3 ms·
I think it's kind of a mistake to focus too much on the principles of this story than on the execution. Sure, we can make arguments about how it should be more
by SilverBirch 3y ago
I think it's kind of a mistake to focus too much on the principles of this story than on the execution. Sure, we can make arguments about how it should be more efficient to run water privately because of a profit motive, or how it's a natural monopoly. But if you look at the details the claim is very simple - that the water companies charged high prices, didn't invest and paid out huge dividends. Well there's a simple answer to that: we have a regulator who can control that. It's very simple. The government didn't go "Here private enterprise, have a monopoly! Off you go!". The key here is that whilst private enterprise might be more efficient at acheiving it's goals than government enterprise, but that becomes a problem when it's goal is finding ways to screw money out of people despite the regulator.
If you look around at the British state it's very clear to see, the issue isn't whether X Y Z is private, the issue is the state spent 2010-2020 systematically ensuring the state was incapable of acheiving anything. And then decided in 2016 that they were going to repatriate a tonne of regulatory power from the EU. The result is a state that's got a lot to do, and no way of actually doing any of it.
- anonymousDan 3y agoBut this is the fundamental problem with the way these privatisation deals are structured. If it relies on a strong regulator to make it work, then as soon as a 'red-tape' cutting government comes in that is being lobbied hard enough the whole thing breaks down.
- SilverBirch 3y agoExactly the same problem with public ownership though - as we've seen. All it takes is one libertarian or corrupt government to sell of whatever it is into the private sector and once it's gone it's practically impossible to ever buy back.