Why Privatization of the Public Sector is a Very Bad Thing

Remove all ads!

Due to what has happened in recent months we should all be aware that corruption and inefficiency exist in both government and the private sector. Unfortunately humans run both areas and are only human.

Greed seems to be a big part of the human make-up. Government perpetuates itself and expands and expands and expands. Individual who hold cushy jobs don't want to lose them.

New Jersey's Department of Motor Vehicles is privatized and is very efficient. However, my cousin in New York says that the NYDMV has improved a great deal and as far as I know it is not privatized.

What is lacking is proper oversight. Which is a government function and a function of we who are citizens. If we don't hold our elected officials responsible and exercise our right and duty to vote then government runs rampant. If what we want is to be wrapped up in a cocoon and taken care of we can expect to also be taken advantage of.

I think police should be a public (government) function with some non-police on oversight boards.

Just as the active members of this Board police the threads and report questionable threads to the administrators and moderators we as citizen should be willing to police both private and public sectors and report questionable activities to the proper authorities.

The world has become very complicated and interrelated and we can't hide our heads under pillows and say "let someone else take care of it'.

 

I disagree with you on the BA front. BA is still considered one of the best airlines, and I love flying with them, I was gladly go out my way to make my plans include their flight times and my budget fit their prices.

 

I may be naive, but I am of the opinion that if there is really firm oversight by the government, pretty well anything can be privatized. That requires a heckuva lot of political will, though. I would imagine that there are horror stories of vital or sensitive services being farmed out to the private sector and then said private sector did some pretty horrible things in the name of profits and cost cutting.

But if the government has firm regulations in place about the quality of the service provided, then I think it is possible. Maybe I'm a dreamer.

 

It is possible, but quite hard - first you need to privatize it right, then - as there are usually some conditions that the buyer must agree to when they purchase a former state-owned resource - you need to provide sufficient oversight. Given that the resource was important enough to society to be state-owned in the first place, the second can be as important as the first. Sometimes the outcome is satisfactory, sometimes not. I can point to quite a few examples of the latter without even leaving my hometown, unfortunately.

On the other hand, by the same measure if there is a firm enough oversight there is no need to privatize the company in the first place. Just because it's state-owned does not mean it will not be run according to good business practices, just as being under private ownership is no guarantee it will be.

 

With that kind of oversight is it really privatized and that is more or less like saying public companies can work fine if we keep an eye on them and don't let them start "wasting".

 

I was thinking that in a case like prisons, privatizing the administration of the prisons could be catastrophic for the inmates (though in the case of high security prisons I don't give a hoot if the prisoners there suffer). But if there were regular inspections and audits, then it could work.

But Joaqin's point is noted.

 

It's not a matter of suffering, per se. The judicial system, including its punitive branch (the prisons) must be impartial, that is the cornerstone of the entire idea of justice. If we put it in the hands of people whose main goal is to make money, how can we be sure that those rich enough won't be able to influence it? If someone, effectively, steals millions of dollars and is put in prison I'd want to make sure all that money does him/her no good - or at least as little good as possible.

 

Maybe so, but you may agree, that they are now one of the most expensive airlines in the world.

 

You get what you pay for though, like all good businesses.

 

British airways (when it was in the public sector) was about affordable air travel for all, now however it aims exclusively at the business class - most people cant afford to pay for what you get, they just want a plane to take them from A to B. at the time when it was in the public sector you didnt have loads of budget airlines, the problem with the labour government is that they couldnt be bothered to run anything properly so their solution was to sell it - to a greedy upper class profit orientated corporation who wanted to keep the common folk at arms distance. resulting in a £1000 economy flight to thailand (from london) as opposed to £480 with Cathay Pacific.
Incidently the same flight in premium economy is £2000
Business class is nearly £5000
first class £6500.

so yes, with BA you get what you pay for quality for price. However with the others I mentioned the prices went up, but the quality came crashing down.

 

That's the thing with BA, they couldn't compete with the Budget Airlines in cheap flights, so they took the other option and create a business plan around those that want high quality and can afford it. If you ask me, that shows a well run company, rather than one that tries to fight a battle they couldn't win.
Also, I did some research, and found that British Rail when nationalised was just as incompetent as the rail system is now, so no loss via privatization there. The same applies to British Gas, infact, BG (now Centrica) are running at a loss to keep gas prices low for the consumers in the UK. I will agree with you on the Royal Mail, but that is because of e-mail, FedEx, UPC etc... taking all the money away from them, meaning they have no money to keep a high level of service.

So really, you don't have any form of a point in your first statement.

