3 ms·

The Economist, publishing an article (even just an opinion piece by a guest author) about privatisation being a failure? Wow...

• mnd999 3y ago
  It’s reached the point where it’s not credible to say otherwise. That doesn’t seem to stop the government though.
• fsloth 3y ago
  The Economist holds to it's guns, until it's proven 100% the other side of the argument in fact is correct. After which they change tack. It's not only value but ALSO data driven publication. Although it's in some positions ridiculously conservative, it's also an excellent bellweather on the current 'accepted norms' in discussions on "macro scale economy stuff". They changed tack on climate change and ecosystems disasters about a decade ago. After that it was pretty obvious the current trend on full economy scale climate action (starting from Wall Street using ESG in major fashion as a criterion) was coming.
• pydry 3y ago
  The failures of this one have become a bit too obvious to deny. The Economist is a bit like RT - denying that everything is going wrong in Kharkiv to a point but beyond a certain threshold they eventually stopped and admitted reality. I'd be curious to see what their views were about Thames Water privatization were in the past before all this stuff came out. That'll give a clearer picture of their true views.
• rado 3y ago
  Exactly LOL
• Borrible 3y ago
  Surely no one wants to pass on future costs to the general public after the cream has been skimmed off.
• lebski88 3y ago
  They had an article by Michael Howard last week about it being a success: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/06/thames-water-may-be-troubled-but-privatisation-has-served-britain-well-argues-michael-howard https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/06/thames-wa... Although they went quite far to be clear it wasn't written by them. That said I've not found the economist to be dogmatic when it comes to privatisation. They typically come across as quite practical to me.
  • resolutebat 3y ago
    This piece directly references Howard's article (complete with link) and debunks it. The case for privatisation rested on two claims, reiterated by Michael Howard, writing recently for The Economist. First, the bracing force of competition would improve utility management and hence overall outcomes. Second, it would unlock access to private capital to fund much-needed investment that would otherwise be held back by short-termism and scarcity—supposedly endemic to public ownership. Neither claim stands up to scrutiny. Private management and weak regulation have delivered a crisis-ridden sector and chronic underinvestment. Water companies have made clear that investment will be funded mainly by increased bills, undermining the idea that private capital is essential for investment.
    • rob74 3y ago
      So it's the old adage about privatizing profits and socializing losses (or in this case, needed investments) all over again...
• username332211 3y ago
  Oh, that's nothing. The Guardian carried articles against rail nationalization[1], because it was Boris Johnson that proposed it. It's a post-ideological era that we live in. Nobody cares about taxes, incomes and the like any more.[2] The conflict is now red vs blue. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/20/great-british-railways-ministers-rail-system-train-companies https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/20/great-... [2] Apart from the occasional oligarch who buys a newspaper because he really cares about his own taxes.
  • walthamstow 3y ago
    Oligarchs don't buy newspapers because they want to lower their tax bill. They already have the best accountants for that. They use them to gain power and influence in the host country. Usually with great success, as I'm sure Baron Lebvedev of Hampton and Siberia will attest.
  • throwawaymobule 3y ago
    I still find it a little funny that the colours of the two 'teams' are the reverse of what they are in the States.