5 ms·

Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow A

Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.

farisjarrah 7y ago
You aren't wrong to be getting that cognitive dissonance. The more you think about it the worse it gets. The British Government spends loads of money on security and maintenance on the airport as well. If you talk about American Airports it gets even weirder. We have like private security companies that work with the TSA and Airports. So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars.
- peteretep 7y ago
  > So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars. In an ideal world, this is because the Government decided it would be cheaper to subsidise a private company doing it, rather than doing it itself. Whether or not this is true -- or indeed was entered into in good faith -- is a case-by-case sorta thing.
- dTal 7y ago
  Privatize the profits, subsidize the liabilities. Standard playbook.
roywiggins 7y ago
National infrastructure and nationalized infrastructure are not the same thing. Just because the airport was privatized in the 80s doesn't mean that it's not still part of the national infrastructure.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Isn't the point that it's a really important infrastructure asset, but it's privately owned and so it's not _our_ infrastructure, it doesn't belong to the nation. Like being a serf and having to rely on your local Lord.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gok 7y ago
So are power plants and water treatment plants. Would you not agree those are part of national infrastructure?
sdinsn 7y ago
The fact that it's owned by a private company is irrelevant to it's importance. Furthermore, "national" in this context doesn't mean "owned by the government", it means "domestic".
sofaofthedamned 7y ago
Eh? Lots of things are part of the national infrastructure - the power grid (private), other utilities (private), energy generation plants (private). Used to work on the same industrial park as a critical part of the national grid. Boy racers near there learned very quickly that you'll have a gun pointed at you for being there, and that's in the UK.
toss1 7y ago
Um, yes, this is a nominally capitalist nation. In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt. In a capitalist society, not only the means of production but many critical national infrastructure structures and services can be owned and run privately. E.g., power & telecom companies are regulated monopolies. Some roads have been privatized so the company builds & maintains them, utilizing some of the toll money. Lotteries are often private companies running state-sponsored games. In the US, there are private prison operators. Many hospitals in US are private. And of course many of the airports are similarly privately owned. Obviously results and benefits vary widely by industry and operation.
- mort96 7y ago
  > In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt. While the gist of your point is correct, I feel I should mention that socialism or communism doesn't necessitate that the means of production is nationalized and government owned. The means of production could just as well be owned by the workers, not the government.
  - vixen99 7y ago
    You mean rather like the workers who ran the USSR in its heyday. And if you believe that ...
    - mort96 7y ago
      Where did I claim workers ran the USSR?
  - toss1 7y ago
    Ya, good point. Probably should have said "owned & run by govt or worker collective". OTOH, depending on how it is run, the worker collective could be just effectively local govt. Seems we're getting down to splitting hairs...
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Being private doesn't stop something being key national infrastructure. The UK's nuclear deterrent facilities are all farmed out to Babcock, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_International and it would be hard to argue that isn't key national infrastructure. The UK just owns very little of its national infrastructure.
briandear 7y ago
National infrastructure doesn’t necessarily mean government owned. The air traffic control system is also 51% private in Europe, but that’s still (inter)national infrastructure.
tomjen3 7y ago
So is a bridge that is privately owned and for which motorists pay a toll.

Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.

farisjarrah 7y ago

You aren't wrong to be getting that cognitive dissonance. The more you think about it the worse it gets. The British Government spends loads of money on security and maintenance on the airport as well. If you talk about American Airports it gets even weirder. We have like private security companies that work with the TSA and Airports. So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars.

peteretep 7y ago
> So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars. In an ideal world, this is because the Government decided it would be cheaper to subsidise a private company doing it, rather than doing it itself. Whether or not this is true -- or indeed was entered into in good faith -- is a case-by-case sorta thing.
dTal 7y ago
Privatize the profits, subsidize the liabilities. Standard playbook.

roywiggins 7y ago

National infrastructure and nationalized infrastructure are not the same thing. Just because the airport was privatized in the 80s doesn't mean that it's not still part of the national infrastructure.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Isn't the point that it's a really important infrastructure asset, but it's privately owned and so it's not _our_ infrastructure, it doesn't belong to the nation. Like being a serf and having to rely on your local Lord.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gok 7y ago

So are power plants and water treatment plants. Would you not agree those are part of national infrastructure?

sdinsn 7y ago

The fact that it's owned by a private company is irrelevant to it's importance. Furthermore, "national" in this context doesn't mean "owned by the government", it means "domestic".

sofaofthedamned 7y ago

Eh? Lots of things are part of the national infrastructure - the power grid (private), other utilities (private), energy generation plants (private). Used to work on the same industrial park as a critical part of the national grid. Boy racers near there learned very quickly that you'll have a gun pointed at you for being there, and that's in the UK.

toss1 7y ago

Um, yes, this is a nominally capitalist nation. In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt. In a capitalist society, not only the means of production but many critical national infrastructure structures and services can be owned and run privately. E.g., power & telecom companies are regulated monopolies. Some roads have been privatized so the company builds & maintains them, utilizing some of the toll money. Lotteries are often private companies running state-sponsored games. In the US, there are private prison operators. Many hospitals in US are private. And of course many of the airports are similarly privately owned. Obviously results and benefits vary widely by industry and operation.

mort96 7y ago
> In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt. While the gist of your point is correct, I feel I should mention that socialism or communism doesn't necessitate that the means of production is nationalized and government owned. The means of production could just as well be owned by the workers, not the government.
- vixen99 7y ago
  You mean rather like the workers who ran the USSR in its heyday. And if you believe that ...
  - mort96 7y ago
    Where did I claim workers ran the USSR?
- toss1 7y ago
  Ya, good point. Probably should have said "owned & run by govt or worker collective". OTOH, depending on how it is run, the worker collective could be just effectively local govt. Seems we're getting down to splitting hairs...

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Being private doesn't stop something being key national infrastructure. The UK's nuclear deterrent facilities are all farmed out to Babcock, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_International and it would be hard to argue that isn't key national infrastructure. The UK just owns very little of its national infrastructure.

briandear 7y ago

National infrastructure doesn’t necessarily mean government owned. The air traffic control system is also 51% private in Europe, but that’s still (inter)national infrastructure.

tomjen3 7y ago

So is a bridge that is privately owned and for which motorists pay a toll.