N is for nationalisation

May 31st, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The continues it series:

Try to envisage a world in which you wake up every morning from your bed, manufactured by Kiwibed, prepare your breakfast of Kiwibread and Kiwicoffee, and put on your clothes – made by Kiwiclothes, no less.

Oh my God, they’ve been leaked a copy of Labour’s manifesto!

This may sound like a nightmare to some, where practically all goods and services are produced by nationalised and monopolised industries, and are shielded from the price-reducing effects of private competition. And yet, this was the reality under Soviet style communism, and not too dissimilar to many major OECD countries up until the early 1980s.

refers to the purchase of privately owned corporations, industries and resources by a government. Often, it occurs with the intention of maintaining wealth-generating assets in public control, preventing labour exploitation and large-scale layoffs, or trying to ensure the fair distribution of income generated by a state’s national resources. Whether this always works in practise is an entirely different question.

In New Zealand, there have been a number of high-profile nationalisations including the purchase of the Bank of New Zealand in 1945 by the Nash government, Tranz Rail in 2001, Air New Zealand in 2003 and the remaining rail network in 2004. Most recently there was the 2008 purchase of the rolling stock and ferries from Toll New Zealand.

Historically and globally, industries that have commonly been subject to nationalisation have been those in the transport, communications, energy, banking, utilities, and natural resources sectors.

Nationalised industries are meant to operate in the public interest. Unfortunately, the consequences of nationalisation have, in practice, often resulted in greater inefficiency, reduced productivity, limited consumer choice, poor service and higher consumer prices. Those who remember the 1980s can probably recall the exorbitant costs of a long-distance call under the state-run model.

Privatisation on the other hand – the opposite of nationalisation – opens a company to private competition, encouraging the offer of better service, more choice and lower prices, all the while realising a decent profit margin. However, not all privatisations are entirely successful on all counts.

A notable case was that of British Rail between 1994 and 1997, which did not reduce ticket prices as predicted, instead creating one of the most expensive train systems in the world. It did, however, result in improved safety, timeliness and increased patronage.

Nationalisation and privatisation will always illicit vigorous public debate on whether one or the other is right or wrong. However, when it comes to where we sleep, what we eat, and what we wear at the very least, we would all much rather have more and better choices at lower, more competitive prices.

To say it with a famous advertising slogan: there are some things that markets can’t do. But, for everything else, there is capitalism.

And we have proposals for KiwiBuild, KiwiPower and no doubt one day KiwiFood!

Tags: , ,

69 Responses to “N is for nationalisation”

  1. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Nationalisation is a major plank in the communist manifesto.

    The real point is though that SOEs are only a slight variation from nationalised industries and the National Party, which is meant to stand for free enterprise and against socialism/ communism, has in the past vigorously promoted SOEs and been hesitiant to sell them off when they had the opportunity.

    What the National Party needs is a leader with the conviction and the oratory power to overcome the scaremongering of the left. Like Nigel Farage for example. Pity the Nats don’t have someone with Farage’s abilities.

    We could get rid of all SOEs too.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. gravedodger (1,514 comments) says:

    In 1945 the Prime Minister and therefore the name given to the administration was Peter Frazer, Nash was the beancounter.
    He became a one term PM by defeating Hollands mob in 1957 and was undone by Nordmeyer’s Black Budget in 1958.

    I know I was there.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    BTW, the NZ Initiative sound like a good bunch but why are the apparently too cowed by social convention to use the word “Communist”?

    If they are going to be the purveyors of truth they claim to be then they had better start using that word.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. stigie (908 comments) says:

    Do what you say Reddy and become a one term government. No question !~

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. CharlieBrown (905 comments) says:

    “And we have proposals for KiwiBuild, KiwiPower and no doubt one day KiwiFood!” – well the left don’t need to worry about national removing such wasteful companies as the nats seem more than content to keep their bad ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gump (1,487 comments) says:

    “Those who remember the 1980s can probably recall the exorbitant costs of a long-distance call under the state-run model.”

    —————————-

    I remember the 1980s because I was there.

