Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[LuvtheKangas]

I know this is getting a bit theoretical, and I understand what you are saying about fiscal constraints, but a few economic theorists would question why the government no longer has the financial resources to begin, service and maintain these projects, despite productivity and proportions of private profit increasing pretty significantly over the past few decades.

Although notably Australian productivity has dropped the last ten year I believe - but it's the same story for countries that productivity has continued growing.

OK, well I alluded to the response to this earlier (it is grounded in economic theory) - governments have the broad mandate of serving the community by providing essential infrastructure and services. This broad mandate means that they are not bound to the objective of generating an appropriate return on investment. Absent that motive, the costs of providing such infrastructure and services are only of secondary importance. The outcome is an inefficient allocation of scarce resources, in particular capital. If more capital than is efficient is used for one project / program, then there is less available for others - a bad outcome for all in the long run. It's roughly the concept of Pareto optimality.

The other (related) aspect is that it's not evil for corporations to be earning a return on their investment. If no return is available, then capital would not be provided. Corporations are as entitled to make a return on their resources just as much as individual workers are. The pro-workers philosophy tends to under-value the role played by providers of capital. If there is no investment in productive capacity, then the whole community is significantly worse off, so there needs to be appropriate incentive for more efficient providers of capital than governments.

 

[B4Bear]

OK, well I alluded to the response to this earlier (it is grounded in economic theory) - governments have the broad mandate of serving the community by providing essential infrastructure and services. This broad mandate means that they are not bound to the objective of generating an appropriate return on investment. Absent that motive, the costs of providing such infrastructure and services are only of secondary importance. The outcome is an inefficient allocation of scarce resources, in particular capital. If more capital than is efficient is used for one project / program, then there is less available for others - a bad outcome for all in the long run. It's roughly the concept of Pareto optimality.

The other (related) aspect is that it's not evil for corporations to be earning a return on their investment. If no return is available, then capital would not be provided. Corporations are as entitled to make a return on their resources just as much as individual workers are. The pro-workers philosophy tends to under-value the role played by providers of capital. If there is no investment in productive capacity, then the whole community is significantly worse off, so there needs to be appropriate incentive for more efficient providers of capital than governments.

Which still doesn’t explain why the SEC for example was sold off.

At worst it can be run as cost neutral for the government, charge enough that it pays for itself, thus not depriving revenue from other areas.

The ‘it will be cheaper’ in corporate hands has proven itself to be an absolute lie. I doubt if there is one single area that used to be run by government that has resulted in cheaper prices for the punter.

 

[Themanbun]

OK, well I alluded to the response to this earlier (it is grounded in economic theory) - governments have the broad mandate of serving the community by providing essential infrastructure and services. This broad mandate means that they are not bound to the objective of generating an appropriate return on investment. Absent that motive, the costs of providing such infrastructure and services are only of secondary importance. The outcome is an inefficient allocation of scarce resources, in particular capital. If more capital than is efficient is used for one project / program, then there is less available for others - a bad outcome for all in the long run. It's roughly the concept of Pareto optimality.

The other (related) aspect is that it's not evil for corporations to be earning a return on their investment. If no return is available, then capital would not be provided. Corporations are as entitled to make a return on their resources just as much as individual workers are. The pro-workers philosophy tends to under-value the role played by providers of capital. If there is no investment in productive capacity, then the whole community is significantly worse off, so there needs to be appropriate incentive for more efficient providers of capital than governments.

I understand that with the current approach to budgets mate. I do. There's a wider economic debate however about why those budgets appear to be shrinking (along with other social services and benefits) despite productivity growth and record private profits. We're producing more, more efficiently, arguably providing less, and yet our governments' purse strings are tighter than ever. That's a wider economic debate we can all plug into, and it's far from settled. I don't know who has the answers but I suspect it's something we'll look back on in hindsight.

I don't think I've said anything about workers in this discussion, it was all about the national interest and what I believe to be the best vehicle for ensuring that strategic assets are always acting within the national interest. The worker issue is another (but related) discussion. We all know my views on that so I won't bore you.

