Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day agoOP thinks that the actual goal of privatisation was not ideological, but grift. Nobody ever has any evidence for this kind of assertion - it’s always a combination of:
It’s so bizarre. Thatcher and her party were ideologues and all the evidence points that way. The whole position that enriching private investors was “the actual goal” is based on a lack of imagination around people holding different viewpoints.
In the case of privatisation in the UK, there was a long precedent with much ink spilled on the subject, but people like the OP discount it because they believe so strongly that anyone in power would be able to foresee the outcome, agree that the outcome was bad, and hence the only explanation was corruption.
OP thinks that the actual goal of privatisation was not ideological, but grift
You’re right, it’s a combination of both.
Not everyone is in on the grift, but they still need popular support so they convince the lowest common denominator that it’s good for them somehow.
I think privatisation now is a lot more likely to involve grift than privatisation then. Back then, theoretical arguments about privatisation held more weight, and people had not developed convincing yet acceptable ways to funnel money into private hands. Now we know that privatisation has caused a lot of problems, and a lot of people touting it have much closer links with people who stand to benefit.
My country privatized electricity suppliers almost 30 years ago (coincidentally the same time period the UK train companies got privatized… hmm…) with the argument that the choice of supplier would mean competition would drive down prices.
HAHAHAHA psyche. Prices have never climbed as fast as right after that move and they’ve never come back down (and never will).
OK?
Rothe@piefed.social 1 day ago
I am not seeing any contradiction here. Yes they were ideologues. And the purpose of their ideology was exactly to enrich private investors.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
No, their ideology was that state-run enterprises are less efficient than equivalent private ones, and that allowing and encouraging ordinary citizens to invest in those newly-private businesses (I’m not sure if this was done for the sale of the railways, but it was for previous privatisations) would enrich those ordinary citizens.
This was the defining economic debate of the late 20th century. Many people in these parts dismiss it out of hand.
I’m very glad that British railways are coming back into public ownership, yet somehow am able to acknowledge that in some respects privatisation was a success. The idea that the only, or the best explanation for privatisation was grift is unsustainable.
grue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Somebody should make a profit off this because it’s more efficient” and “my cronies should make a profit off this because it helps me” are different, but the distinction is so minor in practice that lots of normal people rightfully don’t give a shit about it.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
They are wholly different in desired outcome and motivation.
In the former, the motivation is a better service by allowing profit. In the latter, profit, and its direction to cronies, is the motivation.
People just often feel uncomfortable imagining their political opponents having good intentions.