    Long distance calls remained exorbitantly expensive after Telecom was privatised.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    I think it’s hilarious how the NZI have decided to present everything as undeniable fact. Clearly, for nearly 50 years, governments around the world were just insane and everyone was in constant revolt against them.

    Or, y’know, nationalized industries provided subsidized vital services that kept the country actually running. And actually worked. Well. And when privatized, especially in terms of transport, ‘private industry’ has almost universally run them into the ground (see the British and New Zealand Rail systems, the french power companies, the Italian water and power companies.)

    No worries though, NZI! Imaginary mathematics and economic graphs agree with you, you must be right! Reality is just wrong!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Nationalism/privatisation results in teh lowest common denominator as offshore profit resulting in Kiwi’s becoming tenants in their own land.

    Kapiti Coast is a good example. If privatisation is so good with meters why is it Jenny Rowan lost her mayoralty overwhelmingly. She denied water meters were coming whilst council installed the plug ins for them and then later, installed the meters.

    Privatisation is a dirty game and a murky fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    J for Jokingly running the place! :)

    J for Johnboy Jokingly running the place! :)

    J for Johnboy Jokingly asking Judith if she’s really 1.65m in diameter! :)

    J for Johnboy Jokingly asking Just what sort of Jokers do we currently Jointly have inhabiting the Beehive under MMP? :)

    J for Johnboy Jokingly asking Just what sort of Jokers will we Jointly have inhabiting the Beehive after the next MMP election :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    For every (inevitably contrived and easily debunked) example of nationalisation improving welfare, I could provide a hundred of it doing the opposite.

    Face facts, lefties.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Please do so then, Kimble :) Or lets say, five examples of when privatization has improved welfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    <blockquote<(see the British and New Zealand Rail systems, the french power companies, the Italian water and power companies.)

    Often when industries are privatised they are required to work within a counter-productive market structure that would ensure their failure under any circumstances.

    A French company you say? Some Italian ones? You will have to try better than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    What, the free market doesn’t work if the participants are french?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    Please do so then, Kimble :) Or lets say, five examples of when privatization has improved welfare.

    I said that I could, not that I would. It would be a waste of time as everyone knows it is true. You included.

    If the overwhelming majority of privatisations resulted in failures, then the British economy would be completely centrally controlled. And that is ignoring all the other countries which had a fetish for nationalisation of industry,

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    What, the free market doesn’t work if the participants are french?

    The free market doesnt work when it isnt a free market.

    That doesnt stop frauds like you pointing to every market and its dog calling them free, and then declaring it failed regardless of the situation, reason, reality of the statement.

    Prices increased, but so did quality, timeliness, and safety? MARKET FAILURE!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. calendar girl (1,173 comments) says:

    “Nationalisation and privatisation will always illicit vigorous public debate ….”

    Do they mean “make illicit”, or (more likely, I trust) “elicit”?

    Maybe they should have included shortcomings in public (nationalised) education.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Yep, everyone who disagrees with you are just lying. Certainly a tactic that’ll boost your confidence. Good for you.

    I can’t think of a -single- example where privatizing a nationalized industry has resulted in everyone having improved welfare.

    And naturally, we have the ol’ no true free market argument. Wonderful argument for you. Allows you to base everything on ‘facts’ that ‘everyone knows’ but feel no need to cite. Ever looked at a treasury report? Always found it amusing how few citations they make, compared to other ministries.

    But you don’t need facts when you’ve got a pretty mathematical theory, do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    The subsidisation aspect of nationalised industries is another canard.

    Subsidies can be provided to private companies as well. In fact, in the private sector, the subsidy can spur on more competition improving all the other aspects of consumption as well.

    Of course, typical of governments, subsidies are usually restricted to a privileged few market participants. You know, for the sake of “efficiency”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Just vote J for Johnboy Party at the next election!….Jokingly making the same stupid mistakes that the seriously stupid parties do all the time but try to pretend they are in command of the situation! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    I can’t think of a -single- example where privatizing a nationalized industry has resulted in everyone having improved welfare.

