Nationalization v privatization

The Quiet Man brings up an excellent point about the privatization of prisons and I broadened that to privatization generally, commenting:

It’s a really interesting philosophical point about the privatization of utilities and prisons can loosely be included with these – essential services in other words. In Russia, I lived with the State providing these and they were cheap.

On the other hand, when they broke down [often], there was almost no redress, i.e. there was a public service mentality to getting off the butt, filling in all the forms in triplicate and the engineer getting off his butt the following Thursday to fix them.

Which was better, particularly in this country where it’s the catalyst for socialism?  That’s why I think the government doesn’t want the crims at the head of the utilities companies to stop – they want people to cry out for the nationalization of services again.

The eminently forgettable film Johnny English did have some moments and one was the premise of the private prison and Britain England being turned into a prison farm.   For source material, you need only go to the industrial revolution and the prison hulks on the Thames, followed by transportation.   You think we can’t get back to that, given the political incompetence of the crims and traitors in charge of us and the astuteness of those behind them?

Creeping nationalization has been on for some time, driven by Them:

Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials rode to the rescue of one financial institution after another, they took great pains to avoid doing anything that smacked of nationalizing banks.    They may no longer have that luxury.

This is the way it’s always done – not offically openly and honestly as a part of a platform of socialism but as a neo-Hegelian reaction to a crisis that had been induced.   And it polarizes the debate. John in Cheshire is one I’d call conservative in general and yet he writes, in that OoL comments thread:

Could someone tell me why I shouldn’t think that prisons shouldn’t be privatised? I think it’s one of the few necessary things that we should pay for in taxes.

This is the native cunning of those who control the government – to polarize the debate into nationalization v privatization – both in their worst forms and taken to excess – and then to demand a “choice” by the people on this.

There does not have to be an all or nothing situation.

Personally, I’d like to see the utilities – gas, electricity, water, phone – nationalized, with the profit motive extracted – the less worse option so to speak.   That does not mean anything else should be nationalized.    I saw this in operation in the State of Victoria in the 80s – there was an SEC [electricity] and though people grumbled about this or that, you didn’t get the profit motif where it has no place – you just had the service.   There was also the water, gas and phone provided that way.

All other aspects of life – jobs, banking, leisure, shopping – were free enterprise.   Sadly, it probably couldn’t work today because the private world has been taken over by greedy crims like the Dymons, aided and abetted by the Geithners and is it any better than a service provided by the Geithners, outsourced to the Dymons?

As has been noted elsewhere, we’re between a rock and a hard place and that’s we’re the bstds want us.


IMF’s plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers

Post navigation

2 comments for “Nationalization v privatization

  1. October 23, 2012 at 22:01

    I would disagree with you about the nationalisation of the utilities. Once BT became a private company and other companies were allowed to compete in providing telephony services the whole environment for communications thrived. In the days of the GPO everything was stiffled. No innovation, no progress – because there was no need to. Nationalistion means no competition so no push to keep getting better, becasue there is no need to.

    It gets difficult to privatise with services like water, gas, and electricity where the infrastructure means that there can only be one. But one infrastructure owner, not necessarily one supplier. Like trains, one infrastructure owner which could be a company owned by the state, but the trains can all be privately run.

    Even prisons can be privatised. Admittedly not made easy at the moment by the actions of G4S. But that’s because of the power of politicians who continually pervert the course of the free market by appointing companies who lobby the most rather than those who are actually good at it.

  2. October 23, 2012 at 22:44

    Think your last paragraph is the most vital one here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *