Any (post 2008) Economists in the house? - Inflation.

[RobinBHM]

Well, as one who worked for a nationalised utility from 1975 to when it was privatised, I have to tell you that, in my humble opinion, they were successful. I have always believed that energy and water are essential commodities and should never have been placed in private hands. What do we have now? Essential industries that are foreign-owned cash cows, up to their eyes in debt and which can no longer be relied upon to supply affordable products to the British public. Yes, the water, gas and electricity industries should be re-nationalised.

it’s an easy trope to argue that competition make for efficiency.

but private companies don’t care about critical infrastructure or national security.

I believe there is a big benefit on keeping the ownership of utility assets in govt hands.

Hinkley point C is madness - a French built nuclear power station with Chinese finance.….not much “taking back control”

 

[RobinBHM]

...............................................................................................................
that doesn’t work with public services.
......................................................................................................................
Of course it doesn't. Nationalised industries aren't allowed to go bust, they just take bigger and bigger subsidies.

Its good the UK govt don’t have to subsidise private businesses….like banks for example.

 

[AlanY]

...............................................................................................................
that doesn’t work with public services.
......................................................................................................................
Of course it doesn't. Nationalised industries aren't allowed to go bust, they just take bigger and bigger subsidies.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests nationalised industries cannot be managed effectively and efficiently. They do not have to end up as badly managed, politicised money pits such as the NHS is.

 

[AlanY]

it’s an easy trope to argue that competition make for efficiency.

but private companies don’t care about critical infrastructure or national security.

I believe there is a big benefit on keeping the ownership of utility assets in govt hands.

Hinkley point C is madness - a French built nuclear power station with Chinese finance.….not much “taking back control”

I could not agree more. The UK government is responsible for ensuring energy and water supply, not France or China. It is clear that the EDF/China contract is intended to be paid for by energy customers, whereas any such infrastructure should be delivered as part of a comprehensive energy strategy financed by the Treasury (i.e. it should be owned by the UK, not a foreign government). The current clown government is pushing the UK towards a 'green' future (IMHO a waste of time and money) where it should be investing heavily in nuclear generation to meet the UKs energy needs. Solar and wind generation are commendable, but unreliable (I don't need contrary arguments on this, please. Sometimes the sun does not shine and sometimes the wind does not blow. End of argument). The gas shortage in September shows how far wrong the current energy strategy is by insisting on reliance on foreign energy supplies. How stupid. People could die if this happens in winter.

 

[Jacob]

...............................................................................................................
that doesn’t work with public services.
......................................................................................................................
Of course it doesn't. Nationalised industries aren't allowed to go bust, they just take bigger and bigger subsidies.

Would you be happy to have the NHS or the Fire Service go bust?

 

[Jacob]

..... They do not have to end up as badly managed, politicised money pits such as the NHS is.

Where do you pick up this tosh from? It's not difficult to check facts nowadays.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...512j0i390l4.9569j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is 10 years old but nothing has changed, other than tory mismanagement and slow sabotage as a prelude to privatisation:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-servicesNot only was the UK cheaper, says the paper, it saved more lives. The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries. France managed 2,779 lives a year and Germany 2,395.

 

[Jacob]

..... Solar and wind generation are commendable, but unreliable (I don't need contrary arguments on this, please. Sometimes the sun does not shine and sometimes the wind does not blow. End of argument). .....

Nuclear power stations fail sometimes disastrously. "I don't need contrary arguments on this, please."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidentsWorld reliance on nuclear power would mean the world ending with a bigger bang or whimper, but perhaps a few years later.

 

[AlanY]

Where do you pick up this tosh from? It's not difficult to check facts nowadays.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...512j0i390l4.9569j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is 10 years old but nothing has changed, other than tory mismanagement and slow sabotage as a prelude to privatisation:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-servicesNot only was the UK cheaper, says the paper, it saved more lives. The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries. France managed 2,779 lives a year and Germany 2,395.

