While there's some truth in that, by far the simplest mechanism - and hardly outside the realm of possibility should the West decide to go full-in on global war instead - would be a near complete nationalisation of all the industries concerned. This would ensure the continuation of employment, supply chains and whatnot, while cutting out…
While there's some truth in that, by far the simplest mechanism - and hardly outside the realm of possibility should the West decide to go full-in on global war instead - would be a near complete nationalisation of all the industries concerned. This would ensure the continuation of employment, supply chains and whatnot, while cutting out the corporate "profit" margin alone. Considering the sheer corruption in this industry, simply ending the private profits, and the "donations" to most of the political classes, could cut costs considerably and those savings could be used in more productive ways.
Of course whoever is sucking off this teat will face hardship - including some pension funds - however the overall benefit to the real economy would enable other investments.
Such things are not impossible, the UK managed something similar when it created the NHS and nationalised nearly all of the existing medical and pharmacological practices and companies.
Despite misgivings at the time, very soon the sheer efficiency of the new nationalised system (Let alone the grateful patients) won over well over 90% of the doctors, who appreciated the stability it brought to their particular "marketplace".
Whenever talking to UK people, they complain about the NHS. Maybe it is not so "sheer efficent"? The cost for medical care is extremly high (compared to other Europeans), the results are really bad. Endless waiting time for Patients for treatments is not a success.
Many here complain but who doesn't in any system? Overall the NHS gives excellent value for money. I don't know where you get the idea that the cost of medical care is expensive in the UK. It is one of the most inexpensive per patient providers in the world. It has a lot of inefficiencies built in that could definitely be improved on but nonetheless, I would take the NHS system over any in the world - and I think the British people as a whole would say the same - if you mention privatising the NHS in Britain, be prepared for a wall of resistance - that tells you how the people really feel about it.
Werner, can you name a product that USED to be good, even great, but was then "Bought out", or just gradually became shit? Let's take it as read that you can, unless you've lived in a bubble.
Well, the NHS has been privatised. It started under Thatcher, accelerated under B'Liar, and went into hyperdrive under the Scameron-Sunak Tory streak.
There is genuinely not much left that is "Socially owned", even most hospital sites themselves have been sold off.
Which means a LOT of it now has to generate "A profit".
While profit-driven, market forces CAN 'improve efficiency' in some small ways, it goes without saying that it never makes up for the 10%-30% removed for said profit, or the service being warped to serve the owners, rather than the public.
That, along with the imposed "Austerity" of the past 15 years, has had it's USUAL (And indeed planned) effect.
It has become shit. But not because it is a nationalised, non-profit service, but because it has become closer to the American model.
The so called "privatised enterprises" were given to "investors". These investors have the possibility for cheap credit, because the government is responsible for a central bank and the public savings. The "seller" (=government) will have a big influx of money, that can be used to buy votes. When the investors have cut out all the good pieces and made a lot of money (by the way, halve of this is coming back to government as taxes), this "private enterprise" is not working properly, so the government will give the investors more cheap money or dictate higher prices for the common people or make regulations, so that there will be not competition. This has nothing to do with market orientated economy, not in the US, not in the EU, not in Russia.
A CONSIDERABLY better system would have been to "privatise" to the actual workforces, to spread capital, and increase incentives to work hard.
Simply handing over natural monopolies to private capital creates anti-market monopolies yes - and to monopolies that do not even have the tiny public input of national votes.
You're spoiled rotten. Come to the US, where people cannot afford certain treatments and just don't go to doctors because "health care" bankrupts people.
Congrats! 4 wrongful axioms/assumptions in 1 teeny-weeny post. The voodoo economics-ideologues who've indoctrinated you with this shite and their heavenly anarcho-free-market jackassery are themselves morons and/or self-promoting shysters.
What you just said is that all people ONLY work hard for money. Not for pride in their work, because they enjoy their work, competitiveness with each other, or even sticks instead of such carrots, but ONLY for money. Is that true of you?
What a terrible view. And by "Work" I didn't just mean paid employment.
You probably put in huge amounts of time into gaming, like most people. That's not paid work - although it may get considerably more effort applied to it.
Replying on substack and other social media isn't paid either, it's for enjoyment.
And yet the Govt owned weapons factories in Russia FAR outstrip the profit-driven US/Western MIC.
What you are missing - and was intentionally withheld from you as a student and imbiber of corporate media - is efficiency IN WHAT are corporates good at? Efficiency in production? Nope. Efficiency in employment? Nope. Efficiency in transferring wealth to the already extremely wealthy? Ahh, now we're beginning to get somewhere.
Perhaps you are a simp who thinks that billionaires are better at spending your money than you are? If so, there's no hope for you.