    And this is why I called you a fraud. Privatisation isnt about improving absolutely EVERYONE’S welfare. It is about improving OVERALL welfare. You, of course, refuse to consider the issue like an adult. And I have little doubt that this is so you can point to ANYONE losing out from a privatisation and declare MARKET FAILURE!

    Oh shit! Privatising industry X has meant that fewer workers are being employed in the industry! Those people are being made worse off, so….. MARKET FAILURE!

    And naturally, we have the ol’ no true free market argument.

    And reason #2 of why I called you a fraud, is that you called the French economy a free market. Not only that, you said that the failure of a privatised French company was due to it being privatised, with little consideration for the specific circumstances of the failure or the environment it was operating in or demands that it was no doubt saddled with to mollify communists like yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “‘private industry’ has almost universally run them into the ground”

    OM is same old communist loser back under a new name.

    The people running things into the ground in the West are the over taxing over regulating over spending over borrowing socialists.

    Its actually a miracle that private enterprise survives at all under the burden of you delusional fuckwits.

    Even more miraculous is that the spirit of human endeavour still grows strongly enough that some people even want to get out and confront such a disgustingly oppressive business environment.

    They are so different from indoctrinated low IQ robots like you who are going to drag us all into the gutter if we allow it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    There HAS never been a truly free market. This is an controvertible fact.

    But that doesnt mean that market failure doesnt exist.

    What it means is that you cannot simply point a failure in a specific business and claim it represents that failure of the free market.

    And if you do, then you are a liar and a fraud.

    Or stupid.

    Take your pick.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Still no example, bub. See, how -logical- argument works, is you present -evidence- to support your argument, and make logical statements based on that. Ok, so you pick apart my examples of privatization failing by pointing out that other factors in the economy harm it. Fair enough. But that doesn’t give us any reason to believe that any privatizing will work. If you want people to believe or think that privatizing an industry will result in better welfare for ‘everyone’ (and note: People owning the business aren’t everyone) you need to present some evidence.

    And yeah, that evidence is full game to be picked over to show all the people who got screwed over by privatization in that instance. Because people still count even if they’re poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Oh, and please do try to be civil. Or at least, witty. Makes your arguments much more entertaining and fun to read if they show some intelligence instead of sloganistic personal attacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “Maybe they should have included shortcomings in public (nationalised) education.”

    Ha- well spotted CG.

    Have a look at the “educated professionals” who let that slip by-

    http://nzinitiative.org.nz/About+Us/Staff.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Thank goodness that I pop into work half an hour early every day, flog my ring off slaving over the computer and stay late to sort out any prob’s then Red! :)

    I wouldn’t want any of those fucking socialists/prog wankers thinking that a capitalist cunt like me never put in a good days work! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “Oh, and please do try to be civil. Or at least, witty.”

    How about you try not to be smug & pretentious.

    As for wit, I’d say without a doubt that as an indoctrinated communist, you’d be far more devoid of it than any free marketer who owns his own thoughts and opinions.

    Looks that way so far too.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    But that doesn’t give us any reason to believe that any privatizing will work.

    But it does torpedo every single example you put up of it not working.

    So what have you got left? Nothing, it seems.

    You want examples of privatisation working? When you can’t even come up with one of it not?

    If you want people to believe or think that privatizing an industry will result in better welfare for ‘everyone’

    I just said it wouldnt improve everyone’s welfare. There will be some people who lose out. But if people are generally better off then it is worth it. And that isn’t relying on some people becoming rich and everyone else poor.

    Who is better off because of Microsofts products? You will say Bill Gates, but the reality is that the consumers of their products are NECESSARILY better off than the owners of the company.

    Oh, but anyone who disagrees with you MUST be greedy and only out for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Ah, so now anybody who disagrees with you is indoctrinated and unable to form their own opinions, while only people who agree with you actually have reached conclusions based on studying the world.

    Still can’t see an actual argument there, just blanket statements that make you look ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “blanket statements that make you look ridiculous.”

