).
    - chmod775 8y ago
      Other comments already pointed out counter-examples from the UK etc., so let me give you a German one: The Berlin public transport system was running perfectly fine until it was privatized. Now the infrastructure is starting to degrade, it's gotten less punctual by objective metrics and it has also gotten much more expensive. The new owners are basically just milking the ever living hell out of it because they know they can. It's gotten so bad there's now a lot of talk that it should be nationalized again.
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    Uh... are you familiar with... history? Take a look at the Soviet car industry. You could take you pick from about 2 or 3 cars that were roughly 40 years old, then wait on a ten year waiting list to get one. You do realize regulation does not work in virtue of itself, right? If you regulate something it will not magically be regulated efficiently or even adequately.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Maybe nationalization should be an option This turns a problem company into a problem government bureaucracy. Cleaner to fine the company into oblivion, put it into bankruptcy--thereby teaching its shareholders and creditors a hard lesson--and then let the market figure out if it's worth more liquidated, split up into bits, or sold to a new owner.

Zhenya 8y ago

Why would nationalization ensure that the equipment is well maintained?

paranoidrobot 8y ago
This descends pretty quickly into politics, but Nationalised infrastructure should be managed by a government organisation who's goal is to deliver a quality product at (or slightly above) cost. These organisations in turn report to the executive government of the day, who's interests should be aligned with that of the citizens they were elected to represent.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Nationalized infrastructure is a good way to create poor service, and a long lasting debt. Look at pretty much every country in Europe with national railtracks and rail lines: massively bleeding money, with worse and worse service and low levels of investements because there is no incentive to do so.
  - Joakal 8y ago
    Is there a private train company that has good service, regularly invests and is profitable without government assistance?
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Yup. Numerous private train companies in Japan.
      - xanipher 8y ago
        Most of the Japan railway system was built by the state and privatized later.
        SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        Building it isn't the difficult part, keeping it running efficiently is. See: Britain.
        mcintyre1994 8y ago
        Not too sure what you're getting at, but the only part of Britain's rail network that runs acceptably is TFL which isn't privatised.
        Lio 8y ago
        Ironically most of the railways in Britain were built independently by private companies then nationalised then privatised again.
        ekianjo 8y ago
        So what? what is expensive on a daily basis is maintenance and operations. That's the killer.
      - bildung 8y ago
        In Japan the government kept essentially all the companies' debt, and incurred the cost of the 80k employees that were fired. And even now the profitable companies seem to get their profits from shops at the train stations. And from the 6 companies the public railroad was split into, not all are successful: "JR Hokkaido expects to incur a record pretax loss of ¥23.5 billion in the year that ended in March [2017], with the company’s president likening its loss-making business structure — due to loss of passengers caused by falling local populations and the expansion of expressway networks — to “a bucket with holes in the bottom." https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/04/editorials/privatization-jnr-30-years/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/04/editorials/p...
  - bildung 8y ago
    Actually the opposite is true. For example the UK was at the forefront of modern railtrack privatization, and it went horribly wrong: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-... There are countless examples in Europe were privatized infrastructure actually has been bought back by the public because it has been neglected by the private holder.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      It's not because there are failures of the private sector that it dooms the idea completely. But failures of operating train lines under national supervision is rather the rule than the exception. Look at the TGV in France, which is a complete commercial failure that needs constant government intervention to keep it afloat. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-reform-sncf-debt/france-to-absorb-35-billion-euros-rail-operator-sncf-debt-les-echos-idUSKCN1IM24O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-reform-sncf-debt/f... Same thing for Deutsche Bahn in Germany: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/09/11/germanys-deutsche-bahn-faces-challenging-times/ https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/09/11...
  - ionised 8y ago
    Not everything needs to make a profit. In fact it's better that some things don't. And using European trains as an example of poor service is mind-boggling. They are far, far better than the US or UK offerings (which are privatised, offer piss-poor service and are overpriced).
  - chmod775 8y ago
    Other comments already pointed out counter-examples from the UK etc., so let me give you a German one: The Berlin public transport system was running perfectly fine until it was privatized. Now the infrastructure is starting to degrade, it's gotten less punctual by objective metrics and it has also gotten much more expensive. The new owners are basically just milking the ever living hell out of it because they know they can. It's gotten so bad there's now a lot of talk that it should be nationalized again.
- robdachshund 8y ago
  Uh... are you familiar with... history? Take a look at the Soviet car industry. You could take you pick from about 2 or 3 cars that were roughly 40 years old, then wait on a ten year waiting list to get one. You do realize regulation does not work in virtue of itself, right? If you regulate something it will not magically be regulated efficiently or even adequately.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Maybe nationalization should be an option This turns a problem company into a problem government bureaucracy. Cleaner to fine the company into oblivion, put it into bankruptcy--thereby teaching its shareholders and creditors a hard lesson--and then let the market figure out if it's worth more liquidated, split up into bits, or sold to a new owner.