Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It seems as though this is following a familiar pattern (as in the UK) of:

"Privatise the profit, push the risk/cost to the local community"



sort by: page size:

This reminds me of how (in some parts of Europe at least) a lot of communities are trying to buy back the municipal water and power plants that were originally privatised "because privatisation benefits the economy". Turns out creating a (new) monopoly by selling all the public infrastructure to the same company isn't actually good for anyone (other than that company).

It’s more of an example of privatisation than anything else.

Interesting thing here is that is an example of why privatisation is bad (the people get scammed), but at the same time an example of government's administrative incompetence (which can be an argument for privatisation).

Personally, I'm tired of all this neoliberal bullshit and would rather just figure out a way to make our public institutions run extremely well.


It's a classic tactic: underfund government services, then point to how they don't work as a pretext to privatise.

You know, it's maybe a bad idea to privatize some things https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/10/mathew-la... water in the U.K got more expensive and the service worse. A terrible deal for everyone but a handful of private equity investors.

The issue with "privatisation" (they're not all the same) IMO is that it's usually done by politicians trying to get something for nothing.

Lets say the benefits of privatisation are 10% cheaper widgets or power stations, a politician will aim for 30%. Goodbye future.


Privatisation gone wrong!

Ahh, so another thing that can be blamed on the privatisation of organisations that shouldn't be privatised.

This is also part of the problem.

It's of a piece with the other 80s privatisations: rather than provide services by the state, move them into the private sector (but still paid for by the state), guaranteeing profits to the purchasers.


Australia has followed America in making that mistake too, sadly. Other countries as well I assume. The politicians that push this, seem to make sure it’s their cronies that are the ones that get to make billions off said privatisation, too.

You might have a point if one of the reliable features of privatisations in the UK over the last few decades hadn't been a steady stream of ministers pushing through privatisation - often at significant public cost - and then parachuting straight into the board of the privatised company.

This is a bazillion times worse than cash in an envelope, because it's straightforward larceny of public resources, papered over with some thin PR nonsense about "efficiency".

This current government isn't even pretending to do anything else. There have been so many no-bid contracts for "PPE supply" handed out to cronies with no PPE experience - and no PPE delivered, while lethal shortages continue - that there are are now formal legal challenges working their way through the courts.


Privatisations are disasters because they are designed to be. Its proponents want to see the state fail.

TLDR version: “it’s making it too hard to privatise services”

In this case it makes more sense to privatize these sort of things.

> If privatisation means opening up a line of business to all comers, it's good.

Not always. Often when this happens, it's just a race to the bottom.


I think you understand the situation perfectly. I'm similarly at a loss to explain why anyone thinks it was ever a good idea to privatise, unless you're one of the few directly profiting from the situation.

Not sure what privatisations have to do with the problem. My understanding is that it is a combination of a technical problem (corrosion happening at an unexpected pace) and the impact of covid lockdowns which deferred critical maintenance.

Hmm... The private market is 'taking business away' from local government. Why is this an issue?

Did blinders cause you to only look at the private ownership bit? OP seemed relatively clear that it was the concept of privatising the profit, socialising costs part he didn't like much.
next

Legal | privacy