![]() |
|
|
|
#61 (permalink) | |||||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 272
![]() |
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#62 (permalink) | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,682
![]() |
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#63 (permalink) | ||||||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,682
![]() |
Quote:
I don’t see why the government being the major shareholder in a company suddenly makes it inefficient. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#64 (permalink) | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,682
![]() |
Quote:
After privatisation it was losing about the same amont a year. As for British Coal it was by far the best Coal company in Europe with the highest producation levels and cheapest production costs. As I remember at the time Thatcher banned exports of Coal and bought around 15% of our electricity from France while all so buying electricity from BNFL which was 3 times more expensive than British Coal. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#65 (permalink) | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,682
![]() |
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#66 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,115
![]() |
This-England, you have changed your argument. You previously said it was Thatcher that did all the damage but now it was socialism prior to Thatcher that did all the damage!
The fact is that Britain before 1979 was an economic basket case - indeed, the "sick man of Europe". The reforms in the 1980s helped to turn the situation around but we have a legacy of low productivity, and oversized public sector and declining industries. Your statement about British Steel is bizarre. It did become profitable in the late 1980s when it was cut back drastically in preparation for privatisation, but we must all recall the loss-making industry of the 1970s that was costing the taxpayer (famously) £1 million per day. British Leyland was so poor that it lost its huge advantage in the market place and even its eventual sale to BMW failed to turn it round. IIRC BMW sold it for £10 and gave a soft loan of hundreds of millions just to get it off their hands. You only cite something as being corporatism when it shows signs of success but postwar Britain demonstrates the ultimate failure of that economic model. It may be effective for developing countries wishing to build key industries rapidly but you cannot run a diverse and complex economy by command and control. Anyway, I know where you are coming from with this corporatist idea: fascism, pure and simple. I fear that we have strayed off topic however. Sorry, mods. :roll: |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 (permalink) | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 272
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
If the government part-owns a company, that company is linked inextricably with the government of the day and its politics. In the hands of unscrupulous (read: all) politicians, this means that the company becomes a direct policy arm of the government. The directors of the company will formulate business strategies that are unworkable or that benefit the government, knowing full well the government will bail them out. The government will create policies that distort the market further to fit their own benefits, forcing other companies to close and creating unemploment. So a government-owned company reduces competition, which keeps prices for consumers artificially high. It reduces the number of other companies competing which increases unemployment. And because there is not enough competition this means that the company can be as slack and useless as it likes and will still make a profit. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#68 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,115
![]() |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]