Moderator: Community Team
everywhere116 wrote:Did they hand it over to one private company or many?
everywhere116 wrote:How are the rails that were purchased by the Dutch and German networks doing?
Lootifer wrote:You haven't really explained any of the core issues that define the private vs state argument though. I mean im all for it, rail systems are natural monopolies so often state ownership makes sense BUT you have shown no evidence that the state just ran the rail systems in a hugely unsustainable manner then dumped the trainwreck (pun intended) onto private investors (who arguably should have known better - though they prob saw it as very low risk because of the bailout safety net, i dunno...?)
Where are these magic efficiencies that the state could manage but private companies can't seem to emulate??
Lootifer wrote:Don't immediately swallow the politics and hype though. Sure rail services have declined and prices have gone up, but that's a symptom, not a cause. Was it really priviatisation that caused the symptons you point at? Or was it a combination of poorly implemented regulation, rising costs, and many other things (which to be honest I cant be bothered researching, and the burden of proof here lies with you, since you're making the assertion that privitisation fucked the pooch).
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
saxitoxin wrote:Privatizing rail is not an example of free market public services because railways are inherently monopolies. There cannot be competing railroads if there's only one set of tracks. Competition is the cornerstone of the laissez faire. Because land and routes are finite, there will always only be one set of tracks. The fact that there are multiple companies that have carved up British railways doesn't make it any less of a monopoly. Each specific route or segment will be a monopoly in itself.A municipal bus system could operate on a free market model because you can put an unlimited number of buses on a single route competing for the same customers. A railroad cannot operate on a free market model.
In other words, "privatization" is not a synonym for "free market."
Symmetry wrote:That and too many people rely on it.
Symmetry wrote:A fairy tale of the free market.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:That and too many people rely on it.
That's a good point.
Similarly, I support partial privatization of the U.S. railway line, AMTRAK. The partial, in this sense would be the western routes that don't - due to the scale of territory versus absence of population - fill a critical transportation function but are for romantic, historical purposes only, serving railroad hobbyists and retirees on holiday ... routes like the Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Silver Meteor, etc.The slice of AMTRAK that serves the northeast corridor - New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. - should remain in public hands since it represents critical infrastructure and could only be transferred from a public monopoly to a private monopoly, but not de-monopolized, due to the inherent nature of railway technology.
BBS?Symmetry wrote:A fairy tale of the free market.
Again, not really, because it's not an example of the free market in action. It's an example of crony capitalism. The free market is involved in the destruction of monopolies - public monopolies, private monopolies, whatever. A state of monopoly is the absence of economic freedom, ergo, where a monopoly exists the free market does not.
Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:That and too many people rely on it.
That's a good point.
Similarly, I support partial privatization of the U.S. railway line, AMTRAK. The partial, in this sense would be the western routes that don't - due to the scale of territory versus absence of population - fill a critical transportation function but are for romantic, historical purposes only, serving railroad hobbyists and retirees on holiday ... routes like the Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Silver Meteor, etc.The slice of AMTRAK that serves the northeast corridor - New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. - should remain in public hands since it represents critical infrastructure and could only be transferred from a public monopoly to a private monopoly, but not de-monopolized, due to the inherent nature of railway technology.
BBS?Symmetry wrote:A fairy tale of the free market.
Again, not really, because it's not an example of the free market in action. It's an example of crony capitalism. The free market is involved in the destruction of monopolies - public monopolies, private monopolies, whatever. A state of monopoly is the absence of economic freedom, ergo, where a monopoly exists the free market does not.
That would be the fairy tale bit- they ain't true, much as some would like to believe in them.
Symmetry wrote:Ah, but one last morsel. A fun one, this. Who do you think bought up some of the remnants of the nationalised British rail system? Why, my friends, it was the German and Dutch nationalised rail companies.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:That and too many people rely on it.
That's a good point.
Similarly, I support partial privatization of the U.S. railway line, AMTRAK. The partial, in this sense would be the western routes that don't - due to the scale of territory versus absence of population - fill a critical transportation function but are for romantic, historical purposes only, serving railroad hobbyists and retirees on holiday ... routes like the Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Silver Meteor, etc.The slice of AMTRAK that serves the northeast corridor - New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. - should remain in public hands since it represents critical infrastructure and could only be transferred from a public monopoly to a private monopoly, but not de-monopolized, due to the inherent nature of railway technology.
BBS?Symmetry wrote:A fairy tale of the free market.