    How I appear to indoctrinated communists is something I could hardly give less of a fuck about.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    …seriously? You’re saying I’m better off than Bill Gates?

    That’s possibly the most insane comment I have -ever- seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Bill Gates has a big advantage over you.

    His mind hasn’t been totally crippled by communist brainwashing.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    I don’t think you’re greedy and only out for yourself. I think you believe in the idea that the ‘from chaos, order’ aspect of the free market is true, based on extrapolation of how you would act if you were a business owner/consumer/worker etc.

    And I -have- come up with examples of privatisation not working. The fact that they didn’t work in a not-free-market only means that if we’re in a not-free-market (which, according to your statements, we are) we shouldn’t privatize.

    If there are no examples of free markets, you might as well demand that I prove how privatizations don’t work in the universe of star wars. You need to give some evidence to support your notion that privatization will work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    I can understand how a poor starving Russian serf of 1917 could be seduced by the Marxist doctrine but how a supposedly educated, computer literate fellow can describe him/herself as ObligatoryMarxist has me fucked really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    You’re saying I’m better off than Bill Gates?

    Again, stupid or fraud. You choose.

    I never said YOU were better off than Bill Gates. I said that the consumers of Microsofts products were better off than Bill Gates.

    (Lets just use Bill Gates as a proxy for the ownership of Microsoft.)

    Bill Gates got to keep the profit from the sales of the products. On the other end of the transaction you have everyone who bought the products.

    They would not have bought the products if they did not place a higher value on their consumption than the cost.

    So yes, the general welfare improvement of all of Microsofts customers vastly outweighs the welfare improvement of Bill Gates.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Bill’s worth a tad more than our new Marxist friend too Red! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “You need to give some evidence to support your notion that privatization will work.”

    He doesn’t actually “need” to do that at all.

    He might “want” to do it, if he cares enough about you to try and repair your damaged mind.

    I wouldn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Bill’s a couple of magnitudes brighter than our new friend as well Red! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    If there are no examples of free markets, you might as well demand that I prove how privatizations don’t work in the universe of star wars.

    No. You just need to show an example of the failure, as well as the REASONS for the failure so that people can see how it was privatisation that caused the failure and not other (non-free market related) circumstances.

    If every privatised business that failed, only failed because of non-free market influences, then you cant blame the free market. In fact, you would have to say a freer market is the solution.

    So lets see if you can do this. Provide an example of a privatised failure and include the reasons why it failed, and then say how these were “free-market” reasons.

    You seem to think this is an impossible task.

    But it is only reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Bill of course is getting old now and has lost the fire in his belly that young “ObligatoryMarxists” have just discovered! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “Bill’s worth a tad more than our new Marxist friend too Red!”

    In human terms, not much, with his support for common core teaching in the US.

    Funny how people like Bill so frequently get seduced by Marxist trickery in the guise of altruism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Bill of course can eat Patie de Foie Gras or Beluga Caviar whenever he fancies it as opposed to ObligatoryMarxist who can have either baked beans or mince on toast once a week! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Ok, let’s take your example and have a good look at it.

    Microsoft’s popularity is mostly based on their manipulation of vendors to create a pseudo-monopoly. Since everyone else has Microsoft, I have to use Microsoft, and as long as it is in my budget, I will pay for it. Even if I think it’s highly overpriced. It’s hardly a cold, rational and objective evaluation of the quality/utility of the product. Ergo, I am not gaining the level of welfare I am paying for. From the back of that, ‘Bill Gates’ gets millions upon millions of dollars and lives a life more luxurious than I, or anyone else I know, could ever possibly expect.

    Ergo, Bill Gates has gained far more welfare from microsoft products than the consumers who buy it.

    Now yes. That is a choice. Nobody is pointing a gun to my head and forcing me to use/buy their products. However, Microsoft have exercised power that I do not have in order to put me into a situation where the choice is not about the utility of the product, or the welfare it grants me.

