Political ideology, implemented by thousands of thatcher's 'stormtroopers'...
Our deficit was all americas fault
- Thread starter AronSearle
- Start date
Sponsored Links
This was the the age of trickle down still waiting
ok a little less gibberish this time but only a little less
yep bt can only touch there lines .But there is nothing stopping any company out there setting up there own telephone company . all i takes is for them to instal the infrastructure and they can touch their own wires to their hearts content. this is prohibitively expensive and as there is already a company providing this service not cost effective. this is the free market you enjoy working perfectly.
its not an obsession with state run companies its the problem encountered when you privatise national infrastructure organizations . you have an infrastructure that is inherently monopolistic and some how its believed there is some magic wand that it can become a competitive market.
i
2 ditto ,the percentages risen since lovely Mr Blair sarted privitisation in the nineties
3 you don't have to but don't say free market is the utopia and solution to the countries ills
don't know about Frances health care but if you want to copy it feel free
but say that The NHS should be completely deconstructed and replaced by that model
the situation is that yet again the privatisation of the NHS as its going ahead now puts the burden and risks of privateisation on the tax payer yet allows the companies to take the rewards.
yep bt can only touch there lines .But there is nothing stopping any company out there setting up there own telephone company . all i takes is for them to instal the infrastructure and they can touch their own wires to their hearts content. this is prohibitively expensive and as there is already a company providing this service not cost effective. this is the free market you enjoy working perfectly.
its not an obsession with state run companies its the problem encountered when you privatise national infrastructure organizations . you have an infrastructure that is inherently monopolistic and some how its believed there is some magic wand that it can become a competitive market.
i
1 truthfully cant be bothered to find out but I'm sure you can Google it
2 ditto ,the percentages risen since lovely Mr Blair sarted privitisation in the nineties
3 you don't have to but don't say free market is the utopia and solution to the countries ills
don't know about Frances health care but if you want to copy it feel free
but say that The NHS should be completely deconstructed and replaced by that model
the situation is that yet again the privatisation of the NHS as its going ahead now puts the burden and risks of privateisation on the tax payer yet allows the companies to take the rewards.
You agree BT have a monopoly on the lines, this is not free market.
The free market would be allowing multiple companies to bid for line installation.
The central servers may need to be run by a BT type organisation, but anyone can lay a cable, no need for that to be monopolised.
Is there any reason a private company can't run the railways, and charge train companies to use the rail, y'know like Japan does (that funny country with bullet trains).
Any reason the water network could be run by one company, but allow private companies to build reservoirs/desalination plants and provide the water, instead of regional monopolies like we have now.
Power supply on paper runs like what I have described above, but the government highly regulates it, carbon taxes it, demands green taxes to pay for windmills, refuses planning permission = effectively no free market.
Any reason royal mail has to have a monopoly, other countries have more than one postal service.
Nobody claims privatisation is a magic wand, but what we have is crony privatisation with the government keeping it's hands on the levers of power, then everyone moans about how crap privatisation is.
1 truthfully cant be bothered to find out but I'm sure you can Google it
2 ditto ,the percentages risen since lovely Mr Blair sarted privitisation in the nineties
3 you don't have to but don't say free market is the utopia and solution to the countries ills
1. You are making the claim, now you are basically admiting you don't know and are talking poop.
2. Ditto
3. see above
So you know nothing about the French model (and most of Europe for that matter).
France ranks 1, we rank 18.
But I am wrong to want to de construct the NHS because of some imagined "private gains public losses".
Does that happen in France, Netherlands, Germany, Japan?
Do you have the slightlest clue, do you even care?
No, you are just spouting ideological anti privatisation claptrap, and treating the NHS like some sacred cow.
Sponsored Links
[
I see the point you are trying to make , but in a free market the company the owns the infrastructure does what they want with that infrastructure.
bt on privatisation own the cables they are theirs bought from the government.why should they allow other private companies to gain from their system unless your suggesting more government interference in the free market.
A poor analogy would be allowing Ford to build a factory then saying OK well going to let Citroen put in a machine to make their badges an allow them to use all the factory.
You haven't answered the point that nothing is stopping any company setting up their own infrastructure to cover the UK an compete directly with bt
My point is ANY infrastructure is inherently monopolistic due to the vast costs on building. The reason governments install them. If left to private companies you get only population hubs being served and not the rest of the country . A prime example being cable tv phone lines only profitable in city's.
