If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
For those of you who still claim privatising public services is okay
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
We all know what repulsive and damaging move it was to privatise the railways. Incredibly some people still say giving public services to greedy, profit-obsessed private companies is okay, and cite water companies as an example.
Oh yeah?
Q. So why is Thames Water reducing the water pressure and fucking everyone up?
A. Because as a profit-driven private company they refuse to spend money in maintenance and repairing leaking pipes, preferring to give all profits to their shareholders.
And that is fucking why scumbag greedy profit driven companies must never be allowed to run public services.
Now let's hear the apologies of the Thatcherites and free-market enthusiasts... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah?
Londoners face £1bn extra bills as Thames Water reduces water pressure to slow down leaksThames Water is proposing to reduce water pressure across the capital in a bid to stem leakages of almost one billion litres each day - enough to fill 17 Olympic swimming pools an hour.
But lower water pressure will compromise supplies to high-rise homes. Private homeowners affected by the lack of pressure will have to pay for their own pumps, which cost £11,000 each
Q. So why is Thames Water reducing the water pressure and fucking everyone up?
A. Because as a profit-driven private company they refuse to spend money in maintenance and repairing leaking pipes, preferring to give all profits to their shareholders.
And that is fucking why scumbag greedy profit driven companies must never be allowed to run public services.
Now let's hear the apologies of the Thatcherites and free-market enthusiasts... :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Privatisation however is NEVER the answer, as this appalling case has proven.
Let's take British Rail as another shining example. Say what you will about the old BR, the fact is the network was far better run and there were daily checks and repairs on the tracks. And the trains were less delayed. And ticket prices were not the most expensive in the world. The very first thing Railtwat did when it got its greedy hands in charge of track maintenance was to drastically cut the number of inspections and the frequency they took place. In the case of Hatfield, the faulty track had been detected 10 months before the accident that killed 4 people. Railtrack had decided to put off the repair "for as long as possible"- naturally to minimise costs and maximise profits for shareholders.
Why oh why considerably less wealthy countries such as Spain have water and rail networks that piss all over Britain's? And they don't pay more tax down there either... This is true of practically everywhere around Western Europe.
So the answer to this issue is: keep public services in public hands, invest the money needed to keep the services in optimal conditions, and if taxes have to be raised so be it.
The water board should be moved into the free market with it's monopoly status completely destroyed. Also full accountability for any actions personally is an absolute must in order to make free market strategies work.
If you were going to prison for manslaughter if you fucked up you are going to be much more careful than if the "company" is fined and you are getting a huge pay off through redundancy in a worst case scenario.
Moving the larger monopolies into "state" ownership is also more productive than privatisation I agree.
At the moment if a corporate exec kills 25 through over exuberance with the cost cutting nothing happens. The halfwits who caused Hatfield should be rotting in jail as I write. They aren't because of "corporate" responsibility - corporate meaning "no" in this sense.
Other countries only pay for good service - they don't complain and then pay anyway.
Something such as gas, electricty, water, rail are very difficult to open up to competition and be entirely private because they require expensive networks for the distribution of their services.
Access to the service is dependant on the network and thus the owners of the network will always have some monolpoly power..........
Then why is every single supermarket within a 3 mile radius of my home incapable of keeping its shelves stocked?
In the case of public services such as water or railways this is a moot point anyway: the private company chosen to run the service has a monopoly and in effect a license to print money.
Anyone who has running water at home or uses the railways should remember who was responsible for their privatisation before casting their vote.
actually the tube was making a surplus on top of its operating costs
and the service was good no matter what anyone says, yes my train may be dealyed but theyre that regular a delay takes 5 mins
Private sector, driven by efficiency & profit is the answer, as was proven by the collapse of centralised states like the old Soviet Union!
Maggie Thatcher showed us the way forward thank God!
A few men at the top making all the decisions - 5 year plans and everyone who disagrees is left out in the cold. Patronage, favoritism, nepotism etc etc and all that stuff that a small business can't afford to do.
Now it's not the case that communist russia failed to deliver but it is the case that it didn't deliver as well in comparison.
The private sector is only driven by efficiency if there is competition in the marketplace. If there is no competition it just grows big and fat on whatever it already makes.
WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!
The Communist system imploded as it was bound to do, its a bankrupt failed system that is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs!!
Capitalism Rules Yea!!!!!
Democracy is a great idea and should be implemented in as many areas of daily life as possible especially business.
There was nothing innacurate in my statement either. The old soviet bloc produced food, clothing cars etc but nothing like as well as we did over here. The comparison killed it. Pretty simple really.
what are you on, that was erm ages ago, and since then the tube has been reall well run if you actually use it regulary
since the ppp there have been far more potential accidents and accidents etc etc, and theyre behind schedule to what they promised in their bidding for contract, yet theyre making a huge profit
all maggie done was replace incompetant staff with incompetant management
When BT was privatised it also gave the share floatation some worth, thus enhancing the governments take on the share offer!
They don't mirror communist regeimes at all... and privatisation fails, as one company will establish a monopoly so big no competition can exist. Microsoft anyone? Rember all the different systems before? Oh well! Thats Capitalist progress!
Public services are the ones that SHOULDN'T have to make profit. Why should a hospital make profit? Its there to save lives, no turn a profit outof life and death procedures. Same with Public Transport, it shouldn't a be a profit enterprise. Profit always takes away from service.
what if you owned the line and they fought to provide the service to you?
15metres of co-ax doesn't cost £15 a month. It's more like £10 for 20 years. (If not longer)
S'funny that exactly the opposite has happened with your water - those messy underground pipes are being foisted onto the consumer to save costs.
Have the government doing the physical maintenance and all the private companies competing to make savings on the service they provide. It's the only area that they can actually affect anyway.
What are the differences in the organisational structure of large corporations and communist states?
both are run by a head of board and the board he controls
the shareholders are pretty much the same as the 'democracy' in a soviet system obviously with a bit more power but not much more
Not true, the comapny my dad works for, the shareholders took it over forom the head folks in charge. You can do that in a Democracy if the leader is bad, but not under "the Communist system."
Also, under Communism, the comapanies aren't meant to opperate simply for profit, they all get the standard wage and hte profit reinvested. Thats under true communism, no one is profiting as they all get the same.
There is no real difference between them. It's top down authoritarian management in both cases. If you don't like what you are being asked to do you are free to leave a corporation (good luck with the mortgage) communist states have a slightly different form of coercion. The result is the same - do what you are told or else.
The goal they pursue is different obviously but the tactics to achieve it are identical. Like two armies with different targets tbh.
Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Or maybe this:
That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
seeker