    Microsoft is not a government. There is a key difference there. Now I would hazard a guess, and please do correct me if I am wrong, that you would say Microsoft can be brought to heel by market forces, while a government in the same position cannot. I agree with the second part. Government in it’s current form is not tightly controlled by the electorate enough to run an economy in that way. Just look at ‘communist’ china. However, I disagree with the idea that Microsoft can be brought down by market forces.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    “Funny how people like Bill so frequently get seduced by Marxist trickery in the guise of altruism.”

    I do struggle to try and support your POV Red but your altruism just keeps getting in the way! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wat dabney (3,671 comments) says:

    Microsoft’s popularity is mostly based on their manipulation of vendors to create a pseudo-monopoly.

    Seeing as your premise is false, we can just stop reading past this point.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Buy Linux then ObligatoryMarxist! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Better still use your huge brain to contribute and improve Linux then! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    JB- I read the first five sentences of OM at 2:46 and every one of them is delusional nonsense. I stopped reading after that,and it amazes me that people have the patience to deal with lunatics who don’t have the faintest grasp on reality. The real problem is they have the vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    Tush tush Red we all love coming to KB to chat with lunatics… I talk to Judith now and again! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Ah, but if I buy linux, then I am cut out of vast amounts of the economy which are geared towards Microsoft. Can’t bring/use my linux laptop in a company that exclusively uses Microsoft. Can’t play video games built for Microsoft if I only use Linux. Can’t use Linux if doing so voids the warranty on my computer.

    (I do have a Linux laptop though. Can’t use it for much, but it’s an itty bitty little netbook, so wasn’t using it for anything much anyway).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    You know, I do recall another group of people who believed disagreement with them was equal with insanity…

    Oh yeah, Stalinist Russia.

    Just pointing it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    See what I mean Red? It’s such fun teasing out the idiots. As soon as you mention Linux out pops another one! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ObligatoryMarxist (34 comments) says:

    Also, who’s making you -buy- linux?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “Just pointing it out.”

    Its one thing to identify delusion, its another to use alleged insanity to throw people who don’t believe in communism into gulags as your predecessors did you sad commie moron.

    Any debating team with you on its side would be shot down in flames in the first microsecond of debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. wiseowl (760 comments) says:

    DPF must be part of the Initiative. ‘ Kiwiblog’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    Ergo, Bill Gates has gained far more welfare from microsoft products than the consumers who buy it.

    Look at how contrived your line of argument is. And at every point there are dozens of counter arguments that you flat out ignore or assume away.

    You are simply incapable of seeing how flimsy your position is.

    People are buying microsoft products despite it making them worse off? Why would they?

    Buying it because everyone else is using it or products you want to use require it DOES make you better off. The value you get out of it is in excess to the cost. Regardless of where that value comes from.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    Thats the problem with communists. They live in a fantasy world.

    If everything isnt PERFECT then they think they get the right to do it their way, regardless of how good that is.

    Oh, lookie! Microsoft is in a dominant market position! MARKET FAILURE!!!!!1

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. burt (7,806 comments) says:

    gump

    Long distance calls did remain costly after privatisation of telecom, they stayed high until a second operator was able to compete in the home phone market and therefore national and international toll calks.

    The thing proven here is that a state monopoly and a private monopoly acted exactly the same in their own best interests. Somehow people remain stupid enough to think that their choice of government will be benevolent and look after them before it looks after itself. These same people are stupid enough to empower their team with powerful levers over their lives seemingly incapable of recognising it’s probably only 3-9 years before these powerful levers are handy to their ‘nasty party’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    And anyone who thinks that Microsoft is immune to market forces is a fucking moron.

    Microsoft is a very diversified business. So the chances of it going under completely are slim. It would require the failure of every single business unit. And thats not going to happen.

    BUT each individual business unit can fail. And many have.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    GUM ran a very good department store till that arsehole Gorbachev destroyed their business plan! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Psycho Milt (2,261 comments) says:

    Do they mean “make illicit”, or (more likely, I trust) “elicit”?