Again, not really, because it's not an example of the free market in action. It's an example of crony capitalism. The free market is involved in the destruction of monopolies - public monopolies, private monopolies, whatever. A state of monopoly is the absence of economic freedom, ergo, where a monopoly exists the free market does not.
That would be the fairy tale bit- they ain't true, much as some would like to believe in them.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. If I flash you my testicles and tell you "this is Jupiter and Saturn" the fact that my balls aren't Jupiter and Saturn doesn't mean those planets don't exist. The fact that the Tories are intentionally mislabeling "crony capitalism" as "free market" does not mean free market public services don't work, nor does it mean they do work.
Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:That and too many people rely on it.
That's a good point.
Similarly, I support partial privatization of the U.S. railway line, AMTRAK. The partial, in this sense would be the western routes that don't - due to the scale of territory versus absence of population - fill a critical transportation function but are for romantic, historical purposes only, serving railroad hobbyists and retirees on holiday ... routes like the Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Silver Meteor, etc.The slice of AMTRAK that serves the northeast corridor - New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. - should remain in public hands since it represents critical infrastructure and could only be transferred from a public monopoly to a private monopoly, but not de-monopolized, due to the inherent nature of railway technology.
BBS?Symmetry wrote:A fairy tale of the free market.
Again, not really, because it's not an example of the free market in action. It's an example of crony capitalism. The free market is involved in the destruction of monopolies - public monopolies, private monopolies, whatever. A state of monopoly is the absence of economic freedom, ergo, where a monopoly exists the free market does not.
That would be the fairy tale bit- they ain't true, much as some would like to believe in them.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. If I flash you my testicles and tell you "this is Jupiter and Saturn" the fact that my balls aren't Jupiter and Saturn doesn't mean those planets don't exist. The fact that the Tories are intentionally mislabeling "crony capitalism" as "free market" does not mean free market public services don't work, nor does it mean they do work.
Hmm, if I told you a tale about free markets working better for the British rail system, as the Conservatives did when they implemented their policy, it would be fair to call that a fairy tale, no? I can accept that it was in reality crony capitalism, but I was referring to the tale originally told, and its failure in the face of reality. It wasn't true, it was a fairy tale.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:
Hmm, if I told you a tale about free markets working better for the British rail system, as the Conservatives did when they implemented their policy, it would be fair to call that a fairy tale, no? I can accept that it was in reality crony capitalism, but I was referring to the tale originally told, and its failure in the face of reality. It wasn't true, it was a fairy tale.
If your statement existed in a vacuum, yes. However, your OP makes it clear you're trying to juxtapose this incident to correctly labeled examples of free market action.
Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:
Hmm, if I told you a tale about free markets working better for the British rail system, as the Conservatives did when they implemented their policy, it would be fair to call that a fairy tale, no? I can accept that it was in reality crony capitalism, but I was referring to the tale originally told, and its failure in the face of reality. It wasn't true, it was a fairy tale.
If your statement existed in a vacuum, yes. However, your OP makes it clear you're trying to juxtapose this incident to correctly labeled examples of free market action.
Not sure why that means it wasn't a fairy tale, but I'll go along with the vacuum line if you've let that one go.
So vacuums. Well, nature abhors them. So which correct examples was I clearly juxtaposing it with in the OP?
Symmetry wrote:Seems if you want a public service, it's cheaper to do it yourself than hand it over to private markets.

Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
Lootifer wrote:You haven't really explained any of the core issues that define the private vs state argument though. I mean im all for it, rail systems are natural monopolies so often state ownership makes sense BUT you have shown no evidence that the state just ran the rail systems in a hugely unsustainable manner then dumped the trainwreck (pun intended) onto private investors (who arguably should have known better - though they prob saw it as very low risk because of the bailout safety net, i dunno...?)
Where are these magic efficiencies that the state could manage but private companies can't seem to emulate??
Symmetry wrote:'Tis a sad and salutary tale, of what happens when a public service important to national wellbeing is handed over to the private sector in the belief that competition will lower prices and raise standards.
I talk, of course, of the British railway system.
British Rail, twas it's name back in the day and complaints there were. We like to grumble, us Brits, and trains and the weather are perennial topics. "It's raining outside" is a typical start to a British conversation, as if that should be either surprising or an unusual place for rain to fall.
But the trains are the issue. The Conservative government, in their wisdom, decided that free markets would be better than a nationally held rail system. It'd be a brighter tomorrow, one more efficient, and cheaper!