 

[BogBot]

I think anything that can be deemed an essential service or critical to the country security should not be privatised.

An obvious recent example is aged care.

 

[ferball]

Much of the driver for privatisations worldwide, which commenced around the 1980s (give or take a decade depending upon country) is that governments no longer have the financial resources to construct and maintain very large pieces of infrastructure. The cost of building a new solar power plant, for example, is too great a drain on government cash.

From an efficiency viewpoint, it also makes sense that these assets are constructed and owned by the private sector. I know you and many others are very anti profit motive of big business, but left to governments, not being held to the return on investment criterion creates inefficiencies that cost the community significantly more.

It's a balancing act, but centralisation of utilities and infrastructure assets just doesn't work any more. The system does need to be safeguarded in terms of degree of foreign ownership, though. Another balancing act.

Re para one ...IMO that is a scam based on the Thatcherite lie that public money is in fact "taxpayer money". But I suspect that is one thing we won't have common ground on so in dont expect you to accept it.

As far as critical assets and essential services go in terms of efficiency vs public ownership... I keep harping on it but it was the efficiency gains in streamlining electricity infrastructure maintenance that destroyed Kinglake and Marysville. And it wasn't unforseen. It's (power line failure causing fires in extreme heat) happened before.

I agree it's a balancing act but I'd rather see decentralised electricity production by private producers (home solar for example) having the same access to a public poles and wires network that big producers get, not the privatisation of poles and wires, for example.

In NSW you can't sell solar power to the grid. You can offset your usage but you don't have the opportunity to profit from your excess production the way you should be able to and that is down to corporate lobbying. In this case privatisation on a large scale is interfering with what cousld be a free(-ish) market.

 

[B4Bear]

Re para one ...IMO that is a scam based on the Thatcherite lie that public money is in fact "taxpayer money". But I suspect that is one thing we won't have common ground on so in dont expect you to accept it.

As far as critical assets and essential services go in terms of efficiency vs public ownership... I keep harping on it but it was the efficiency gains in streamlining electricity infrastructure maintenance that destroyed Kinglake and Marysville. And it wasn't unforseen. It's (power line failure causing fires in extreme heat) happened before.

I agree it's a balancing act but I'd rather see decentralised electricity production by private producers (home solar for example) having the same access to a public poles and wires network that big producers get, not the privatisation of poles and wires, for example.

In NSW you can't sell solar power to the grid. You can offset your usage but you don't have the opportunity to profit from your excess production the way you should be able to and that is down to corporate lobbying. In this case privatisation on a large scale is interfering with what cousld be a free(-ish) market.

As an engineer and a person who has dealt with risk management, I love the idea of de-centralised electricity generation, virtual power stations are the wave of the future. Less prone to massive failures and disruptions. Removes the profit motive that causes prices to be so high, and reduces the carbon footprint.

What's not to like?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

As an engineer and a person who has dealt with risk management, I love the idea of de-centralised electricity generation, virtual power stations are the wave of the future. Less prone to massive failures and disruptions. Removes the profit motive that causes prices to be so high, and reduces the carbon footprint.

What's not to like?

If the capital and maintenance costs of virtual power stations (I'm not clear what they are - is it just widespread solar panels on rooves?) are manageable within government budgets, then sure, why not?

The same could be achieved by private sector investment as long as there was a constraint on investment return in the concession contract.

Economically, they should in theory result in the same outcome to the community.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Which still doesn’t explain why the SEC for example was sold off.

At worst it can be run as cost neutral for the government, charge enough that it pays for itself, thus not depriving revenue from other areas.

The ‘it will be cheaper’ in corporate hands has proven itself to be an absolute lie. I doubt if there is one single area that used to be run by government that has resulted in cheaper prices for the punter.

Therein lies the key issue - cost neutral might be higher than you imply. They might need to charge more to "pay for itself".

