I looked up privatisation on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization
Quite apart from anything else it uses the U.S. spelling but the main point to notice is the poundage of words used.
It is Obviously written by someone with more than a passing interest in privatisation and, from the substance, someone biased in favour of it.
I get a sense of someone muddying the waters (obfuscation), to dissuade any depth of discussion, so here’s my take, as someone who opposes it.
First, any Government function or concern that is passed over to a separate organisation, which is funded either directly from public funds, or indirectly from Government enforced levies, or through monopoly/cartel position as the chosen provider has been privatised.
In all these cases the public pays (after providing the infra structure at minimal cost, or even free of charge), without any control over a facility, which the public either need or are legally required to take.
For me the arguments, given, in favour of privatisation boil down to the claim that they are allegedly more efficient and provide a better service.
The supposed logic is that ***Civil Servants get paid, no matter what, whereas a privatised organisation trims the fat to maximise profits. Employees being incentivised, by bonuses and threat of the sack.
What we’ve found in practice is that the logic is false.
Yes they trim the fat and yes they use stick (hourly paid) and carrot (management) to maximise profits.
But the profits, coming from public money, isn’t being re-invested to provide the supposedly better service, it’s being bled out to share-holders.
In many cases it’s being bled out of the country to foreign shareholders, who recognise a money-on-tap investment.
Who looks after our interests?
Politico’s, supervised by ***Civil Servants, who both get paid no matter what.
The main difference for the politico’s is that they can now claim that they have no direct control over these functions, so people should stop moaning to them about the problems.
Privatisation is about about enslaving your customer base using resources that they previously owned and the connivance of their corrupt, or ideologically misguided, political masters.
0.000000
0.000000
Advertisement
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Tags: cartel, foreign shareholders, monopoly, privatisation, State assets, Wikipedia
This entry was posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:14 am and is filed under comments, politics, whingey book. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
@occupylsx stop further privatisation
I looked up privatisation on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization
Quite apart from anything else it uses the U.S. spelling but the main point to notice is the poundage of words used.
It is Obviously written by someone with more than a passing interest in privatisation and, from the substance, someone biased in favour of it.
I get a sense of someone muddying the waters (obfuscation), to dissuade any depth of discussion, so here’s my take, as someone who opposes it.
First, any Government function or concern that is passed over to a separate organisation, which is funded either directly from public funds, or indirectly from Government enforced levies, or through monopoly/cartel position as the chosen provider has been privatised.
In all these cases the public pays (after providing the infra structure at minimal cost, or even free of charge), without any control over a facility, which the public either need or are legally required to take.
For me the arguments, given, in favour of privatisation boil down to the claim that they are allegedly more efficient and provide a better service.
The supposed logic is that ***Civil Servants get paid, no matter what, whereas a privatised organisation trims the fat to maximise profits. Employees being incentivised, by bonuses and threat of the sack.
What we’ve found in practice is that the logic is false.
Yes they trim the fat and yes they use stick (hourly paid) and carrot (management) to maximise profits.
But the profits, coming from public money, isn’t being re-invested to provide the supposedly better service, it’s being bled out to share-holders.
In many cases it’s being bled out of the country to foreign shareholders, who recognise a money-on-tap investment.
Who looks after our interests?
Politico’s, supervised by ***Civil Servants, who both get paid no matter what.
The main difference for the politico’s is that they can now claim that they have no direct control over these functions, so people should stop moaning to them about the problems.
Privatisation is about about enslaving your customer base using resources that they previously owned and the connivance of their corrupt, or ideologically misguided, political masters.
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: cartel, foreign shareholders, monopoly, privatisation, State assets, Wikipedia
This entry was posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:14 am and is filed under comments, politics, whingey book. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.