Politics Privatisation. Is it really cheaper?
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,714
- 13,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #79
Would greater governmental transparency and accountability help alleviate this?
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
How much, say for instance does the Victorian Government still plough into the 'privatised' trains?
Will the Victorian Government be required to spend taxpayers money on the desalination plant during periods of plentiful rain when it's not need and will end users need to pay more for their water during periods of plentiful rain when it's not needed?
You see it time and time again, Governments of all persuasions selling off public utilities or supplementing them and getting bent over by the private sector in contract negotiations.
Used to see it in the military all the time. It was a case of if you were in a certain position or had reached a certain rank then all of sudden it was your responsibility to put out for tenders and then negotiate contracts with zero prior experience.
Sure they'd have people advising them but the advisers seem to be as incompetent as the boss.
Will the Victorian Government be required to spend taxpayers money on the desalination plant during periods of plentiful rain when it's not need and will end users need to pay more for their water during periods of plentiful rain when it's not needed?
You see it time and time again, Governments of all persuasions selling off public utilities or supplementing them and getting bent over by the private sector in contract negotiations.
Used to see it in the military all the time. It was a case of if you were in a certain position or had reached a certain rank then all of sudden it was your responsibility to put out for tenders and then negotiate contracts with zero prior experience.
Sure they'd have people advising them but the advisers seem to be as incompetent as the boss.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Privatisation or public shouldn't be decided by cost and cost alone.
In the case an industry or company is government owned but goes insolvent; it brings down a country or state. ie the SA state bank collapse.
In the case the entities are private, the entities can be bailed out or enter bankruptcy. The administers are appointed, the state continues and life goes on.
90% of times, private is better than state for that reason alone.
In the case an industry or company is government owned but goes insolvent; it brings down a country or state. ie the SA state bank collapse.
In the case the entities are private, the entities can be bailed out or enter bankruptcy. The administers are appointed, the state continues and life goes on.
90% of times, private is better than state for that reason alone.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,714
- 13,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #85
you wanted proof.... heres 500 million
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/07/15/victims-speak-black-saturday-payout/
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,714
- 13,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
DemonTim
Cancelled
10k Posts
The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
- Jul 18, 2013
- 11,363
- 8,296
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
In relation to complaining about maintenance and infrastructure etc. people here seem to have no idea. The government legislates how much profit these companies can turn over , how much they must put into maintenance and how much they must put into infrastructure
Government still sets the rules
Government still sets the rules
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,714
- 13,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #89
So whats the point of privatization then?
DemonTim
Cancelled
10k Posts
The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
- Jul 18, 2013
- 11,363
- 8,296
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,714
- 13,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #91
Well it just proves that Privatization costs more... including the retailing bit.
- Banned
- #93
government run services can be made to simply be break even, as the main focus is to provide a service and the money just needs to cover the running costs. privately run services need to make profits, significant ones too, or else the owners wouldnt bother and would do something else.
assuming equal service provision and quality, the running costs would be the same. the private run service then needs to add more money to produce a profit. Logically, privately owned services cant be cheaper, unless they start cutting corners which they often do, and then you get the massive problems like telstras or ausnets woeful maintenance issues.
plus weve all seen from experience that it is not cheaper in the end, and regardless of whatever theories and economic modelling there may be experience always wins out, as you cannot effectively model random human greed.
assuming equal service provision and quality, the running costs would be the same. the private run service then needs to add more money to produce a profit. Logically, privately owned services cant be cheaper, unless they start cutting corners which they often do, and then you get the massive problems like telstras or ausnets woeful maintenance issues.
plus weve all seen from experience that it is not cheaper in the end, and regardless of whatever theories and economic modelling there may be experience always wins out, as you cannot effectively model random human greed.
Governments need to also run things that should not be made a profit on, but that generate wealth for the whole community. Infrastructure, health, education, defence, and public safety are fine examples. I'd say that scientific research would also be part of that.
Running them at a profit means that it's run down and the working class pay proportionally an unfair amount. This is much more expensive for society.
Running them at a profit means that it's run down and the working class pay proportionally an unfair amount. This is much more expensive for society.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #96
Medibank was a good example of a business running at a profit.
Still provided competition with the private sector plus employed a number of people shows that the government can run a business and not everything needs to be privatised.
Now that it is a public company looking to downgrade benefits at a higher cost to satisfy their shareholders.
Who are the losers? We are.
Still provided competition with the private sector plus employed a number of people shows that the government can run a business and not everything needs to be privatised.
Now that it is a public company looking to downgrade benefits at a higher cost to satisfy their shareholders.
Who are the losers? We are.
- Banned
- #97
Absolutely not cheaper in the case of utilities, health and transport. The service is usually a sight worse.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,369
- 19,501
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I have top cover with Medibank Private. Nothing has really changed. When it was govt owned, premiums went up by 5 to 8% each year. Now that it is privatised, guess what? Premiums are going up by 6%.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #99
I have been driven crazy with calls and emails to change from top hospital (Blue Ribbon) and top extras. They say at my age I won't need certain things and I would save $10 per month but I would also miss out on things that I may need in the future.
Also I have heard from other people that they now consider breast reconstruction (after removal) as cosmetic surgery, another situation was regarding a sinus operation and part of that wasn't covered until the person made a complaint and then they made an exception (not sure of the full story).
So you may be one of the lucky ones that haven't been contacted and they may only be targeting certain groups
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,369
- 19,501
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
For the sake of only $10/mth, you might as well just keep the extras and top hospital cover.
I have also heard about some of these changes to make some things as cosmetic surgery. I can't remember which ones though. I do remember signing an e-petition against the changes. Privatisation usually results in job losses and the reduction of employee benefits. When you have top cover, you don't expect them to erode your quality of cover. Whatever happened to the motto of giving your clients/customers what they pay for! If we wanted 'No Frills', we would go through someone else or have none at all.
