Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Nov '09 09:46
    I say liquidating such a horribly run public company is clearly the right thing to do:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930027,00.html

    Ideally the government should minimize its involvement, but a las Mexico gave the task from one horrible public company to a not as bad one...

    "Economic reform arrived at Mexico's electrical utility on Saturday night wearing black body armor, crash helmets and ski masks. Flabbergasted workers arriving for early morning shifts on Sunday found thousands of Federal police deployed to enforce a government decree shutting down the company. A special edition of the government gazette decreed that because of inefficiency and unacceptable losses, the state-run utility that provides power to 25 million people in the heart of Mexico had ceased to exist. Its 44,000 employees were immediately terminated, depriving the nation's oldest industrial trade union of its entire membership. The plants were kept running by federal electricity workers bused in to take over."
  2. 02 Nov '09 09:50
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    I say liquidating such a horribly run public company is clearly the right thing to do:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930027,00.html

    Ideally the government should minimize its involvement, but a las Mexico gave the task from one horrible public company to a not as bad one...

    "Economic reform arrived at Mexico's electrical utility ...[text shortened]... bership. The plants were kept running by federal electricity workers bused in to take over."
    I thought at first you were referring to the UK 'Royal Mail' which is in like case.
  3. 02 Nov '09 10:06
    Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
    I thought at first you were referring to the UK 'Royal Mail' which is in like case.
    Interesting, I'm sure the pattern is always in question.

    So I take it you agree with the liquidations of inefficient public companies too?
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    02 Nov '09 10:17
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    Interesting, I'm sure the pattern is always in question.

    So I take it you agree with the liquidations of inefficient public companies too?
    I believe in the nationalization of ineffient private companies. Like banks.
  5. 02 Nov '09 10:30
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I believe in the nationalization of ineffient private companies. Like banks.
    Name one, how long you thing it should be nationalized for, and why... although the soudbite at least gets you political points amongst the working classes you idealize, no?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Nov '09 10:34
    I think there should be a publicly owned postal service in the U.K., running at a loss if need be, that commits to delivering to every address in the country for a flat rate.
  7. 02 Nov '09 10:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think there should be a publicly owned postal service in the U.K., running at a loss if need be, that commits to delivering to every address in the country for a flat rate.
    Just run it all at a loss, what do the rift raft care...
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Nov '09 10:43
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    Just run it all at a loss, what do the rift raft care...
    Mmm. That's hardly a sensible retort.

    To my way of thinking, one of the core services (along with things like health services, police, rural bus services and a range of others) that a government should provide in a social democracy like the U.K. is postal service that commits to delivering to every address in the country for a flat rate.
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    02 Nov '09 10:57
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    Name one, how long you thing it should be nationalized for, and why... although the soudbite at least gets you political points amongst the working classes you idealize, no?
    Generally speaking, if it's from the people the people will benefit from it. If it's run by a private company, it's not run for the benefit of the people.

    How you organize the management structure dictates efficiency.
  10. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    02 Nov '09 11:51
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Generally speaking, if it's from the people the people will benefit from it. If it's run by a private company, it's not run for the benefit of the people.

    How you organize the management structure dictates efficiency.
    Private companies have to run it for the 'benefit' of the people or the people do not patronise it.
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    02 Nov '09 12:00
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Private companies have to run it for the 'benefit' of the people or the people do not patronise it.
    Utilities, public transport, etc...
    People don't have a choice.
  12. 02 Nov '09 22:34
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Generally speaking, if it's from the people the people will benefit from it. If it's run by a private company, it's not run for the benefit of the people.

    How you organize the management structure dictates efficiency.
    Nonsense. One has only to recall the complete failure of all the Communist-run States to see that you are simply a gullible 'fellow traveller'.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Nov '09 23:01
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think there should be a publicly owned postal service in the U.K., running at a loss if need be, that commits to delivering to every address in the country for a flat rate.
    The UK doesn't have that?

    Interesting. The US has that and we have 50 times the land area; and it delivers internationally as well for only marginally higher rates.
  14. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    02 Nov '09 23:24
    Originally posted by sh76
    The UK doesn't have that?

    Interesting. The US has that and we have 50 times the land area; and it delivers internationally as well for only marginally higher rates.
    Yes, the UK currently has such a system.

    But part of the point of the current dispute is that we may not have for much longer, if Mandelson and co have their way.
  15. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    02 Nov '09 23:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    The UK doesn't have that?

    Interesting. The US has that and we have 50 times the land area; and it delivers internationally as well for only marginally higher rates.
    And its set to lose 7 billion this year (if it manages to cut 6 billion more in costs).

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52367

    I suppose anything is possible at a price.