Sadly we have reality, and free market fantacism didn't quite live up to the hype. Ticket prices skyrocketed. Who knew that a service so many people needed on an essential basis would incentivise private companies to raise prices year on year well over inflation to maximise profits. Well, obviously the pinko liberals pointed that out, but common sense could dismiss them. Competition would drive prices down. Sadly that dream fell prey to reality, with its liberal bias. Tickets became more expensive.
Quality of service however, that must have improved? Sadly no. Who would have thought that private companies would try to minimise their expenses? What incentive would they have? Why would they cut staff? Cut back on safety precautions? Have fewer carriages? Alas, reality bit.
But here's the real couple of kickers. You'll like these.
In order simply to keep the train network running now, even in its more expensive for commuters and sadly shoddy state, the government has to provide subsidies and tax breaks to the private companies who employ fewer people and do less. It gets worse. Those subsidies and breaks are more than it cost to run it when it was nationalised. Seems if you want a public service, it's cheaper to do it yourself than hand it over to private markets.
Ah, but one last morsel. A fun one, this. Who do you think bought up some of the remnants of the nationalised British rail system? Why, my friends, it was the German and Dutch nationalised rail companies. That's right, the profits to be made from British customers help subsidise lower ticket prices and high levels of service for other nationalised networks abroad. And it still costs us more. Smart people those lowlanders. Maybe when the US goes completely freemarket, the NHS can try a similar trick with US healthcare.
Turns out there are some things a country needs in order to run efficiently. And privatisation doesn't always help.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Symmetry wrote:It's an example of how proposing that free markets will magically solve something ended up in disaster, of course, not that I expected much from the responses beyond outright dismissal.
Saxi- can you name one example where privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system? For the sake of comparison. Just posting "all of them" doesn't quite fly for me, although I guess it worked for BBS and TGD.
BBS- sorry, but the wiki article is sourced. You'll find the references at the bottom of the article, under "References", or by clicking on the numbers after in brackets at the end of statements. I'm not hiding behind it by posting a source of information that has references. I guess I could type out the wiki article's points and claim them as my own, but i suspect that would also be misread.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:It's an example of how proposing that free markets will magically solve something ended up in disaster, of course, not that I expected much from the responses beyond outright dismissal.
Saxi- can you name one example where privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system? For the sake of comparison. Just posting "all of them" doesn't quite fly for me, although I guess it worked for BBS and TGD.
BBS- sorry, but the wiki article is sourced. You'll find the references at the bottom of the article, under "References", or by clicking on the numbers after in brackets at the end of statements. I'm not hiding behind it by posting a source of information that has references. I guess I could type out the wiki article's points and claim them as my own, but i suspect that would also be misread.
It sounds like you have a problem with crony capitalism (or crony capitalism that is labelled "free market" by politicians). I have a similar problem with these things. So we are in agreement.
What becomes a problem is when you use the same desingation as the politicians ("free market") to label something that is not free market. So this thread appears to be a denigration of crony capitalism and the politicians that label crony capitalism a free market solution; and not a thread denigrating a free market solution.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:It's an example of how proposing that free markets will magically solve something ended up in disaster, of course, not that I expected much from the responses beyond outright dismissal.
Saxi- can you name one example where privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system? For the sake of comparison. Just posting "all of them" doesn't quite fly for me, although I guess it worked for BBS and TGD.
BBS- sorry, but the wiki article is sourced. You'll find the references at the bottom of the article, under "References", or by clicking on the numbers after in brackets at the end of statements. I'm not hiding behind it by posting a source of information that has references. I guess I could type out the wiki article's points and claim them as my own, but i suspect that would also be misread.
It sounds like you have a problem with crony capitalism (or crony capitalism that is labelled "free market" by politicians). I have a similar problem with these things. So we are in agreement.
What becomes a problem is when you use the same desingation as the politicians ("free market") to label something that is not free market. So this thread appears to be a denigration of crony capitalism and the politicians that label crony capitalism a free market solution; and not a thread denigrating a free market solution.
So again, can you provide an example of a free market solution? Tis much of what I asked for in the previous thread- an example of a public service system that is more efficiently provided by the free market, and now that cannot be labelled as crony capitalism.
If it's not a fantasy, where is the reality? How can you be certain that a free market solution proposed to a problem won't be a fairy tale, like that of the British rail network, and end up with crony capitalism?