 

[B4Bear]

Therein lies the key issue - cost neutral might be higher than you imply. They might need to charge more to "pay for itself".

Tell me, how many now privatised services that you receive are cheaper than when the government ran them?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Tell me, how many now privatised services that you receive are cheaper than when the government ran them?

Another straw man.

How much were you paying for your daily coffee 30 years ago?

 

[ferball]

nukes, what nukes?

As Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty Nears Force, US Urges Nations to Withdraw

Jessica Corbett reports on efforts by Washington and NATO allies to block the first legally binding global pact to fully prohibit nuclear weapons. By Jessica Corbett Common Dreams Disarmament advocates and nuclear experts responded with alarm Wednesday to reporting that the Trump administra

consortiumnews.com

He is a legend but I'm getting old and see the world differently. If you want to be independent you have to be able to hold your ground and defend your stuff on your own.

 

[B4Bear]

Another straw man.

How much were you paying for your daily coffee 30 years ago?

It is not a straw man. It is a simple question. Are you paying more or less?

And I don't do coffee, disgusting s**t that spoils clean water.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

It is not a straw man. It is a simple question. Are you paying more or less?

And I don't do coffee, disgusting sh*t that spoils clean water.

Coffee is not the point, as I had assumed you would understand.

Pick anything you were regularly paying for 30 years ago and join the dots.

Like most people, I am paying more for absolutely everything than I was then.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Much of the driver for privatisations worldwide, which commenced around the 1980s (give or take a decade depending upon country) is that governments no longer have the financial resources to construct and maintain very large pieces of infrastructure. The cost of building a new solar power plant, for example, is too great a drain on government cash.

From an efficiency viewpoint, it also makes sense that these assets are constructed and owned by the private sector. I know you and many others are very anti profit motive of big business, but left to governments, not being held to the return on investment criterion creates inefficiencies that cost the community significantly more.

It's a balancing act, but centralisation of utilities and infrastructure assets just doesn't work any more. The system does need to be safeguarded in terms of degree of foreign ownership, though. Another balancing act.

The supposed inefficiencies of government run enterprises was always more theoretical than practical, and once put to the test it has largely been the case that private ownership of these large assets has its own inefficiencies such as rent-seeking that offset any gains.
Perhaps if governments actually got out of the way and just let the market do its thing, while regulating for safety and consumer protection, we might have seen reasonable outcomes from privatisation, but even then I have my doubts. Some of the very arguments you state favour privatisation such as the massive cost of assets lead to monopoly situations with attendant abuses.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

The supposed inefficiencies of government run enterprises was always more theoretical than practical, and once put to the test it has largely been the case that private ownership of these large assets has its own inefficiencies such as rent-seeking that offset any gains.
Perhaps if governments actually got out of the way and just let the market do its thing, while regulating for safety and consumer protection, we might have seen reasonable outcomes from privatisation, but even then I have my doubts. Some of the very arguments you state favour privatisation such as the massive cost of assets lead to monopoly situations with attendant abuses.

Agree, it's why I kept calling it a balancing act.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Coffee is not the point, as I had assumed you would understand.

Pick anything you were regularly paying for 30 years ago and join the dots.

Like most people, I am paying more for absolutely everything than I was then.

What? I don't think coffee costs more in real terms than it did 30 years ago. There are lots of things that are cheaper. International air travel up until Covid for example. I forget the exact figures but in the 1970s it cost something like 6 months average wages to fly to London, in 2019 it was about two weeks. I paid less in simple numerical terms for a flight in 2018 than I did in 1996.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

What? I don't think coffee costs more in real terms than it did 30 years ago. There are lots of things that are cheaper. International air travel up until Covid for example. I forget the exact figures but in the 1970s it cost something like 6 months average wages to fly to London, in 2019 it was about two weeks. I paid less in simple numerical terms for a flight in 2018 than I did in 1996.

There are always going to be exceptions. I too paid more in the 1980s to go to Europe. This relates to market and industry issues (e.g. improved technology and fuel efficiency), and it's nothing to do with government vs. private operators in that industry.

