Are you for the privatization of state run resources, such as social service, Water, Electricity, Infrastructure etc ? Bear in mind that not all of them have to be privatised.
According to Wikipedia Privatization is : the transfer of ownership from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business).
But is it a good thing or not ?

Are you for the privatization of state run resources, such as social service, Water, Electricity, Infrastructure etc ? Bear in mind that not all of them have to be privatised.
According to Wikipedia Privatization is : the transfer of ownership from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business).
But is it a good thing or not ?

I don't understand why you included electricity as a state run resource. Possibly because it is where you live? It's not in the U.S. though.

Incidentally, I'm getting a bit tired and sleepy and hit the wrong choice in the poll. I'm very much FOR privatization. The less government involvement in ANYTHING the better it will be. (My pension has been privatized since the very beginning.)

...Why would it be a good thing?

...Why would it be a good thing?

I know you weren't addressing your question to me because I've already given my answer as to why it's a good thing. Just to expand on that a little more: anytime the government is involved in something, there is more bureaucracy, greater overhead costs, slower response to needs, greater delays in the provisional/supply side and less efficiency. The private sector is much, much better at all of those.

I'm sure theres some place where electricity is not privatised, which is why i included it, However, In Australia, It is indeed privatised.
Also, I understand that having the government in things slows things down , but private sectors don't necessarily follow their countries interests, particularly in the case of oil.

The private sector is better at these when there is competition. In social services, though, competition also means inconsistencies in availability and quality. In New York city, all parks are cared for very well. However, if those were private parks, some parks would be better, others would be worse, and the city as a whole would suffer.

anytime the government is involved in something, there is more bureaucracy, greater overhead costs, slower response to needs, greater delays in the provisional/supply side and less efficiency. The private sector is much, much better at all of those. Except in things like health care, where private sector supply has more bureaucracy, greater overhead costs, slower response to needs (if any response at all), and overall about half the efficiency.

Rail, water, and road transportation likewise, internet and telephone service, sewer and water supply, park and watershed maintenance, and a few other matters also provide examples of the greater efficiency possible through government intervention.

At least other people's governments. I suppose one could make a case that the US government is particularly inept and worthless, and would not manifest similar benefits - - -

I'm sure theres some place where electricity is not privatised, which is why i included it, However, In Australia, It is indeed privatised.
Also, I understand that having the government in things slows things down , but private sectors don't necessarily follow their countries interests, particularly in the case of oil.

I believe oil may be the possible exception to the rule, but one thing is for certain - private companies ALWAYS work hard to maintain a supply of things because their profits depend on it. With the government, however, it almost seems as though supply is just a by-product while their main interest is keeping themselves employed by their bureaucratic organization while doing only the bare minimum work necessary to keep their jobs.

I believe oil may be the possible exception to the rule, but one thing is for certain - private companies ALWAYS work hard to maintain a supply of things because their profits depend on it. With the government, however, it almost seems as though supply is just a by-product while their main interest is keeping themselves employed by their bureaucratic organization while doing only the bare minimum work necessary to keep their jobs.

So in the case of broadband/internet companies, Is privatisation a good thing ?, Because since it's been privatised in Australia, It hasn't been so good. We still have one company Telstra, holding access to the lines but offering shit value. All the other companies have to pay line rental to use their lines, so their not offering the true value they can (but they still offer better rates than telstra). Enough about that though,.

But with privatised companies, profits go to their shareholders and their cEos, with govt. owned companies profits go back to the govt. What about transport ? isn't that slightly better off in the hands of the govt ?

Except in things like health care, where private sector supply has more bureaucracy, greater overhead costs, slower response to needs (if any response at all), and overall about half the efficiency.

That's sheer nonsense! Being an older person (well past 60) my health-care needs have grown and I know many other people in similar situations. I also have three grown children with kids of their own. Not ONCE have I experienced or heard of any delay in medical responsiveness. You pulled that idea straight from your usual fraidy-cat naysayer personality as you do with so many other issues.

Rail, water, and road transportation likewise, internet and telephone service, sewer and water supply, park and watershed maintenance, and a few other matters also provide examples of the greater efficiency possible through government intervention.

Balderdash again! With the exception of PUBLIC parks and watershed areas, every single one of the others has improved through competition in the private sector. Incidentally, I know of a few privately owned parks and they are well-kept and perform quite well.

So in the case of broadband/internet companies, Is privatisation a good thing ?, Because since it's been privatised in Australia, It hasn't been so good. We still have one company Telstra, holding access to the lines but offering shit value. All the other companies have to pay line rental to use their lines, so their not offering the true value they can (but they still offer better rates than telstra). Enough about that though,.

