National Industries should they be re-nationalised

B.A.Ware · 29-01-2005, 07:17 PM

Trouble is there would be two many. It’s just like Richard Branson who says he would run the National Lottery for no profit. I bet he would make no profit on the lottery but he would charge top dollar for the use of his staff and his subsidiary companies he would set-up to service it. People are greedy the more they get the more they want.

Julian Morrison · 29-01-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

Quote:

So your saying people should be allowed to make money out of the dying and sick. Why can’t the NHS be run like a private concern for no profit?

When it comes down to it, 'Profit' is just a means of keeping score.

No, actually, it's a lot more than that. Profit reflects the real improvement in subjective usefulness (ie: real wealth) of the result versus all the inputs of a productive activity. Or in short form, profit == newly created wealth. That's why businesses run for a purely selfish profit actually benefit everyone: because they introduce wealth INTO phpbb_the system which wasn't there before. This is the mechanism of economic growth. It's also why I get annoyed with people who think that "making money" is a bad thing.

Let me reframe B.A.Ware's quoted question above in a way which illustrates its hidden mistake. "So your saying supermarkets should be allowed to make money out of the hungry?" Implication, supermarkets will sell to the rich and leave the poor to starve, therefore we need a National Food Service. Do they? Obviously not. Business is all about finding markets - and the poor in need of cheap but effective healthcare are definitely a market.

Paul Birch · 29-01-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.A.Ware

Paul Birch
How are you going to turn around the railways with no public money? No private business would touch them without subsidies, at the moment we spend millions subsidising the likes of Virgin rail.

Obviously businesses will take subsidies if they can get them. If they can't they'll do the best they can without. In the case of the railways, they have been hamstrung by endless unnecessary impositions for many years. I have little doubt that they could be operated profitably in a free market. But if I'm mistaken, and they couldn't, that would be proof that the railways are a waste of our national resources and we'd be better off without them. We must learn to stop throwing good money after bad.

Bellatrix · 29-01-2005, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.A.Ware

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatrix

No! businesses need incentives to be efficient! We need to privatise more - the NHS for example!

So your saying people should be allowed to make money out of the dying and sick. Why can’t the NHS be run like a private concern for no profit? Richard Branson said he would run the Lottery for no profit

Good on Richard Branson.

The French and German (Belgian! eek!) have very good private health insurance which is run by not-for-profit charities. Don't confuse profits with abnormal profits.

And anyone who had studies contestable markets theory could see the problem with the railways and their privatiseation....but then that was the influence of the socialists.

OldChap · 31-01-2005, 06:36 PM

If you are to nationalize a business or a sector or the economy then I have always thought the best way forward was to limit the Government to a 33% share of any business with only general voting rights, with no boardroom manipulating preferred stock. Industries in the national interest could the be targeted like utilities, railways or BAe Systems, other current companies like the Royal Mail or RailTrack could be reduced in ownership down to 33%, on the other hand a 33% stake in MG Rover should helped to stand on it’s own two feet, later the stake holdings could be reduced down to 20% if desirable.

spaman · 04-02-2005, 07:57 AM

Absolutely, totally and most definately not !

If we have learnt anything from the last 50 years, surely it is that the state cannot run big industries - it is a disaster - just look at the NHS

From the 60's on, it became apparant that no matter how contrived, it was pretty well impossible to make nationilised industries work......... there were a whole bunch of things, including moral, working practises, and union issues........

..........besides, I want to see a lot less government, not more !

Nic · 08-02-2005, 11:05 PM

One thing I do know a bit about is railways, having worked in the industry for 30 years.

The worst thing that can happen in something as capital intensive as the railway is that the rules keep changing as governments change (or just change their minds). When economic downturn hits, what's a government going to do? Cut pensions or nationalised industry funding? Cut NHS spending or ... well, you get the picture.

The main problem is that civil servants are no bloody good at running things, whether they be railways or dentistry. There is no value added in 5 year plans, targets, mindless regulation etc., it's just that those things are what civil servants ARE good at so, as the civil service gets ever bigger, the devil makes work for idle hands.

View Poll Results: Should the National Industries be re-nationalised
Yes	3	13.64%
No	11	50.00%
Depends on the industry	8	36.36%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

04-02-2005, 07:57 AM	#36 (permalink)
spaman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 892	LESS GOVERNMENT - NOT MORE Absolutely, totally and most definately not ! If we have learnt anything from the last 50 years, surely it is that the state cannot run big industries - it is a disaster - just look at the NHS From the 60's on, it became apparant that no matter how contrived, it was pretty well impossible to make nationilised industries work......... there were a whole bunch of things, including moral, working practises, and union issues........ ..........besides, I want to see a lot less government, not more !

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29-01-2005, 07:17 PM	#31 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,495 Party: UKIP	Trouble is there would be two many. It’s just like Richard Branson who says he would run the National Lottery for no profit. I bet he would make no profit on the lottery but he would charge top dollar for the use of his staff and his subsidiary companies he would set-up to service it. People are greedy the more they get the more they want.

31-01-2005, 06:36 PM	#35 (permalink)
OldChap Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Out in the colonies, for now Posts: 26	If you are to nationalize a business or a sector or the economy then I have always thought the best way forward was to limit the Government to a 33% share of any business with only general voting rights, with no boardroom manipulating preferred stock. Industries in the national interest could the be targeted like utilities, railways or BAe Systems, other current companies like the Royal Mail or RailTrack could be reduced in ownership down to 33%, on the other hand a 33% stake in MG Rover should helped to stand on it’s own two feet, later the stake holdings could be reduced down to 20% if desirable.

08-02-2005, 11:05 PM	#37 (permalink)
Nic Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 164	One thing I do know a bit about is railways, having worked in the industry for 30 years. The worst thing that can happen in something as capital intensive as the railway is that the rules keep changing as governments change (or just change their minds). When economic downturn hits, what's a government going to do? Cut pensions or nationalised industry funding? Cut NHS spending or ... well, you get the picture. The main problem is that civil servants are no bloody good at running things, whether they be railways or dentistry. There is no value added in 5 year plans, targets, mindless regulation etc., it's just that those things are what civil servants ARE good at so, as the civil service gets ever bigger, the devil makes work for idle hands.