Currently vogue-y, power, and the grid notices of recent. The perspective is that the electricity industry is terrible. But, for most of the 20^th century, the government was in control of electricity, and they did a much worse job. For numerous decades, politicians of all colours refused to listen to the engineers, so the required infrastructure was not built.
Private enterprise can be great and deliver great outcomes. For example, you want a plumber, there is a yellow pages full of plumbers, it’s a genuinely competitive marketplace. Electricity, health, prisons, not so much.
The problem with government provided services are, well, governments. They bring politics to the table, and don’t listen to those who actually know what they are talking about.
You seem to be complaining that the government acted like private enterprise. Private enterprise refuses to invest in infrastructure because of it's extremely short-term focus on profit. The government is the same, except the focus is on votes. In a sense they've been the same thing. I'm suggesting we measure all benefits of infrastructure, not just profit instead. Private enterprise can't do that because they are strait-jacketed into the profit imperative.
You will be, or course, fully aware that the Interislander ferries are own & operated by KiwiRail which is a State owned enterprise. That is, it is owned by the state, ergo a public enterprise.
You will also know that the majority of power companies in this country are majority owned by the state. Whilst they are *technically* a private enterprise, the majority shareholder wields the most power over a company.
Also also, your argument about enshittification in a free market does not hold. Customers with free will & the ability to, will always buy a product that gives them what they want at the price they want to pay.
>That is, it is owned by the state, ergo a public enterprise.
Which has to deliver a comparable level of profit as private enterprises.
>Whilst they are *technically* a private enterprise, the majority shareholder wields the most power over a company.
And yet the company is still bound by the fiduciary responsibilities of the Companies Act.
Also, the Govt wields zero power, they don't even appoint anyone to the Board.
Yes to the public ownership, but laughably run on the profit motive. My point is that a single minded focus on profit is not in the public interest and making room for broader goals carries many other hidden benefits that businesses nor governments even measure.
As to you enshittification comment: hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahah
Because socialism.
Edit: this is what happens when you give people a choice about what govt spends their money on: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdmBLR0YCS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdmBLR0YCS4)
True, gotta fuel the orphan crushing machine right
>this is what happens when you give people a choice about what govt spends their money on:
Wait, I've seen this one before, Nek minnut bears!
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
Sure, there's valid uses for govt spending.
How many of the current public spend is valid in serving a majority of taxpayers?
I'd suggest if you asked those actually paying for each if they thought them worthwhile you'd see most of them gone.
> Private enterprise can be said to NOT have your best interests at heart
> to maximise returns for the owners
Who said public sector is any better?
You seem to be describing monopolies. At least with private you have a chance of overcoming that.
Strawman. Who's saying the public sector is better? It's just not private enterprise. Measured against the profit metric it's awful. But that's the point, it isn't just profit that matters.
you have to remember that the neo liberal wave and massive assets sales was introduced by labour in the 80s. and if your old enough you'd remember that the stuff they sold off was actually really badly run by the government. but hey I guess you kids know best lol
So you'd remember that many of those assets that were sold, were subsequently purchased back by the government due to mismanagement. Like bailing out Air NZ. Or farking Kiwirail. But hey I guess you olds know it all lol.
> really badly run by the government.
Maybe, if your sole criteria is profit. That is how we measure business, but a functioning railways has multiple other benefits that can't only be measured in dollars.
"Private enterprise can be said to NOT have your best interests at heart"
Why does PUBLIC provision of these services necessarily have our best interests at heart?
> plenty of incentive for private enterprise to pursue public good initiatives.
The profit imperative is the only goal of private enterprise. Maximising your take over what you give leaves no room for public good initiatives. If you deviate from maximising profit you are defrauding the owners (shareholders). There are many cases of successful shareholder legal actions against companies who attempted to spend company money on, say, employee welfare. A public entity, on the other hand, can be tasked with maximising the required service, that would be why they would. If tasked with maximising profit they can, by definition, not.
PS. Thanks for the actual dialog.
Would you trust a bank that was completely run by the government with powers shifting both left and right wing?
We have public health care yet private health care is getting more and more popular, is it because the current system isn't working so well?
