3 ms·

Except look at the East Coast line in the UK. It was handed back TWICE because it "wasn't profitable enough to make the payments agreed to the government" ... a

Except look at the East Coast line in the UK. It was handed back TWICE because it "wasn't profitable enough to make the payments agreed to the government" ... and when taken back into government ownership it had widespread acclaim from the people travelling on it as it was run far better. The problem with privatisation, especially in the UK with the trains, is there are only so many tracks and so many routes ... you therefore can't have rival operators competing so they just charge what they want for unregulated fares, which is why it's cheaper to fly to Edinburgh from London than get the train. The largest irony is, most of the franchises that run train companies in the UK are ultimately state owned enterprises in their own countries (SNCF, DB etc.)

rayiner 7y ago
Both SNCF and DB are in the midst of an ongoing process of privatization, pursuant to an EU-wide directive: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explainer/explainer-macrons-rail-reforms-and-french-union-strikes-idUKKBN1HF0TC https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explain.... It’s obviously a process to go from these big state owned enterprises to private companies without disrupting the apple cart. There are degrees of privatization: from the US model of an organization running a “public service” to the Singaporean model of a hands-off government that owns the equity as a passive investor. And the government may have an interest in supporting otherwise “money losing” operations. But there is broad consensus, not just in the developed world, but in the competitive Asian economies like Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore which are in many ways ahead of the curve, that the goal should be to privatize as much as possible, within the constraints of things like natural monopolies. Those calling for not just nationalization (the government being the shareholder) but active government involvement in operations are on the wrong side of that trend.
- philjohn 7y ago
  And what do those competetive asian economis have? Effective regulation. We also have it in the UK so the large monopoly telecoms provider BT OpenReach have to provide network services to rival ISP's at regulated prices. In the current climate of fewer regulations in the US this just looks like a road to further exploitation of the populace.

rayiner 7y ago

Both SNCF and DB are in the midst of an ongoing process of privatization, pursuant to an EU-wide directive: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explainer/explainer-macrons-rail-reforms-and-french-union-strikes-idUKKBN1HF0TC https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explain.... It’s obviously a process to go from these big state owned enterprises to private companies without disrupting the apple cart. There are degrees of privatization: from the US model of an organization running a “public service” to the Singaporean model of a hands-off government that owns the equity as a passive investor. And the government may have an interest in supporting otherwise “money losing” operations. But there is broad consensus, not just in the developed world, but in the competitive Asian economies like Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore which are in many ways ahead of the curve, that the goal should be to privatize as much as possible, within the constraints of things like natural monopolies. Those calling for not just nationalization (the government being the shareholder) but active government involvement in operations are on the wrong side of that trend.

philjohn 7y ago
And what do those competetive asian economis have? Effective regulation. We also have it in the UK so the large monopoly telecoms provider BT OpenReach have to provide network services to rival ISP's at regulated prices. In the current climate of fewer regulations in the US this just looks like a road to further exploitation of the populace.