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 strea…
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.
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.