But with privatised companies, profits go to their shareholders and their cEos, with govt. owned companies profits go back to the govt. What about transport ? isn't that slightly better off in the hands of the govt ?

I cannot address anything to do with Australia as I know so little about the nature of business there.

When you say "transport" exactly what does that include?

I cannot address anything to do with Australia as I know so little about the nature of business there.

When you say "transport" exactly what does that include?

Rail, bus and public transport. Obviously not the car industry.

Health care becoming privatised is not a good thing in my opinion, the urge to encourage preventitive care as opposed to expensive surgeries and treatments seems to have faded in the face of profit.
The compromise is having both a private healthcare sector and a federalized healthcare, like Australia does. (this has been stated in another thread).

Any type of service that is critical to the functioning of a community,

water, electricity, roads, sewers, police, firemen,phones etc. should be kept under a

governmental thumb for those prices must be kept at a very low rate to

insure the viability and vibrance of a community. Private ownership of some

of those entities can happen and do but must be controlled by the

government very carefully.

Such as oversight and regulations ?

Such as oversight and regulations ?

Correct.

That's sheer nonsense! Being an older person (well past 60) my health-care needs have grown and I know many other people in similar situations. I also have three grown children with kids of their own. Not ONCE have I experienced or heard of any delay in medical responsiveness. You pulled that idea straight from your usual fraidy-cat naysayer personality as you do with so many other issues. I invite you to compare the relevant statistics among various systems.

As a rule, the more privatised the health care, the greater the bureaucratic overhead, the higher the prices, the lower the average quality of delivered service even in absolute let alone per dollar, and so forth.

Blue Cross has something like four times the bureaucratic overhead per patient of Medicare, for example - even within the US system. Comparing outside the bloated, paperwork immurred, dramatically expensive, substantially underperforming US system is even more sobering.

Balderdash again! With the exception of PUBLIC parks and watershed areas, every single one of the others has improved through competition in the private sector. Incidentally, I know of a few privately owned parks and they are well-kept and perform quite well. I have no idea what you mean by "improved through competition in the private sector". For example, despite many government-established efficiency improvements (such as satellite transmission of digital data) basic phone service in my area is more than triple the price for noticeably lower quality of service since the mandating of "competition" by an activist judge.

And surely you are not claiming that the railroads were "improved by competition in the private sector" ? Or that highways and streets should be likewise "improved" ?

There are large areas of economic acitivity in which free, competitive markets cannot deliver efficient outcomes. Privatising those areas without severe and close regulation reduces efficiency and lowers levels of delivered benefit.

There are large areas of economic acitivity in which free, competitive markets cannot deliver efficient outcomes. Privatising those areas without severe and close regulation reduces efficiency and lowers levels of delivered benefit.

I'm with you there dude, With the safety of the public, the poor , Healthcare is something that shouldn't be privatised, Transport too. Things like energy and maybe telecommunications should still be regulated.

Look at the privatization of phone and internet in the US. Big companies have near monopolies because of infrastructure that no one else has the possibility to make. And that infrastructure was financed by the tax payer.

As a result the US is way behind in internet speed and service, yet expensive. I heard they even got government money recently, for the purpose of improving their infrastructure (which appears to have been of no tangible benefit to the customer).

before I left Russia...before the plane lifted off into the air for USA, the vast lands with its trees, roads, and cities were all being privatized. And as I picked up some dust on the sleeve of my coat...that sand was no longer mine or the government's...it was privatized.

Privatization is a bad idea because it's motivated completely by profit.

Would it work if we privatized things like phone and internet but have the government set a price cap or a cap on the revenue that the company generates?

As a rule, the more privatised the health care, the greater the bureaucratic overhead, the higher the prices, the lower the average quality of delivered service even in absolute let alone per dollar, and so forth.

Blue Cross has something like four times the bureaucratic overhead per patient of Medicare, for example - even within the US system. Comparing outside the bloated, paperwork immurred, dramatically expensive, substantially underperforming US system is even more sobering.

This stuff has more to do with monopoly than with private vs. public administration. The reason the private healthcare system is so much costlier here is that because the insurance companies are not required to cover everyone, they have a huge incentive to spend their resources avoiding givign coverage/care to the neediest people. The result being that all the money is spent on screening, and the needy people end up getting shafted. What fixes this is the granting of a monopoly: by requiring a single insurer to cover everyone, you eliminate the whole issue, and they are left to focus on improving the efficiency of actually delivering needed care.

Of course, it may not be a good idea to grant a monopoly to a private company, but the point is that the difference has to do with the monopolistic nature of these other systems, rather than with their public nature as such.