Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation
Rothe@piefed.social 1 day agoI 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.
grue@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
I was in a hurry when I wrote the previous comment, but I would also like to point out that when something is both (a) a natural monopoly and (b) has a lot of positive externalities, it is the least appropriate candidate for privatization possible. If somebody wants to do it even despite that, it’s entirely justified to question their motives!