Tosh? Jacob, outside of the world of woodwork I could not care less for anything you might think or say. It says it all that you provide a paper from The Guardian as serious evidence of how good the NHS is. For the record, I believe the NHS to be world class at critical care. Beyond that, I believe it to be very much overdue for reform.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There is absolutely nothing that suggests nationalised industries cannot be managed effectively and efficiently. They do not have to end up as badly managed, politicised money pits such as the NHS is.

Only history.

 

[Jacob]

Tosh? Jacob, outside of the world of woodwork I could not care less for anything you might think or say. It says it all that you provide a paper from The Guardian as serious evidence of how good the NHS is. For the record, I believe the NHS to be world class at critical care. Beyond that, I believe it to be very much overdue for reform.

Not so much "overdue for reform" more or case of resisting the wind-down and under-investment of recent years. Reform is a continuous process anyway but the last thing we would want is "badly managed, politicised money pit" such as they have in the USA.

 

[selectortone]

Well, as one who worked for a nationalised utility from 1975 to when it was privatised, I have to tell you that, in my humble opinion, they were successful. I have always believed that energy and water are essential commodities and should never have been placed in private hands. What do we have now? Essential industries that are foreign-owned cash cows, up to their eyes in debt and which can no longer be relied upon to supply affordable products to the British public. Yes, the water, gas and electricity industries should be re-nationalised.

Back in the 80s and 90s I worked for companies supplying process control equipment to heavy industries in the UK, including back then several that were state owned - electricity generation (CEGB), water and sewage treatment (the Water Authorities), British Gas at al. The people I met - process engineers, instrument engineers, control room operators, maintenance staff - were, by and large, conscientious and proud to be involved in the common good of providing essential services. When these industries started to be sold off the light went out of their eyes as the common good became secondary to the bottom line. Savage cuts, redundancies, questionable safety practices.

I have a good friend who was a supervisor at British Telecomm. I saw the light go out of his eyes after that was privatised. Someone please convince me that what we have now from BT is better than the old days.

Now, I'm no communist. I uderstand the benefits of the stock market and the implications that has on my pensions. But those essential industries are now top heavy with bean counters and admin people whose prime goal is to make a profit for their shareholders. Profit is the end product, not essential services. Fine, in a regulated stock market. But when you read about what went on before the 2008 crash - selling sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, packageing up those mortgages into arcane instruments and selling them into the market, then betting on them to fail. Our essential services are now at the mercy of these people.

I thank heaven the government knows that selling off what's left of the NHS would be death at the ballot box or that would be gone too. And then where would we be?

 

[RobinBHM]

Tosh? Jacob, outside of the world of woodwork I could not care less for anything you might think or say. It says it all that you provide a paper from The Guardian as serious evidence of how good the NHS is. For the record, I believe the NHS to be world class at critical care. Beyond that, I believe it to be very much overdue for reform.

the NHS isn’t due for reform, what needs to happen is govts need to stop robbing the NHS for personal gain….it’s a clever decoy “oh look it’s a public service”….well not so much, sure taxpayers money goes in…..but then gets diverted into PFIs, private healthcare businesses…..which have govt connections. (I’m not being political, more than one party have done this)




here is a quote from a detailed joint report by Ifs:

