Stamp Duty

[Vic]

Businesses exist to make profit, and they will do that very efficiently thank-you very much. If in a competitive market they will do it by offering better products and services at the best possible prices. E.g. Amazon, or indeed pretty much any well run business.

But if they have a monopoly, then businesses are more than happy to just rip people off. Why not - profit is their prime motive, so if they can charge people who have nowhere to go, more money then ker-ching.

What was idiotic, was to sell off state assets, like the railways, and give e.g. the train operators like 10 year monopoly franchises. And WORSE, try to govern them with a toothless regulator that tolerates year upon year of above RPI increases. Shameful. Why not sell off slots like with airfares, so you could choose to go on the XYZ train at 08:30 which is £50 but you get free breakfast, or go on the 08:45 run by a different company that's only £36 but no frills. Where is that choice? If you had choice, rail fares would have fallen, like Easyjet has lowered airfares from the rip off British Airways was charging. Oh wait, British Airways, another former nationalised shambles.

And who was it who sold off the assets in such an incompetent way? Oh wait again. The government. Incompetence in action as per.

How is it that e.g. Unilever can outsource all of its procurement activity to IBM? Or Oracle outsource its marketing? And yet the NHS cannot outsource its cleaning functions without getting reamed? Oh, it's the government again. Quelle surprise. Where is the SLA that penalised poor performance and holds the private cleaning businesses to account with property penalties?

Sorry but the government aka civil servants are incompetent idiots who we should not trust to run a piss up in a brewery. We've already discussed on this very thread the omni-shambles that is HS2 and the NHS national program for IT. More incompetent cock ups. And some of you lot want MORE government? You're mad.

What if there are enough passengers to make a profit running one train, but split them between two trains and both lose money? Great, this competition.

Anyone would think private firms never go bust. And when they do, they go bust owing money to suppliers, employees and the government.

Firms going bust on track for worst year since 2009

Insolvencies rise 10% from a year ago in the three months to the end of September, official figures show.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Vic]

I've already answered you: I don't know of any. That doesn't mean there are none, maybe there aren't, maybe there are. Europe is more socialist generally and they tend to be nationalised but I don't know about e.g. South Korea or Japan or Australia for example. I have no idea.

Anyway what's your answer to my question? Where are the successful non-subsidized state railway systems???

It's a fair question because your position seems to be that our railway services are shite simply because private companies run them. Whereas my position is that they are shite because they are (a) not subsidized and (b) they are monopolies with the customer over a barrel and a shite regulator that allows it.

I put it to you that if you were right then necessarily other private businesses providing public services like e.g. John Lewis would also be shite. And evidently they are not. So why do you think John Lewis can offer outstanding customer service and prices, when train companies do not? This is a serious debate, not a point scoring exercise where we just argue. If you think I am wrong, i'd be interested to know why you think so.

John Lewis turnaround timeframe extended amid fresh losses

Partnership says smaller first-half loss is optimistic sign but recovery plan likely to take two years longer than scheduled

www.theguardian.com

 

[Vic]

For "profiteering" yes. But for running the services, why?

Do Marks and Spencer offer good service? Are they a profit-oriented company? Yes they do and yes they are. The two are not mutually exclusive and if you think they are, then perhaps you could explain why you think that?

For me the key is monopolies. Businesses should not be allowed to have a monopoly. Provided they have to compete, they will strive to win your business by being better. Private (or public) monopolies are fat dumb and happy and take customers - or patients - for granted.

Unlimited demand seems to be your key to efficiency and profit. Economic illiteracy.

Woolworths, C&A, BHS, Debenhams...

4,280 construction companies gone bust in the year to June...

etc etc

 

[Chippy_boy]

@Vic. You forgot about whether or not infrastructure services should be subsidized. Other countries subsidize infrastructure like train services.

Queue you banging on about the Tories - knock yourself out.

 

[Chippy_boy]

CUP MPs in the Red Wallers are just desperate to keep their jobs, one I know is going to struggle after buying a new house 2 years ago, which is affordable on £86k but not in 3 years when then they need a new mortgage deal and they are on £30k.

I doubt many MPs will end up on £30k jobs after life in parliament. Most of them have had a good education to degree level and are intelligent. Added to that the kudos of having been a former MP means I think virtually all of them will step into higher paid jobs, not lower paid ones. MPs pay is pretty crap compared to what they can typically earn in the private sector.

 

[Vic]

@Vic. You forgot about whether or not infrastructure services should be subsidized. Other countries subsidize infrastructure like train services.

Queue you banging on about the Tories - knock yourself out.

Well, yes. I think you'd fancy going back to turnpike roads. Rival electricity pylons. Private armies.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Tories with no interest in municipal and national infrastructure is a relatively modern aberration.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well, yes. I think you'd fancy going back to turnpike roads. Rival electricity pylons. Private armies.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Tories with no interest in municipal and national infrastructure is a relatively modern aberration.

It am not saying EVERYTHING should be run by the private sector.

Anyway, this is all academic. Labour won't have the funds to renationalize anything so the status quo is what we will be stuck with.

 

[johnnytapia]

Should they have privatised all the infrastructure as well?

Is there an example of a successful non subsidised competitive market in railways anywhere in the world?

Snowdon

 

[johnnytapia]

Why are we the only country in the world with all these things being privatised, non subsidised and paying through the teeth for, whilst watching all of their infrastructure decaying.

Water? Leaks everywhere. Sewage pumped out wherever’s cheapest to get rid.

Railways? Tracks deteriorating, being patched up to keep them just about running. Franchises not giving a fuck, creaming off profits and being subsidised to fail.

Roads? No need for speed bumps these days, the potholes are more effective in keeping speed down.

Energy? Bin off green projects for tidal energy to become world leading in that field. Not proceeding with nuclear plants to replace end of life older ones, leaving us open to the free market and fucking over the whole country on heating their homes.

Hospitals falling apart. Not enough staff anyway.

No new affordable housing.

Yet all we hear about is the boat people crippling our country. Oh and stamp duty. ;-)

The whole country has decayed. It needs investment now. Look at how angry people are about everything.

All true. Except your last sentence.
We’re not angry. We never are. Supine and possessed of a timidity which should shame us.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

All true. Except your last sentence.
We’re not angry. We never are. Supine and possessed of a timidity which should shame us.

I disagree. Look at social media, look at the protests that happen.

We've not gone full Dublin yet though. Maybe that’s what you want?