I personally can not see any way an fractures can be run in a free market system without mass regulations from government which therefore means in isn't a free market but a regulated market.
Water is a very different situation because if you let any company build a reservoir their storing water that would flow elsewhere possibly affecting another water company swell as the environment. It has to be regulated so no free market
2You yet again Asked % and i cant be bother to find out %
I didnt say you where wrong in wanting to Deconstruct the NHS
But the imagined private gain public loss isn't imaginary its reality
the NHs as its run at the moment is not a sacred cow its a management trough fest and privatistion the way its always implemented woundn't improve things.
I do care i have just seen the results of the Ideological privatisaion claptrap that is being spouted
I see the point you are trying to make , but in a free market the company the owns the infrastructure does what they want with that infrastructure.
bt on privatisation own the cables they are theirs bought from the government.why should they allow other private companies to gain from their system unless your suggesting more government interference in the free market.
A poor analogy would be allowing Ford to build a factory then saying OK well going to let Citroen put in a machine to make their badges an allow them to use all the factory.
You haven't answered the point that nothing is stopping any company setting up their own infrastructure to cover the UK an compete directly with bt
My point is ANY infrastructure is inherently monopolistic due to the vast costs on building. The reason governments install them. If left to private companies you get only population hubs being served and not the rest of the country . A prime example being cable tv phone lines only profitable in city's.
I personally can not see any way an fractures can be run in a free market system without mass regulations from government which therefore means in isn't a free market but a regulated market.
the train lines where run by a private company you know the one the was held responsible for potters bar due to being more interested in shareholder dividends that safety
Water is a very different situation because if you let any company build a reservoir their storing water that would flow elsewhere possibly affecting another water company swell as the environment. It has to be regulated so no free market
no but if you allow competition you have to say they all deliver to all the country for the same price or allow royal mail to cherry pick where they want to deliver . Can you see many operators saying they will deliver to the highland ,Yorkshire dales for the same price as London,Manchester or could they leave that to good all royal mail to do the unprofitable areas. So yet more regulations needed in the free market.
trouble is people do say privatisation is the magic wand and that the problem is government shouldn't run it. I cant see how a politician can say a private company can run this part better t and at the same time expect you to believe they can run the whole country when the cant run a bus on time .
1 no you asked for % I didnt claim % i said the nhs was having more privatisation and i still can not be bothered to find out exact % for you
2You yet again Asked % and i cant be bother to find out %
I didnt say you where wrong in wanting to Deconstruct the NHS
But the imagined private gain public loss isn't imaginary its reality
the NHs as its run at the moment is not a sacred cow its a management trough fest and privatistion the way its always implemented woundn't improve things.
I do care i have just seen the results of the Ideological privatisaion claptrap that is being spouted
Ok, stop there, and think.
Who was BT before privatisation, how was it sold.
It was sold as BT, it was sold as a monopoly, by shares in BT, it was not sold as several separate companies, either as regional or such companies.
Your whole argument hinges on a mistaken belief that BT can only be a monopoly. Your analogy of a factory is poor and an example of the flaw in your argument, in that BT is not a single server in a single building, but many dotted all over the place.
Stating it is so, does not make it so.
So because some parts of the country would not be served, or served expensively, the whole lot has to be government run?
Hmmmm.
Sorry, but there are papers on this subject that explain how it could work, at this point I can’t be bothered to argue the case. You just don’t seem interested because YOU can’t think how it could be done, you assume it can’t be done.
Prove it then, other countries (most of Europe) already do what I describe, so it shouldn’t be hard.
It’s a management trough fest, because that’s how public services are run.
It’s treated as a sacred cow in the sense that any talk of privatisation is “oh you can’t destroy the NHS, it would leave people dying on the streets”.
That’s why I hate travelling in Europe, all the dead bodies get in the way.
Yes bt was a monopoly when sold but you miss the point THAT any company can now build its own infrastructure and supply who ever they want.
Why impose regulations on what bt does with the property it gained when privatised It A PRIVATE company not a national one.
You still haven't said what's wrong with another company setting up take on BT its a free market let it sort itself out?
The analogy was to point out why would one company spend money which enables its competitors to compete. In a free market that shouldn't happen.
if that's the country you what to live in fine if you want a two tier county no problem let it all go private.
