President Trump

ChicagoBlue said:
A time and a place far different from today
Click to expand...

We are at a point where 53k people own 50% of the worlds wealth, huge inequality apart from a period after ww2 for a few countries it always been like this.

That’s like the Etihad having the wealthiest inside & 8.3biliion people on the outside fighting for scraps. If those on the inside own all the resources then you have a world that looks like mass slums who own nothing for the majority. Think Jakarta, Mumbai or Manila.

It’s important for the benefit of the nation that certain resources are owned by the nation, utilities, transport infrastructure, communications, sufficient housing, hospitals.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think for many people in the political centre, like me, there’s an increasing view that many more industries should be state owned and operated because capitalism is no longer working as it once was.
Click to expand...
Did Nationalization work? Ever?

Serious questions.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see capitalism as the cause of British problems, political or economic. Attitudes play a much greater part, imho.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Did Nationalization work? Ever?

Serious questions.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see capitalism as the cause of British problems, political or economic. Attitudes play a much greater part, imho.
Click to expand...
Essential services should not be in the hands of private companies, IMO. If the consumer cannot do without a product, they are hostage to the market, and the market is effectively a monopoly in the case of the provision of water, utilities, and transport.

It is about attitudes though, you are correct. If a company is willing to pump raw sewage in to seas and rivers that is an attitude that hasn't been caused by capitalism, but it is allowed to flourish under that model. Do we have to accept that the company doing it makes billions of pounds in profit and releases billions in profits to shareholders while doing it? We cannot switch to another provider, and we cannot vote that company out of office, AND we cannot choose to not have their product.

Will that change under a nationalised model - we do not know, but it seems certain that the attitude will.
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBlue said:
Did Nationalization work? Ever?
Click to expand...
By ‘work’ presumably you mean ‘work better than in private hands’. The answer to that question is yes.

Do you think that the provision of fire safety, the police or the military should be in private hands? Because unless your answer is ‘yes’ then you do support state ownership of certain industries. Which means you must accept some industries work better in state hands.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
By ‘work’ presumably you mean ‘work better than in private hands’. The answer to that question is yes.

Do you think that the provision of fire safety, the police or the military should be in private hands? Because unless your answer is ‘yes’ then you do support state ownership of certain industries. Which means you must accept some industries work better in state hands.
Click to expand...
Privatization is always about the bottom line, so they will put as little in as possible to maximise profits for shareholders, just look at the water industry, no reservoirs built and we could have zero water problems and lower prices of over the last 30/40 years they had invested in it, yet non of us can switch provider, it’s a disgrace.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Did Nationalization work? Ever?

Serious questions.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see capitalism as the cause of British problems, political or economic. Attitudes play a much greater part, imho.
Click to expand...

It worked for the majority but they don’t count.

Have a look at Norway & see what they did with less oil than the uk.

Also why can Nationalism not work alongside capitalism. It’s ok to socialise bank losses but not nationalise state assets?
 
oldius said:
Essential services should not be in the hands of private companies, IMO. If the consumer cannot do without a product, they are hostage to the market, and the market is effectively a monopoly in the case of the provision of water, utilities, and transport.

It is about attitudes though, you are correct. If a company is willing to pump raw sewage in to seas and rivers that is an attitude that hasn't been caused by capitalism, but it is allowed to flourish under that model. They have to accept that the company doing it makes billions of pounds in profit and releases billions in profits to shareholders while doing it. They cannot switch to another provider. They cannot vote that company out of office.

Will that change under a nationalised model - we do not know, but it seems certain that the attitude will.
Click to expand...

My superannuation fund in Oz owns % of Uk water. How can it be right that I can live from a passive investment from shitty water.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Privatization is always about the bottom line, so they will put as little in as possible to maximise profits for shareholders, just look at the water industry, no reservoirs built and we could have zero water problems and lower prices of over the last 30/40 years they had invested in it, yet non of us can switch provider, it’s a disgrace.
Click to expand...

It’s always smoke & mirrors that it needs private ownership to run it better. The same people that built these businesses from scratch suddenly don’t have the ability to maintain them.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
By ‘work’ presumably you mean ‘work better than in private hands’. The answer to that question is yes.

Do you think that the provision of fire safety, the police or the military should be in private hands? Because unless your answer is ‘yes’ then you do support state ownership of certain industries. Which means you must accept some industries work better in state hands.
Click to expand...
If you consider police, fire and the military as “industries,” then I can only suggest we will never see eye to eye. Exactly what “product” are we buying and where do we go to “buy” it?

I’m absolutely not a laissez-faire, or unfettered, capitalist. However, I think all “industries” should work in the public good, be it through providing a quality good or service at a fair price or being restricted in their pursuit of profit by the need to balance it with the public good.

However, having grown up in England during a period of rampant nationalization, I’m struggling to find a time when it was both lauded and priced such that it wasn’t an industry hemorrhaging taxpayer money.

Do I think we should remove the (excess) profit motive from some endeavors? Yes, with medicine being a primary one. However, should a private company be allowed to recoup their investment in R&D? Absolutely…but from where? The public purse for the greater good, or should those people requiring the drug be forced to cover it? These are societal problems with which we wrestle today.

The view from abroad is that many of England's problems are self-inflicted by a nanny state mentality and (now) generations who believe it owes them something. Good luck with that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top