• Overall, our analysis shows that the NHS performs neither as well as its supporters sometimes claim nor as badly as its critics often allege. Compared with health systems in similar countries, it has some significant strengths but also some notable weaknesses.
• Its main weakness is health care outcomes. The UK appears to perform less well than similar countries on the overall rate at which people die when successful medical care could have saved their lives.
• Although the gap has closed over the last decade for stroke and several forms
of cancer, the mortality rate in the UK among people treated for some of the biggest causes of death, including cancer, heart attacks and stroke, is higher than average among comparable countries. The UK also has high rates of child mortality around birth.
• Among its strengths, the NHS does better than health systems in comparable countries
at protecting people from heavy financial costs when they are ill. People in the UK are also less likely than in other countries to be put off from seeking medical help due to costs.
• Waiting times for treatment in the UK appear to be roughly in line with those of similar countries and patient experience generally compares well.
• While data is limited, the NHS seems to be relatively efficient, with low administrative costs and high use of cheaper generic medicines.
• The NHS appears to perform well in managing certain long-term illnesses, including diabetes.
• Health care spending in the UK is slightly lower than the average in comparable countries, both in terms of the proportion of national income spent on health care and in terms of spending per person.
• The UK has markedly fewer doctors and nurses than similar countries, relative to the size of its population, and fewer CT scanners and MRI machines
https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/HEAJ6319-How-good-is-the-NHS-180625-WEB.pdf

 

[evildrome]

The fun part is if/when the eurodollar/petrodollar system stops, whereupon all those trillions of unwanted dollars and pounds run back home to mummy in eyewatering numbers.

Its not as bad as you think.

Well... its not as bad as you think if you're not part of the ruling elite, whose message you are constantly fed by the MSM.

What happens if you lose the WRC? Well, your currency takes a massive hit.

While bankers are throwing themselves out of windows, people who actually *make* stuff are inundated with new orders.

When the UK lost WRC status, GBP dropped 20% and it kicked off the longest export led growth streak in UK history.

Being WRC means your currency is always artificially hard because people need your currency to settle international transactions (in much the same way they needed Gold during the Gold standard.)

This means that your finance sector does very well at the expense of your manufacturing sector.

Being WRC is, in many ways, a curse. Which is why JMK suggested the "Bancor" which would be a non-tradeable international settlement currency.

Harry Dexter White decided that he knew better, but Keynes had the last laugh.

Everything he said would come true about the USD being WRC, has come true.

(BTW he predicted the use of QE in 1936 !)

 

[evildrome]

Back in the 80s and 90s I worked for companies supplying process control equipment to heavy industries in the UK, including back then several that were state owned - electricity generation (CEGB), water and sewage treatment (the Water Authorities), British Gas at al. The people I met - process engineers, instrument engineers, control room operators, maintenance staff - were, by and large, conscientious and proud to be involved in the common good of providing essential services. When these industries started to be sold off the light went out of their eyes as the common good became secondary to the bottom line. Savage cuts, redundancies, questionable safety practices.

Public ownership saves money


Public ownership of water would save £2.5 billion a year - investing this could reduce leakage levels by a third.

Public ownership of energy networks would save £3.7 billion a year - enough to buy 222 new offshore wind turbines.

Public ownership of rail would save £1 billion a year - enough to buy 100 miles of new railway track.

Public ownership of buses would save £506 million a year - enough to buy 1,356 new electric buses.

Public ownership of Royal Mail would save £171 million a year - enough to open 342 new Crown Post Offices with postbanks.

Ending the internal market in the NHS would save at least £4.5 billion a year - enough to pay for extra staff - 72,000 nurses and 20,000 doctors.

We're wasting £250 million every single week on privatisation.

 

[Jameshow]

Wrc???

Cheers James

 

[Richard_C]

Well, as one who worked for a nationalised utility from 1975 to when it was privatised, I have to tell you that, in my humble opinion, they were successful. I have always believed that energy and water are essential commoditie

Most of our water infrastructure, including the stunningly well designed pipeline from Thirlmere in the Lake District to Manchester which requires only a couple of uplift pumps in all those miles, was built by water boards run by local authorities, built for the public good. Thatcher's Government starved the utilities of investment capital and wouldn't let them borrow on the bond market. so of course they looked better after privatisation when they could borrow money to maintain and improve to meet increased demand. The latecomer private owners got all those assets for nothing. It's easy to appear successful when you get given stuff. If it had been left to the private sector, people in our cities would have been emptying their chamber pots into the middle of the street and getting typhoid from the water pump.