I have never said it CAN'T be done but the regulations needed to allow Water to be set up as you suggest stop it being a free market .
other countries haven't got the part national part private system we have in the nhs currently.
example.read A few years back so sorry for no percentages. Knee operations where done by a private company the contract that set the requirements for the people treated allowed the company to cherry pick easier surgeries this meant that the more complicated operations where still done by the local nhs hospital how ever as they lost the revenue of the easier operations the cost per operation went up .Public purse lost out the other side effect of this was that any complications that where incurred after the Private knee replacement had to be picked up by the nhs not the private surgery, public purse lose again
yes I agree but the current agenda to privatise sorry outsource to private firms for efficiently savings is making the trough bigger not smaller.the cost of consultants an lawyers is astronomical
I personally don't see the free market as the utopian solution to government waste that its always said to be.
I agree that the waste in public organizations is flabbergasting but don't see the solution is private companies.
And yes I do like the idea of having national companies for infrasture services
[/quote]
I think I get your drift now Aron Searl,capitalism run well
Sigh.
BT was sold as a monopoly, 1 large company that could not have been competed against.
Instead of breaking it up and selling it in smaller pieces allowing competition.
Even now the majority of the network can't be touched by anyone but BT.
Result = Bad expensive service.
If you still don't get it, you just don't understand economics.
Strawman.
Free market doesn't mean no regulation, it means the ability for multiple companies to compete freely.
All our infrastructure has been sold to private companies in a monopolistic manner, then people blame privatisation for the failings.
So again, no statistics, no link to information and you are against privatisation or destroying the NHS, but refuse to look at other countries that have private healthcare (with state funding) to see how it works, instead blabbling on about some example you don't link to nor relevant to the systems in Europe.
Sorry, but I don't want a healthcare system that ranks 18th, I want one that comes 1st.
Ask who the customer is when it comes to the NHS, when you figure out the answer, you will see why the quality of service can be so inconsistent.
It's the least worst option, no one sensible says otherwise.
Private gains public losses is only due to poor privatisation.
In most cases it's a case of "too big to fail", instead of parcelling of the services in small packages, were individual companies can fold without much hassle.
i do understand my point was its not viable to compete against bt as the infrastructure cost make it to expensive
yes bad expensive service thats PRIVATE not NATIONAL.
if you want. i just saying if you want private companies running everything be prepared to pay for it. don't expect the same services will be available universally market forces will dictate what goes where.
now i agree thats how they where sold. but i don't see a way infrastructure can be anything but monopolistic
now this is the centre of the problem people ask for removal of red tape and government interference allowing a free market and the companies to be able to compete and the forget that unregulated you get price fixing and monopolistic practises , to prevent the worst of free market capitalism lots of government regulation is needed so back to square one
im not advocating anything here i am pointing out what i see as the effects of privatisation
if you want to spend 20% of your wage to the government and still have to pay for 30% of your medical treatment and still have a 6 billion euro deficit in heath care go ahead if thats what you want to be no 1.
most people in the UK expect free at point of service heath provision right or wrong thats what we have .(see i can do % ain't life grand)
And i really dont want to be seen as a customer and a £ sign by a doctor i want to be seen as a patient foolish i know but there you go
where is the good privatisation then
but in the free market the small packages soon get swallowed up in to bigger packages then one day whoa the package too big to fail
as you say
of those yet tried but hopefully out there is another system that may work a lot better
No you numpty.
The POINT of privatisation was to encourage competition.
It's competition that makes private better than public in terms of efficiency.
BT (and most other public/private ventures) were privatised in a way that allowed no competition, into huge "to big to fail" agencies with protection on the infrastructure, instead of smaller piecemeal organisations with free access to infrastructure.
That is why it provides a bad service, not because it's private, but because it faces no competition, making it no more efficient than public services but also creaming of any money for shareholders.
The rest of your post is waffle as it misses this very basic premise.
no you numpty
the point i have been making is that the infrastucture that has been privatised cant have competition by its very nature the only way it can have a false sense of competition is by goverment regulation
and as i pointed out in the rest of my waffle if it had been sold of piece meal to allow limited competition the very nature of the freemarket you keep endorsing means the small peice meal parts soon merge or get bought out by the more successful parts so you still have no competition without mass regulation.
and the private health system you keep endorsing is goverment run and fixed priced not exactly free market competition
Politics....hmmm.
You and your girlfriend must have some riveting conversations Aron Surly.
Bet you are a barrel of laughs.
You and your girlfriend must have some riveting conversations Aron Surly.
Bet you are a barrel of laughs.
Sponsored Links