    I think it’s done deliberately. These things seem like pisstakes of the kind of essays written by first-year students – a sprinkling of unintentionally funny spelling errors is de rigeur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Odakyu-sen (440 comments) says:

    I prefer the state running infrastructure that the people can use to their benefit, such as power, electricity, roading, main trunk rail, and other infrastructure whose operation is essential to state security. On the other hand, in the provision of consumer goods and services is better left to the innovative private sector.

    Gee, that was a bit simplistic!

    I recognize that the best system fosters competition and promotes the most efficient use of resources. (That’s the theory; how you actually achieve it is the trick.) You have to deal with human factors such as unfair/unethical business practices, “too big to fail” mentality, price-fixing, corruption, etc.

    I also encourage a system in which the private sector, if it’s up to it, can run previously state-run enterprises more efficiently and sustainably. I think a lot of New Zealanders have trouble with the notion of private prisons and private schools, but if they can achieve better outcomes than the state institutions, then lets have more of them (and yes, we can have great debates over how you measure the outcomes).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kimble (4,379 comments) says:

    I think it’s done deliberately. These things seem like pisstakes of the kind of essays written by first-year students – a sprinkling of unintentionally funny spelling errors is de rigeur.

    Snob.

    Who is the thing written for?

    And its a fucking typo. What’s next? Oh shit ACT used there instead of their in a tweet!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    When I was a little chap I can remember popping into Evans’s in Cuba Street where a hugely fat man in a striped waistcoat and tie would reel out on the bench the cloth that my mother had selected and slide his very sharp scissors through it without even cutting it. Amazed was I. Then he rang up the amount on a huge sliver embossed till that made Arkwrights the grocers look like shit. Such is progress folks! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (14,973 comments) says:

    James Smiths was best. When you bought something they’d put the money and the docket into a little capsule and pull a cord and it would flick across on a cable to the cashier in the little office who did the book work and then she’d flick it back across on the same cable with the receipt.

    No fucking credit cards or internet in those days mush! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. prosper (132 comments) says:

    State owned organisations run best when the consumer is compelled to use them which usually happens as it did with the railways of old where it was illegal to use any other form of transport if freighting goods for more than 7 miles in roughly the same direction. Even then they were racking up huge losses requiring massive amounts of tax payers money to bail them out every year. We had exactly the same situation with Telecom where they had 36000 staff and it took 4 months to get your phone connected. Now they have 6000 staff plus a whole cell phone division, as well as being an ISP provider.

    Privately owned companies run best when there is competition and a strong Commerce Commission to monitor that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Psycho Milt (2,261 comments) says:

    Who is the thing written for?

    Well, yeah, that’s the question. It doesn’t really explanation nationalisation for a lay audience, and it doesn’t approach the subject with the kind of intellectual rigour you’d expect for an audience that knew what nationalisation was. I guess it’s written as propaganda, in the sense that the ignorant may come away from it with a general impression that nationalisation sounds like a bad thing.

    nd its a fucking typo.

    No it’s not. There/their is a typo, as is the/teh. Writing illicit for elicit is ignorance, not carelessness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Crusader (279 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (6,733 comments) says:
    May 31st, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    “Just pointing it out.”

    Its one thing to identify delusion, its another to use alleged insanity to throw people who don’t believe in communism into gulags as your predecessors did you sad commie moron.

    Yes. Not just the Gulag. It is instructional for the socialists to remember that when the Marxists took over each East European country after WW2, the first ones against the wall were the socialists and local non-Moscow aligned communists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Jack5 (4,584 comments) says:

    There is one case where nationalisation may be justified, IMHO.

    That’s when a Government is bailing out a bank, an institution, any company, instead of just virtual write-offs as in the case of some financial companies, taking a controlling equity stake in return for the cash can be a better course, provided the Government quits when it can get its money out with some compensatory interest.

    This minimises the problem of moral hazard created by bailouts.

    I’m not sure of the circumstances of the 1945 takeover of the BNZ, but the State has bailed this bank out three times in its history. When the State has to bail out a big private institution in the interests of national economic stability, it seems to me that taking an equity stake is better than than saving sub-standard management and dozing shareholders by giving guarantees or State loans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.