 

I disagree, I used to work on a platform, and I can tell you, delays are alot more frequent now, as reserve drivers were done away with, trains are alot dirtier then they used to be as they did away with more then half of the janitorial staff, many train routes were also done away with and despite the fact that it was privateized they still recieve large amounts of tax payer money in financial assistance from the department of transport not just to one company but many. Staff recieved pay cuts and saw an end to the pension system that they had been paying into, some of them for most of their lives, holidays were also cut, leaving the staff miserable and half-assed - so, I'd love to see your research.

why couldnt they win? thats no argument - if anything they had a head start. If they cant compete then that shows poor business skills.

British Gas are currently one of, if not the most expensive gas supplier, so I dont know how you think their keeping their prices low. TRANSCO still do all of the pipework, and is heavily funded once again by tax payer money. Also, youll notice that all of the british gas showrooms have vanished - the service 15 years ago compared with now was much better.

Royal mail... one of the largest delivery services on the planet, or it was anyway, back when you could guarentee your mail delivered before 9am- when first class arrived within 2 days instead of the 2-5 day estimates now, yet your stamps were still only 20p. Packages generally arrived without being smashed to pieces by short handed staff who have quotas which arent possible, you will also note that theyve laid off carriers and brought in a system requireing their current carriers to walk at minimum speeds to cover their cutbacks. FedEx and UPC grew in this country for a reason, same as citylink - because people dont trust royal mail with their packages.

There is talk that the government are planning to make the DVLA and VOSA private. Theyve already started with the DVLA, which has resulted in a drove of under trained staff, with very high sick levels giving incorrect information - theyve also brought in call times, and not ready times, requiring staff to answer calls within a certain time, I believe theyve given maximum call times of 2 minutes, which means that if you need help filling out forms or extra help with queries, you may find yourself suddenly cut off by a staff member who doesnt want to be disciplined for spending too much time on a call.

Privateization doesnt work, the instance you take a service from serving the public to serving shareholders, your going to have problems.

 

Well, first off, I'll admit my research was hardly exhaustive, it consisted of asking any members of my family and friend's families what they think of the current rail service compared to the nationalised version.

No, they didn't have a head start, the budget airlines that were starting up were buying old/cheap planes, and refitting them to hold far more passengers than any BA plane, at the cost of leg room per seat, and then only flying on select money generating routes. If BA was going to compete then they would have had to refit every plane in their fleet (very expensive) and then cut back on every route that wasnt going to generate lots of passengers and money (so you still wouldnt get a cheap flight to Thailand), there overall service would have to be cut back, plus firing the excess flight attendants no longer needed per flight. So in short, because Budget Airlines were just starting up, it made it easier for them to run cheap flights.

Actually, wrong, TRANSCO only own the piping for 4 regions, counting for HALF of the UK networks. They also own alot of US gas supply and supply the UK's electricity, which allows them to subsidies any loss on gas sales. As to the disappearance of the showrooms, why do we need them? They were closed from lack of business, not some grand evil plan by British Gas to piss you off. British Gas are trying to keep their prices stable during this time of large fluctuations on energy prices, so I'd say that was a good thing. They also provide exceptional customer service. Oh also, if you looked, you would notice they were the FIRST to reduce gas prices, in both of the price reductions, and are actually the CHEAPEST supplier, especially for my area.

Actually, they grew in this country because they were able to use their huge incomes from the US market, and provide good cross-Atlantic service, which Royal Mail couldn't guarantee due to not having a delivery network anywhere other than the UK.

It does work, since we have an open market, if you don't like the service one company provides, you can use a different one (or in the case of Mobile providers, threaten to move and get sweet deals from them).

 

Privitization of a small government entity is like privitization of government as a whole (i.e. monarchies). If the leaders are good and genuinely care, it can be the best form of government known to man, but good luck making sure of that, or that it stays that way once established.

 

Security guards authorised to use force are fine, but police powers are not, such as e.g. detention, conducting hearings, "Mirandising" etc. A private individual never should have public powers over another individual unless the individual having powers is a public officer.

 

Here's another example of how private sector greed takes advantage of citizens:

Hard to believe that the money for traffic crimes is now being paid to private companies and their shareholders. I wonder what's next for us....

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/09/co...at---last-month-one-of-the-nations.html#posts

 

Except that the amount of corruption in the system goes sky-high:

 

In my opinion, police action and taxation are the two areas that should never go private, with military action closely following. There's just too much risk of corruption with that kind of power. I mean, if sanitation becomes private, or road maintenance, there's only so much power that comes with those areas. A police force, on the other hand, is something else entirely.

 

Don't forget firefighting.