3 ms·

I suggest to look up the other definition of the word. Because you may meet people who see privatization as handing control over to members of the public.

by t0suj4 4y ago

Rygian 4y ago
The useful distinction being "members of" vs "elected representatives." I live in an European country. I cannot for the life of me figure out in which way would (a consortium of) private companies come up with something like the GDPR law and the enforcement structures around it. What would be their incentive, as private entities?
BoxOfRain 4y ago
Interestingly this is exactly the line of reasoning arch-privatiser Margaret Thatcher gave in her speeches on the subject, she claimed privatisation put nationalised industries in the hands of the public because anyone could buy shares in these industries which were hitherto limited to an out-of-touch government elite, while her ideological opponents (retroactively known as 'Old Labour') made the argument that nationalisation was putting those industries in the hands of the people because they were run by the democratically elected state rather than an out-of-touch corporate elite. Personally I lean towards Thatcher having done more harm than good, while the British government absolutely did have nationalised industries that were inefficient and needed to be wound down or at least heavily reformed (coal mining and the nationalised car company British Leyland being the prime examples) the way her government just cut down whole communities at the knees was wanton and unreasonable. Rail privatisation in the UK has been a failure too, our system is much more expensive and less reliable than nationalised Continental equivalents to the point it's cheaper to fly from London to Newcastle via Barcelona than it is to take the train, which is fairly likely to be cancelled without reason five minutes before it's due anyway. Even without the economics, the negative environmental effects of this situation are too obvious to mention! I don't know why so many people insist on absolutism for either position though, the position that natural monopolies and strategic national assets (like nuclear power stations for example) should be nationalised and other industries should be privatised isn't unreasonable.
- t0suj4 4y ago
  I don't see any difference between nationalizing failing private business and bailing out failing banks. The government just injects cash in both cases.

I suggest to look up the other definition of the word. Because you may meet people who see privatization as handing control over to members of the public.

by t0suj4 4y ago

I suggest to look up the other definition of the word. Because you may meet people who see privatization as handing control over to members of the public.

Rygian 4y ago

The useful distinction being "members of" vs "elected representatives." I live in an European country. I cannot for the life of me figure out in which way would (a consortium of) private companies come up with something like the GDPR law and the enforcement structures around it. What would be their incentive, as private entities?

BoxOfRain 4y ago

Interestingly this is exactly the line of reasoning arch-privatiser Margaret Thatcher gave in her speeches on the subject, she claimed privatisation put nationalised industries in the hands of the public because anyone could buy shares in these industries which were hitherto limited to an out-of-touch government elite, while her ideological opponents (retroactively known as 'Old Labour') made the argument that nationalisation was putting those industries in the hands of the people because they were run by the democratically elected state rather than an out-of-touch corporate elite. Personally I lean towards Thatcher having done more harm than good, while the British government absolutely did have nationalised industries that were inefficient and needed to be wound down or at least heavily reformed (coal mining and the nationalised car company British Leyland being the prime examples) the way her government just cut down whole communities at the knees was wanton and unreasonable. Rail privatisation in the UK has been a failure too, our system is much more expensive and less reliable than nationalised Continental equivalents to the point it's cheaper to fly from London to Newcastle via Barcelona than it is to take the train, which is fairly likely to be cancelled without reason five minutes before it's due anyway. Even without the economics, the negative environmental effects of this situation are too obvious to mention! I don't know why so many people insist on absolutism for either position though, the position that natural monopolies and strategic national assets (like nuclear power stations for example) should be nationalised and other industries should be privatised isn't unreasonable.

t0suj4 4y ago
I don't see any difference between nationalizing failing private business and bailing out failing banks. The government just injects cash in both cases.