4 ms·

> I hope you're right, but the current... Can I ask why you think the government can run utilities better than a private company? (Not trolling - actually int

> I hope you're right, but the current... Can I ask why you think the government can run utilities better than a private company? (Not trolling - actually interested in other opinions). My understanding as to why trains [0], etc moved to private ownership in the past was because a lack of competition, unions, and other factors caused massive inefficiencies. Looking at the NHS right now, no matter how much money the tax payer pours into it, it simply isn't efficient enough. Basically I remain unconvinced the government can run a utility company better than a private organisation can which has efficiency as a primary goal. [0] Now trains seem bloody expensive to me - but were they in the 80's? Or were they subsidised by the tax payer...

pydry 5y ago
Because the government actually has an incentive to run infrastructure well. It's democratically accountable if it doesnt. There is a lever there that you can push if you are unhappy. If you run the electric grid or the last mile water pipes privately competition is essentially impossible so there's no reason for the owners not to just neglect it and milk customers dry. With trains the really criminal part was that the land around stations got sold off for cheap to hedge funds who made a LOT of money. Japanese trains can be run at a profit despite taking losses on tickets because they didnt do this.
matthewmacleod 5y ago
Looking at the NHS right now, no matter how much money the tax payer pours into it, it simply isn't efficient enough. It's hard to compare, but there is no specific evidence that the NHS is noticeable less efficient than the healthcare system in any other developed country – so this is a weird thing to say. https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326 https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Which part do you find weird? How efficient the NHS is running is a constant talking point amongst politicians.
modo_mario 5y ago
Trains lack competition regardless. Is someone going to build competing tracks? Can trains pass each-other in a bid for speed? Privatise and they'll bid for the operating contracts of lines and then pass that cost on to the consumer with some added cost for profit and poof expensive trains in Britain. Also sometimes trains are subsidised by the taxpayer and that's ok. Like here in Belgium the train runs a loss tho the fares are comparatively cheap. I'm damn sure it can be optimised if some overpayed management was replaced, obvious inefficiencies worked out, the weird splitting of services required by the EU reversed, etc But they also provide a huge societal boon despite that subsidy because we lose boatloads of money on roads like the ring around antwerp and brussels being the most congested in europe which can only get exponentially worse given how much commuting happens here.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > Trains lack competition regardless. Is someone going to build competing tracks? In the UK, the tracks are owned by Network Rail (publicly owned) and the trains are private, who get to bid on the services. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
  - modo_mario 5y ago
    I know. And if they were privately owned there would be a lack of open competition just the same. Society isn't going to allow for building a bunch of competing tracks.
mytherin 5y ago
A private organization does not have efficiency as a primary goal, it has making profit as a primary goal. In a highly competitive market where consumers have many viable alternatives efficiency is required to be able to compete and offer the lowest prices. In quasi-monopoly situations efficiency is not required at all to make a profit since there is no alternative for consumers to switch to, and in reality private companies will generally be less efficient in this situation because they have less accountability to their customers than the government, which means they are more than happy to raise rates more and skim more money off of the top.
toyg 5y ago
Private companies care about capital efficiency, not service efficiency. The two concepts are occasionally related but not always. When it comes to public utilities, however, you want a guarantee that the latter concern will win over the former, always, even if it doesn't make economic sense. It's a guarantee that the private sector just cannot give - because their priority is profit, not service levels; they are only interested in delivering the minimum amount of service that results in profits. They can end up paying dividends even when the service is failing, by cannibalizing the business if necessary. This is not acceptable for public utilities. Things can be run just fine by public institutions; the BBC is an example of that - despite the occasional inefficiency, it has managed to deliver high-quality content to pretty much everyone over the decades, and even spearheaded new technologies (from BBC micro to iPlayer). Which, incidentally, is why Tories hate it with such a passion. As long as there is accountability and a degree of oversight, with an engaged public, state-run enterprises can do well. The problem is that the political classes have skirted their responsibilities.

pydry 5y ago

Because the government actually has an incentive to run infrastructure well. It's democratically accountable if it doesnt. There is a lever there that you can push if you are unhappy. If you run the electric grid or the last mile water pipes privately competition is essentially impossible so there's no reason for the owners not to just neglect it and milk customers dry. With trains the really criminal part was that the land around stations got sold off for cheap to hedge funds who made a LOT of money. Japanese trains can be run at a profit despite taking losses on tickets because they didnt do this.

matthewmacleod 5y ago

Looking at the NHS right now, no matter how much money the tax payer pours into it, it simply isn't efficient enough. It's hard to compare, but there is no specific evidence that the NHS is noticeable less efficient than the healthcare system in any other developed country – so this is a weird thing to say. https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326 https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326

CodeGlitch 5y ago
Which part do you find weird? How efficient the NHS is running is a constant talking point amongst politicians.

modo_mario 5y ago

Trains lack competition regardless. Is someone going to build competing tracks? Can trains pass each-other in a bid for speed? Privatise and they'll bid for the operating contracts of lines and then pass that cost on to the consumer with some added cost for profit and poof expensive trains in Britain. Also sometimes trains are subsidised by the taxpayer and that's ok. Like here in Belgium the train runs a loss tho the fares are comparatively cheap. I'm damn sure it can be optimised if some overpayed management was replaced, obvious inefficiencies worked out, the weird splitting of services required by the EU reversed, etc But they also provide a huge societal boon despite that subsidy because we lose boatloads of money on roads like the ring around antwerp and brussels being the most congested in europe which can only get exponentially worse given how much commuting happens here.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
> Trains lack competition regardless. Is someone going to build competing tracks? In the UK, the tracks are owned by Network Rail (publicly owned) and the trains are private, who get to bid on the services. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
- modo_mario 5y ago
  I know. And if they were privately owned there would be a lack of open competition just the same. Society isn't going to allow for building a bunch of competing tracks.

mytherin 5y ago

A private organization does not have efficiency as a primary goal, it has making profit as a primary goal. In a highly competitive market where consumers have many viable alternatives efficiency is required to be able to compete and offer the lowest prices. In quasi-monopoly situations efficiency is not required at all to make a profit since there is no alternative for consumers to switch to, and in reality private companies will generally be less efficient in this situation because they have less accountability to their customers than the government, which means they are more than happy to raise rates more and skim more money off of the top.

toyg 5y ago

Private companies care about capital efficiency, not service efficiency. The two concepts are occasionally related but not always. When it comes to public utilities, however, you want a guarantee that the latter concern will win over the former, always, even if it doesn't make economic sense. It's a guarantee that the private sector just cannot give - because their priority is profit, not service levels; they are only interested in delivering the minimum amount of service that results in profits. They can end up paying dividends even when the service is failing, by cannibalizing the business if necessary. This is not acceptable for public utilities. Things can be run just fine by public institutions; the BBC is an example of that - despite the occasional inefficiency, it has managed to deliver high-quality content to pretty much everyone over the decades, and even spearheaded new technologies (from BBC micro to iPlayer). Which, incidentally, is why Tories hate it with such a passion. As long as there is accountability and a degree of oversight, with an engaged public, state-run enterprises can do well. The problem is that the political classes have skirted their responsibilities.