3 ms·
And the root of all that? Privatization.
by atoav 2y ago
And the root of all that? Privatization.
- RandomLensman 2y agoThe German mail rail and track operator (Deutsche Bahn) isn't private but 100% state owned (and control sits with the federal government). They wanted to privatize it a couple of decades ago but abandoned it. There is still some hybridization between supposedly it being a business and also a public service left in the law, though.
- Dilettante_ 2y agoThe Deutsche Bahn AG is in fact a private Aktiengesellschaft(which is to say a stock company) with the german gov't owning 100% of the shares. I'd very much argue that it is run mostly like a private enterprise and only occasionally compelled by the government to act like a public service.
- RandomLensman 2y agoYes, but doesn't change that it is 100% state owned and controlled with a mixed mandate (business/public service - see art 87e GG). No reason to absolve the owner and the associated politics from their responsibilities. The legal form doesn't determine whether something is state owned or private.
- carlosjobim 2y agoIt's still the government running the company if they own all the shares. So what's your point?
- rqtwteye 2y agoI would say Deutsche Bahn has managed to combine the disadvantages of public services with the disadvantages of private companies into one coherently terrible package.
- seec 2y agoWell it's pretty much the same with the SNCF in France. However, surprisingly it is still more reliable than the DB (less accident, more on time); which is quite shocking considering German's reputation...
- atoav 2y agoYou sure the ~600 companies that the Deutsche Bahn is made up of can be compared to one state-owned entity?
- RandomLensman 2y agoAll rolls up into one 100% owner and having a lot of subsidiaries isn't unusual.
- medstrom 2y agoI believe they make a good point: making a vertically integrated entity could matter more than just buying most of the shares. If we are discussing tendencies of "privatized vs public", it's hard to ignore that factor. Public entities that historically worked well weren't just masses of 600 subcontractors.
- RandomLensman 2y agoBut again, that is up to the owners - and the owner is the state. Also, the state didn't buy most of the shares: it had full ownership before and kept it while the legal form changed.
- medstrom 2y agoThe actual root is even widely acknowledged: DB has been underfunded for a long time.
- rad_gruchalski 2y agoIt’s an AG, why should it be funded?
- RandomLensman 2y agoWhy would it not given the legal framework put in place?
- chgs 2y agoMost of the world agrees that public transport has external benefits and therefore is deserving of public funding.
- presentation 2y agoGiven how good the rail systems are in several Asian cities despite/thanks to being private, you might want to reconsider that opinion.
- dambi0 2y agoI presume running a national rail system is somewhat different from a railway for a single city. How good are the national rail systems in these countries?
- presentation 2y agoJapan’s is the greatest in the world, for one.
- BobaFloutist 2y agoThey still don't make money off of being rail systems, they make money off of real-estate developments. So, sure, you can have a rail system self-fund as long as you let it build whatever the fuck it wants at stations and funnel all the profits back into the train line.
- maccard 2y agoNo, it's not. It's bureacracy, and it exists in every big organisation, private or public. I'd actually suggest that public sector bodies are often worse for this.
- Moru 2y agoThey are only worse because they are bigger. If the private replacement organization gets as big, they get the same problems.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- seec 2y agoThere is still a meaningful difference. Businesses usually need to have some profit even if minimum so they will run leaner for the same output because of efficiency. I agree that there are many big businesses bureaucracies but they tend to be in areas closely linked to the state/government because of heavy regulation: banks and insurance for example. They tend to survive despite their terrible efficiency because it is way too costly to enter their business for a small actor. Any of their real competitors is already big enough that the bureaucracy is already well established...
- L-four 2y agoA business only needs to make a profit efficiency is not required or desirable.
- seec 2y agoYou need to have profit to make it worthwhile but the question is how much is actually desirable from a society standpoint. At some point profit extraction at the cost of everything else is undesirable...
- Panzer04 2y agoReally? The more focused a company is (the more reliant it is on its core service) the more accountable it can be. I'd argue many companies are if anything more accountable than the government. It doesn't have to be true, but I'd argue it often is.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the root of all that? Privatization Honesty, it's German politics doing precisely this that's part of the problem: flippant diagnoses too broadly applied from afar.
- concerndc1tizen 2y agoExactly. Being a bus driver used to be a decent job for semi-retired construction workers, and such. But then privatization hit, and over the last 20 years, there is no niceness left. They're even trained to disregard customers, and penalized otherwise. It's insanely inhumane. And the causal effect is very clear, there can be no doubt about it. It's not the bus driver's fault.
- valval 2y agoCommunism is the answer!