3 ms·

non-profit is still a private entity, just one that doesn't make profits for shareholders. The problem is with the government anyway, not with any other party.

by jemmyw 3y ago

non-profit is still a private entity, just one that doesn't make profits for shareholders. The problem is with the government anyway, not with any other party. Private companies are amoral, they'll do what they do and take their profit. A govt owned service will have internal incentives, as does the non-profit. The government can fix the problem by laying out regulations, i.e. you have to provide this service and this level of environmental protection, otherwise you lose your operating license. In any case, the water system should not be run by private companies the way it is in the UK. Competition provides efficiencies. A system whereby each private company gets an area monopoly isn't going to realize competition - people aren't moving area because of the water company. A more ideal market would have been the local authority owning the water infrastructure and companies competing for a contract to run it / extend it, and if they do a poor job they're out. But of course the idea of owning the infrastructure itself seems against the Thatcherite philosophy that got us here.

jkfdlksfdskllk 3y ago
Sure, but in this case, it's a non-profit bound by a series of regulations related to water supply. We already have an example of the model you proposed, in the rail network. In practice, it's another way for losses to be socialised and profits to be privatised. I don't think there is a way to reconcile the fundamental unprofitability of long-term maintentance of national infrastructure with private operation. Fundamentally, the government's job is to do what we cannot.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  > We already have an example of the model you proposed, in the rail network I can see why you thought that but that's not what I meant. I should get my water from the local council, it should be branded as Sussex water or whatever. They can use private companies to do the work required to deliver and bill, or they can do it in-house, I don't care. Same as how the govt uses private contractors for doing road building and maintenance. It being a public service does not mean there's no place for private companies in there.

by jemmyw 3y ago

jkfdlksfdskllk 3y ago

Sure, but in this case, it's a non-profit bound by a series of regulations related to water supply. We already have an example of the model you proposed, in the rail network. In practice, it's another way for losses to be socialised and profits to be privatised. I don't think there is a way to reconcile the fundamental unprofitability of long-term maintentance of national infrastructure with private operation. Fundamentally, the government's job is to do what we cannot.

jemmyw 3y ago
> We already have an example of the model you proposed, in the rail network I can see why you thought that but that's not what I meant. I should get my water from the local council, it should be branded as Sussex water or whatever. They can use private companies to do the work required to deliver and bill, or they can do it in-house, I don't care. Same as how the govt uses private contractors for doing road building and maintenance. It being a public service does not mean there's no place for private companies in there.