 

[Jacob]

..... It's easy to appear successful when you get given stuff. .....

And it's easy to walk away when it becomes unprofitable - which is the principle reason for utilities needing to stay in public ownership

 

[RobinBHM]

And it's easy to walk away when it becomes unprofitable

Yes, moral hazard.

carillion is a classic example - it constantly under quoted for govt tenders then didn’t care when it couldn’t deliver

 

[AlanY]

Back in the 80s and 90s I worked for companies supplying process control equipment to heavy industries in the UK, including back then several that were state owned - electricity generation (CEGB), water and sewage treatment (the Water Authorities), British Gas at al. The people I met - process engineers, instrument engineers, control room operators, maintenance staff - were, by and large, conscientious and proud to be involved in the common good of providing essential services. When these industries started to be sold off the light went out of their eyes as the common good became secondary to the bottom line. Savage cuts, redundancies, questionable safety practices.

I have a good friend who was a supervisor at British Telecomm. I saw the light go out of his eyes after that was privatised. Someone please convince me that what we have now from BT is better than the old days.

Now, I'm no communist. I uderstand the benefits of the stock market and the implications that has on my pensions. But those essential industries are now top heavy with bean counters and admin people whose prime goal is to make a profit for their shareholders. Profit is the end product, not essential services. Fine, in a regulated stock market. But when you read about what went on before the 2008 crash - selling sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, packageing up those mortgages into arcane instruments and selling them into the market, then betting on them to fail. Our essential services are now at the mercy of these people.

I thank heaven the government knows that selling off what's left of the NHS would be death at the ballot box or that would be gone too. And then where would we be?

None of the utilities is better than before privatisation. The public pay more than ever before in energy charges, with so-called 'competition' being little more than a scam. Same as smart metering is little more than a scam. Same as the renewables levy is little more than a scam. And now, because the gas distributors (Transco?) were allowed to reduce the amount of gas stored (to reduce costs), UK customers will be facing the choice of switching off gas central heating or paying extortionate prices to stay warm.

The vertical market used to work to the industry's benefit, now it just introduces additional steps at which profit must be made and distributed to shareholders. It used to be:

Generation costs + Transmission costs + Distribution costs + 'profit' margin = supply cost to customers.

Now it is:

Generation costs (+ profit margin) + Transmission costs (+ profit margin) + Distribution costs (+ profit margin) + Suppliers profit margin = supply cost to customer

Too simplified, I know, but I am feeling grumpy and have to walk the dogs.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Making generic statements about the merits or otherwise of privatisation based on circumstances today is a nonsense. The bulk of privatisatons took place 30-40 years ago, since when governments of both shades have had the opportunity to make changes.

The culture of the nationalised industries embodied a very professional concern - partly rooted in the dominance of a colonial Britain in which the world was largely coloured red.

This culture failed to recognise that Britain had become by the mid 1970s a largely failing nation. Nationalised industries failed to understand they existed to provide a service to the public, and saw their only priority as protecting national and professional interests..

Circumstances have changed radically - but the idea of having to wait possibly months to get a phone connected, or only being able to buy gas appliances through a monopolistic Gas Board would today rightly be regarded as utterly absurd.

Research generally shows that privatisation was very successful in initially delivering financial and operating efficoences. It is less clear how the "national interest" critical infrastructure fared as few success criteria were set.

Weaknesses have become clear over the intervening decades:

• basic industry structures being flawed from the outset - eg: rail
• some poor regulation which has allowed the profit motive to overly dominate the national interest - eg: energy resilience?
• changes in technology - eg: telecoms, media, communications

I do not believe the option to renationalise generally makes any sense - although there may be some case for the rail network (probably the biggest failure). It would be complex and expensive with even less justification for the chaos so caused than the original privatisation.

More effective regulation would be far better, achieve critical national interest goal, be far, far less disruptive, and preserve the impetus the profit motive delivers to progress and efficiency.