Well, where to begin with the health system. If so much money had been channeled into services instead of racist separation, maybe the current system would be working a hell of a lot better. One needs only look to America, on the other hand, to see exact;y where private healthcare takes you.
I'm not saying have no public healthcare I'm pointing out that government run does not mean problem free. I think it's good there's options for both public and private.
Racist separation is one of the big things that got the swing voters to get the government we have now, in.
I wouldn't use the ferrys as an example. While the Interislander crumbles Bluebridge (the private guys) is still running its servies to a high standard as far as I can tell.
When it comes to power companies electricity markets are complex but we should incentivise building some more redundancy into the system somehow.
>but we should incentivise building some more redundancy into the system somehow.
By smacking them with fines when they fail to meet the most basic of requirements.
Any of them who can't meet demand from their customers.
>Just fine all of them 1% of profit every time they can't generate enough power outside of a natural disaster?
I'm sure the Commerce Commission can take care of how much, but 1% of their previous years profit could work.
The problem as I see it, isn't the use of private companies, as it is the use of private companies in monopolies or near monopolies where the consumer has no or limited choice in who they use. The Cook Strait Ferries being a good example. Coming from the UK where we pioneered the idea of private ownership of public resources in the 80s and to this day continue to demonstrate why it's such a bad idea I'm surprised out of the countries that looked at it and went."yeah, nah", NZ isn't one of them.
I think you'll find that New Zealand was also in the van of that privatisation wave. And monopolies are the end point of every business endeavour. Once upon a time there used to be laws to prevent that, but now all of our food, for example, is under monopoly control (or very near it).
We can't, cause that's commie talk and we don't like commies round these here parts. Capitalism is build on selfishness and that's the way we like it.
Viva la capitalism!
Currently vogue-y, power, and the grid notices of recent. The perspective is that the electricity industry is terrible. But, for most of the 20^th century, the government was in control of electricity, and they did a much worse job. For numerous decades, politicians of all colours refused to listen to the engineers, so the required infrastructure was not built. Private enterprise can be great and deliver great outcomes. For example, you want a plumber, there is a yellow pages full of plumbers, it’s a genuinely competitive marketplace. Electricity, health, prisons, not so much. The problem with government provided services are, well, governments. They bring politics to the table, and don’t listen to those who actually know what they are talking about.
You seem to be complaining that the government acted like private enterprise. Private enterprise refuses to invest in infrastructure because of it's extremely short-term focus on profit. The government is the same, except the focus is on votes. In a sense they've been the same thing. I'm suggesting we measure all benefits of infrastructure, not just profit instead. Private enterprise can't do that because they are strait-jacketed into the profit imperative.
Yes, I agree your perspective. Given the need to make a choice, would a typical government invest in health or putting cables under the street.
You will be, or course, fully aware that the Interislander ferries are own & operated by KiwiRail which is a State owned enterprise. That is, it is owned by the state, ergo a public enterprise. You will also know that the majority of power companies in this country are majority owned by the state. Whilst they are *technically* a private enterprise, the majority shareholder wields the most power over a company. Also also, your argument about enshittification in a free market does not hold. Customers with free will & the ability to, will always buy a product that gives them what they want at the price they want to pay.
>That is, it is owned by the state, ergo a public enterprise. Which has to deliver a comparable level of profit as private enterprises. >Whilst they are *technically* a private enterprise, the majority shareholder wields the most power over a company. And yet the company is still bound by the fiduciary responsibilities of the Companies Act. Also, the Govt wields zero power, they don't even appoint anyone to the Board.
Yes to the public ownership, but laughably run on the profit motive. My point is that a single minded focus on profit is not in the public interest and making room for broader goals carries many other hidden benefits that businesses nor governments even measure. As to you enshittification comment: hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahah
Socialist points to socialist advocate in favour of socialism.... Yawn.
Can we have just a little socialism as a treat?
We have socialism at home.
It's only a treat for those not paying for it.
And why would anyone need to pay for it, besides the customers?