I think you can run the real terms argument for the cost of most utilities, too. There will be variability, but acknowledging costs in real terms essentially supports my response.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

There are always going to be exceptions. I too paid more in the 1980s to go to Europe. This relates to market and industry issues (e.g. improved technology and fuel efficiency), and it's nothing to do with government vs. private operators in that industry.

I think you can run the real terms argument for the cost of most utilities, too. There will be variability, but acknowledging costs in real terms essentially supports my response.

So you're saying the price of a cup of coffee is a meaningless comparison?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

So you're saying the price of a cup of coffee is a meaningless comparison?

On the contrary, I'm saying it is a perfect illustration of the point - prices are relatively stable in real terms.

Not sure how you concluded otherwise.

 

[DesertRoo]

Story goes, faced with the Soviet Union, whos vast wealth and centralised power meant they could focus expenditure to build everything quickly and effectively. Democracy had it flaws, one being it’s a slow ineffectual beast, think of what’s happened with the nbn.
neoconservatism was a strategy to combat this by taking as many decisions out of the public hands as posible. Once in private ownership/Wall Street, investment could be focused for more then four years ahead, it was merging corporate and government, meanings national investment and strategy would be able to face the might of the Soviets.
A lot has happened since then, the illusion of the Soviets fell, instead of being a super power, they ended up having complete ineffectual leadership that was seen be dodgy and corrupt, they lost the people.
after the fall of the Soviets, the same neocon system was kept in place, centralising wealth in the US and other countries.

The rise of China, USSR was never anywhere ingrained in the world with supply lines, manufacturing etc as the Soviets.
China was brought on board in the west as two things, defence, as they always butted heads with the soviets, once onboard the west thought they could convert mainland to the same system as HK and secondly a source of cheap labour for capitalist pushing for globalisation.

Now we’ve got two issues as I see it, how to fix the power grab neoconservatives, maybe a public investment fund, that sits outside of parliament?

and secondly what the hell to do with a rising China? The logic above has created a zombie machine that resembles Soviet state that the west simply just can’t just disconnect from. Before Xi the west might’ve been able to convince China of open markets, now forget about it. so what happens, does the US let China become the leader in the pacific, confront?

 

[Snake_Baker]

but you still maintain that the CCP wouldnt dare utilise their ownership of these assets to push their own agenda?

Why would they have an agenda outside of business?

Have you seen the contracts, because if you haven't then you are engaging in baseless allegations?

They have a sea of money lying about that they have to spend & invest. They're doing that.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

On the contrary, I'm saying it is a perfect illustration of the point - prices are relatively stable in real terms.

Not sure how you concluded otherwise.

Except of course that the costs of electricity have gone up in real terms since the early 21st century.

 

[DesertRoo]

I know this is trumps press sec but Biden needs to stop talking to the public, just wheel out his corpse at the inauguration.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I know this is trumps press sec but Biden needs to stop talking to the public, just wheel out his corpse at the inauguration.

The free world gets to choose between a television conman or an Alzheimer's patient.

.......and to think there's folks who actually argue over the positive merits of either party.

How did we end up here?

 

[DesertRoo]

The free world gets to choose between a television conman or an Alzheimer's patient.

.......and to think there's folks who actually argue over the positive merits of either party.

How did we end up here?

The worst part about is, they’re so polarised, there’s going to be some battles on the streets.
And you can see what’s going to happen a mile off, Trump will win on election night, mail in votes will come in declaring Biden the winner, off to the Supreme Court for a verdict.. regardless of which cracker gets in, the American people lose.

Have you seen this? we’re looking back to the future.

Jews For Trump car parade stirs protests, fights in New York

Skirmishes broke out between supporters and opponents of President Donald Trump as a “Jews For Trump” convoy of hundreds of cars draped with American flags and Trump 2020 banners rolled slowly through Manhattan and Brooklyn over the weekend. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, called...

news.yahoo.com