Comments on: Refuted economic doctrines #2: The case for privatisation

By: Oghoator Henry

Oghoator Henry — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:08:15 +0000

Privatisation as a principle has failed. The stimulus package been introduced is a complete negation of the privatisation doctrine which has been preached and forced on developing Economies. The insistence that governments do not have a role to play is now been revised now that they are faced with similar situation. This is Hypocrisy . Now where is IMF that would insist of privatisation before Aid is given to developing countries?.

By: Oghoator Henry

Oghoator Henry — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:07:01 +0000

By: Zombie Ideas | Condor Options

Zombie Ideas | Condor Options — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:52:48 +0000

[...] The efficient markets hypothesis #2 The case for privatisation #3 The Great Moderation #4 Individual retirement accounts #5 Trickle [...]

By: Alanna

Alanna — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:20:59 +0000

62# J’accorde les points à Cent commentaires…

By: Cent commentaires » Béchard renvoie Hydro à ses devoirs

Cent commentaires » Béchard renvoie Hydro à ses devoirs — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:09:49 +0000

[...] MAJ: Excellents arguments économiques en faveur du maintien de l’économie mixte par John Quiggin [...]

By: Alanna

Alanna — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:05:54 +0000

Kalenberg#

Didnt something like that happen in Naples under Berlusconi? Garbrage piled up on the streets (to the utter amazement of the rest of the world ?)

See these photos for privatised and now mafia run garbage collection. Its a shocker. Unfortunately privatisation doesnt incorporate morals testing. If ever there was a case for nationalising garbage this is it!

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1702831,00.html

and
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0830577220080109

By: Kaleberg

Kaleberg — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:36:23 +0000

I remember the 1960s when NYC privatized commercial trash pickup. I remember a friend of my father’s saying quite simply, “the family”. He was referring to the Mafia and organized crime. Sure enough, that’s who ran commercial trash pickup in NYC into the 1990s when the likes of Rudy Giuliani finally put an end to it. (One undercover cop who pretended to be a building manager did such a good job that the building hired for that job him when he left the police force.) Needless to say, the private sector was able to keep costs relatively high. It’s not sure if anyone saved any money on trash pickup since the Mafia guaranteed each of its operators a profit. Of course the trash pickup guys got lower pay and fewer benefits than if they had worked for the city, but that’s what privatization is all about.

By: daggett

daggett — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:58:34 +0000

I commend the article "National broadband: what kind of monopoly?" by Tristan Ewins on Online Opinion. The forum discussion is here.

By: piglet

piglet — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:05:52 +0000

“Q3. In a sector, such as banking, where there are many successful and popular private operators what is the merit of the government also being a supplier? And which bank should it buy?”

This is an interesting question and it is related to the financial crisis. Many governments do provide financial services. Switzerland is a major example. Most states operate their own bank (Kantonalbank, some of which have meanwhile been privatized) and the federally owned Postal Service, although not a full bank, is actually the country’s biggest financial services provider (by customers, not by revenue, of course). Having public institutions provide cheap and reliable financial services for ordinary people has been and is still regarded as important, and I believe adds stability to the financial sector. Moreover, a host of co-op savings banks similarly provide banking services. This is “mixed economy” at its best and in my experience, ordinary customers get much better services and lower fees here than in the US where there are virtually no non-commercial banks.

Germany’s financial sector has a similar structure but the Postbank there has been privatised, and some of the public institutions have been involved in the financial crisis due to lack of oversight. It should be noted that even many government-owned companies have in recent years adopted a “privatization” mindset, increasingly acting like ordinary profit-maximizing coporations, often with the blessing of regulators. That is likely to change now that the consequences are becoming obvious. But the municipality-owned savings banks (Stadtsparkasse or Kreissparkasse) that still serve most Germans are now seen as solid as a rock and customers of the commercial banks are coming in droves to deposit their savings.

By: piglet

piglet — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:22:08 +0000

“An element to be kept in mind is that private companies fear the government, and therefore can be more responsive to customers’ complaints.”

I don’t think that is true. To the contrary, I believe that one big reason why politicians have come to love privatisation so much is exactly the fact that they won’t be held responsible any more. When a government-provided service is performed badly, people know where to complain: it’s the government’s fault. If that service is sufficiently important and popular, it’s quality becomes a high profile political issue. Once that service is privatized, it’s “the market” or “the economy” or whatever. You cannot complain about “the market”.

Train delays, fee hikes, denied health care? A scandal if the government is responsible. Business as usual if it is a private business decision.