While there's some truth in that, by far the simplest mechanism - and hardly outside the realm of possibility should the West decide to go full-in on global war instead - would be a near complete nationalisation of all the industries concerned. This would ensure the continuation of employment, supply chains and whatnot, while cutting out the corporate "profit" margin alone. Considering the sheer corruption in this industry, simply ending the private profits, and the "donations" to most of the political classes, could cut costs considerably and those savings could be used in more productive ways.
Of course whoever is sucking off this teat will face hardship - including some pension funds - however the overall benefit to the real economy would enable other investments.
Such things are not impossible, the UK managed something similar when it created the NHS and nationalised nearly all of the existing medical and pharmacological practices and companies.
Despite misgivings at the time, very soon the sheer efficiency of the new nationalised system (Let alone the grateful patients) won over well over 90% of the doctors, who appreciated the stability it brought to their particular "marketplace".
Whenever talking to UK people, they complain about the NHS. Maybe it is not so "sheer efficent"? The cost for medical care is extremly high (compared to other Europeans), the results are really bad. Endless waiting time for Patients for treatments is not a success.
Many here complain but who doesn't in any system? Overall the NHS gives excellent value for money. I don't know where you get the idea that the cost of medical care is expensive in the UK. It is one of the most inexpensive per patient providers in the world. It has a lot of inefficiencies built in that could definitely be improved on but nonetheless, I would take the NHS system over any in the world - and I think the British people as a whole would say the same - if you mention privatising the NHS in Britain, be prepared for a wall of resistance - that tells you how the people really feel about it.
Werner, can you name a product that USED to be good, even great, but was then "Bought out", or just gradually became shit? Let's take it as read that you can, unless you've lived in a bubble.
Well, the NHS has been privatised. It started under Thatcher, accelerated under B'Liar, and went into hyperdrive under the Scameron-Sunak Tory streak.
There is genuinely not much left that is "Socially owned", even most hospital sites themselves have been sold off.
Which means a LOT of it now has to generate "A profit".
While profit-driven, market forces CAN 'improve efficiency' in some small ways, it goes without saying that it never makes up for the 10%-30% removed for said profit, or the service being warped to serve the owners, rather than the public.
That, along with the imposed "Austerity" of the past 15 years, has had it's USUAL (And indeed planned) effect.
It has become shit. But not because it is a nationalised, non-profit service, but because it has become closer to the American model.
The so called "privatised enterprises" were given to "investors". These investors have the possibility for cheap credit, because the government is responsible for a central bank and the public savings. The "seller" (=government) will have a big influx of money, that can be used to buy votes. When the investors have cut out all the good pieces and made a lot of money (by the way, halve of this is coming back to government as taxes), this "private enterprise" is not working properly, so the government will give the investors more cheap money or dictate higher prices for the common people or make regulations, so that there will be not competition. This has nothing to do with market orientated economy, not in the US, not in the EU, not in Russia.
Bullshit. In the US, it is almost completely owned by huge corporations. It is outrageously expensive and a giant drag on the economy.
A CONSIDERABLY better system would have been to "privatise" to the actual workforces, to spread capital, and increase incentives to work hard.
Simply handing over natural monopolies to private capital creates anti-market monopolies yes - and to monopolies that do not even have the tiny public input of national votes.
You're spoiled rotten. Come to the US, where people cannot afford certain treatments and just don't go to doctors because "health care" bankrupts people.
Nationalized systems are never efficient. There is no incentive for it, it will not happen. And doesn’t.
Congrats! 4 wrongful axioms/assumptions in 1 teeny-weeny post. The voodoo economics-ideologues who've indoctrinated you with this shite and their heavenly anarcho-free-market jackassery are themselves morons and/or self-promoting shysters.
Or? The truthfulness of the government providing 'nothing' for the highest cost!
What you just said is that all people ONLY work hard for money. Not for pride in their work, because they enjoy their work, competitiveness with each other, or even sticks instead of such carrots, but ONLY for money. Is that true of you?
People work to survive. Everything else is gravy.
What a terrible view. And by "Work" I didn't just mean paid employment.
You probably put in huge amounts of time into gaming, like most people. That's not paid work - although it may get considerably more effort applied to it.
Replying on substack and other social media isn't paid either, it's for enjoyment.
To call anything 'government' sheer efficiency is the height of humor.
And yet the Govt owned weapons factories in Russia FAR outstrip the profit-driven US/Western MIC.
What you are missing - and was intentionally withheld from you as a student and imbiber of corporate media - is efficiency IN WHAT are corporates good at? Efficiency in production? Nope. Efficiency in employment? Nope. Efficiency in transferring wealth to the already extremely wealthy? Ahh, now we're beginning to get somewhere.
Perhaps you are a simp who thinks that billionaires are better at spending your money than you are? If so, there's no hope for you.