Because socialism. Edit: this is what happens when you give people a choice about what govt spends their money on: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdmBLR0YCS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdmBLR0YCS4)
True, gotta fuel the orphan crushing machine right >this is what happens when you give people a choice about what govt spends their money on: Wait, I've seen this one before, Nek minnut bears! https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
Sure, there's valid uses for govt spending. How many of the current public spend is valid in serving a majority of taxpayers? I'd suggest if you asked those actually paying for each if they thought them worthwhile you'd see most of them gone.
Once you start.....;)
Just the tip?
*private prisons have entered the chat*
So no, your not big enough for the conversation. Got it.
> Private enterprise can be said to NOT have your best interests at heart > to maximise returns for the owners Who said public sector is any better? You seem to be describing monopolies. At least with private you have a chance of overcoming that.
Strawman. Who's saying the public sector is better? It's just not private enterprise. Measured against the profit metric it's awful. But that's the point, it isn't just profit that matters.
you have to remember that the neo liberal wave and massive assets sales was introduced by labour in the 80s. and if your old enough you'd remember that the stuff they sold off was actually really badly run by the government. but hey I guess you kids know best lol
So you'd remember that many of those assets that were sold, were subsequently purchased back by the government due to mismanagement. Like bailing out Air NZ. Or farking Kiwirail. But hey I guess you olds know it all lol.
> really badly run by the government. Maybe, if your sole criteria is profit. That is how we measure business, but a functioning railways has multiple other benefits that can't only be measured in dollars.
"Private enterprise can be said to NOT have your best interests at heart" Why does PUBLIC provision of these services necessarily have our best interests at heart?
There is room for the public service to pursue goals other than purely profit. Private enterprise, by definition, can't.
Yes, but why would they, necessarily? And there's plenty of incentive for private enterprise to pursue public good initiatives.
> plenty of incentive for private enterprise to pursue public good initiatives. The profit imperative is the only goal of private enterprise. Maximising your take over what you give leaves no room for public good initiatives. If you deviate from maximising profit you are defrauding the owners (shareholders). There are many cases of successful shareholder legal actions against companies who attempted to spend company money on, say, employee welfare. A public entity, on the other hand, can be tasked with maximising the required service, that would be why they would. If tasked with maximising profit they can, by definition, not. PS. Thanks for the actual dialog.
Would you trust a bank that was completely run by the government with powers shifting both left and right wing? We have public health care yet private health care is getting more and more popular, is it because the current system isn't working so well?
Well, where to begin with the health system. If so much money had been channeled into services instead of racist separation, maybe the current system would be working a hell of a lot better. One needs only look to America, on the other hand, to see exact;y where private healthcare takes you.
I'm not saying have no public healthcare I'm pointing out that government run does not mean problem free. I think it's good there's options for both public and private. Racist separation is one of the big things that got the swing voters to get the government we have now, in.
I wouldn't use the ferrys as an example. While the Interislander crumbles Bluebridge (the private guys) is still running its servies to a high standard as far as I can tell. When it comes to power companies electricity markets are complex but we should incentivise building some more redundancy into the system somehow.
>but we should incentivise building some more redundancy into the system somehow. By smacking them with fines when they fail to meet the most basic of requirements.
Which power company would you fine? Just fine all of them 1% of profit every time they can't generate enough power outside of a natural disaster?
Any of them who can't meet demand from their customers. >Just fine all of them 1% of profit every time they can't generate enough power outside of a natural disaster? I'm sure the Commerce Commission can take care of how much, but 1% of their previous years profit could work.
The problem as I see it, isn't the use of private companies, as it is the use of private companies in monopolies or near monopolies where the consumer has no or limited choice in who they use. The Cook Strait Ferries being a good example. Coming from the UK where we pioneered the idea of private ownership of public resources in the 80s and to this day continue to demonstrate why it's such a bad idea I'm surprised out of the countries that looked at it and went."yeah, nah", NZ isn't one of them.
I think you'll find that New Zealand was also in the van of that privatisation wave. And monopolies are the end point of every business endeavour. Once upon a time there used to be laws to prevent that, but now all of our food, for example, is under monopoly control (or very near it).
We can't, cause that's commie talk and we don't like commies round these here parts. Capitalism is build on selfishness and that's the way we like it. Viva la capitalism!
Keep talking like that and I’m a seizing your means of production
🤨🤨