Corbynomics: A Dystopia

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Got tickets to see Jeremy's coronation at the South Bank on Sat. A bit gutted because I voted for Andy but still we live in interesting times!

why do you describe 10-15 more years of tory government as 'interesting ' times?

cells

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What services are so bad?

The beauty of competition is that you can go from supplier to supplier so it's difficult to say that a service is bad

However does the large volume of people swapping from supplier to supplier suggest anything. So for example lots of people complain about the Vodafone network and they switch to alternates like for instance the 3 network but on the other hand lots of people complain about the 3 network and switch to Vodafone if there was no competition for example a state supplier I think the same people complaining would probably be complaining a lot louder they could do nothing about it. is the service good or is the Service bad?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you describe 10-15 more years of tory government as 'interesting ' times?

Because the fruitcake known as Corbyn will win

Tromking

Moby wrote: »

The ones that dont exist anymore mainly.

Indeed.
UK governments seem to want to get of the "doing stuff" business.
What sort of steely eyed ultra efficient private sector management hands back Network Rail to the State with £30 billion pounds worth of debt I wonder?
Rural bus services, public libraries and regular refuse collections won't last for too much longer if the state carries on its retreat.
I'm not sure in a country where the state is getting ever smaller and providing less for its citizens it is justifiable that just 20 private companies are in receipt of £20 billion pounds of tax payers money.

Generali

cells wrote: »

We do not live in an economic experiment how can you be confident thats the thing you mention are down to purely ownership structure and that other factors like population change or technology improvements or disposable income didn't play some if not most of the part in improving performance and profits?

Okay, so we can say that the massive improvements that came about at the time of privatisation across a range of industries were due to either:

1. Privatisation
2. Something entirely coincidental that just occured at the same time across many different industries

My money is on 1. If you think it was a massive coincidence then you are obviously entitled to that belief in a free country. I'm not sure that I'd support chucking away £150bn on a vague feeling that it was not privatisation that improved things myself.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

Indeed.
UK governments seem to want to get of the "doing stuff" business.
What sort of steely eyed ultra efficient private sector management hands back Network Rail to the State with £30 billion pounds worth of debt I wonder?
Rural bus services, public libraries and regular refuse collections won't last for too much longer if the state carries on its retreat.
I'm not sure in a country where the state is getting ever smaller and providing less for its citizens it is justifiable that just 20 private companies are in receipt of £20 billion pounds of tax payers money.

difficult to identify where the state is getting ever smaller.

where I live the refuse collection is pretty efficient; in fact the amount of recycling seems to be increasing

library services are declining but these are only used by the old (rich boomers) and middle class children

rural bus service : working class scum use cars -disgraceful

presumably, rather than 20 private companies you prefer one single inefficient monopoly?

cells

Generali wrote: »

Okay, so we can say that the massive improvements that came about at the time of privatisation across a range of industries were due to either:

1. Privatisation
2. Something entirely coincidental that just occured at the same time across many different industries

My money is on 1. If you think it was a massive coincidence then you are obviously entitled to that belief in a free country. I'm not sure that I'd support chucking away £150bn on a vague feeling that it was not privatisation that improved things myself.

but there are factors which would have helped all sectors and industries

for example, an increasing population. That would help the train companies it would help the grid operator it would help the power companies it would help the water companies etc


specifically on the fortune of the train companies.

Lots of journeys are into and out of London.
in the 50s the 60s the 70s and much of the 80s Londons population fell and fell big time and so did the fortune of the railways.
At the same time London was building quite a lot of new homes. What this meant was that in the 90s it was fairly affordable to live in London. Someone living in Reading only had to pay a 10% premium to live in Hackney so if they got a job in the city they would have moved. But now the same person in Reading would have to pay pay 150% more to live in central London so they stay living in Reading and taking the trains.

It isn't that the trains have got all fantastic under private operators that everyone loves to spend 3 hours of their life half asleep in a steel carriage next to another half asleep fat bloke. Its got more to do with population changes and housing provision and historical demographic shifts. The trains probably have gotten better and its because they have more customers at least in part (probably majority) because of this factor

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

2. Something entirely coincidental that just occured at the same time across many different industries

Adoption of new management techniques such as from Japan. Which brought with it higher productivity. Honda to this day in Swindon still pay a 10% bonus every month for full attendance. Japan in its day was a world leader in many areas of industry.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

but there are factors which would have helped all sectors and industries

for example, an increasing population. That would help the train companies it would help the grid operator it would help the power companies it would help the water companies etc


specifically on the fortune of the train companies.

Lots of journeys are into and out of London.
in the 50s the 60s the 70s and much of the 80s Londons population fell and fell big time and so did the fortune of the railways.
At the same time London was building quite a lot of new homes. What this meant was that in the 90s it was fairly affordable to live in London. Someone living in Reading only had to pay a 10% premium to live in Hackney so if they got a job in the city they would have moved. But now the same person in Reading would have to pay pay 150% more to live in central London so they stay living in Reading and taking the trains.

It isn't that the trains have got all fantastic under private operators that everyone loves to spend 3 hours of their life half asleep in a steel carriage next to another half asleep fat bloke. Its got more to do with population changes and housing provision and historical demographic shifts. The trains probably have gotten better and its because they have more customers at least in part (probably majority) because of this factor

so increasing population improves the state industries?

so USSR and China should have had fantastic state services?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

so increasing population improves industries?

clearly it does

CLAPTON wrote: »

so USSR and China should have had fantastic state services?

services probably don't as if you have twice as many people you need twice as many teachers or doctors. But industries with large fixed costs like rail and power do