Meet the next President of the United States

[Sakura Nihil]

You know, there are a thousand things I want to say. Everything from "our education system sucks" to "I'm tired of having low taxes and roads that need repair simultaneously" to "we're all to blame for letting career politicians manipulate us so much" to "why the fuck can't we compromise in Congress when the rest of the time we're rational people".

God damn it.

If I didn't want to waste an hour or two of my night tonight, I'd go full-on soapbox, but fuck that shit. Quote of the Night:

Life is absurd, but with a little effort we can make it completely ridiculous.

[ccpl_fisher]

Obama ad incoming

It really shocks me that the Republicans make it a non issue by saying that on a state by state basis, this is fine because it is within the states rights to set up such a program.

But taking the whole route of universal healthcare is evil really just makes this whole thing look dumb.

Read the constitution. it is called federalism. If I don't want to pay exorbitant taxes to subsidize other peoples health care, while not being able to purchase the health insurance I need, I can choose to not live in Mass.

[ccpl_fisher]

Privatisation doesnt work for railways:

Good points, I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just there's no political will to renationalise the trains so I hope tey'll at least apply some patches.

Almost all of the railway freight in the US is done privately.... what is wrong with the UK?


Oh I know, in the US, the railways have to compete with long distance truckers, which they can't in the UK because of absurdly huge taxes on fuel....

[Aurora148]

Privatisation doesnt work for railways:

Good points, I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just there's no political will to renationalise the trains so I hope tey'll at least apply some patches.

Almost all of the railway freight in the US is done privately.... what is wrong with the UK?


Oh I know, in the US, the railways have to compete with long distance truckers, which they can't in the UK because of absurdly huge taxes on fuel....

Wrong. The UK rail system is not set up for freight, we have only two lines which run the length of the country and little extra space around the tracks to build sidings. In fact because our system is woven so deeply into the structures of our towns and cities, if we wanted mass freight transit then we would need to build entire new main lines by bulldozing through the countryside.

[Pattern]

Apparently the UK still uses untaxed coal powered trains?

Or that individual states in the US are actually really sovereign nations with none transferable rights.

And apparently no one subsidises the billions of dollars in health related bankruptcies and inefficiencies that come with a voluntary system.

Cccp_fisher, please continue to enlighten us with your knowledge.

[Rudolf Miller]

Obama ad incoming

It really shocks me that the Republicans make it a non issue by saying that on a state by state basis, this is fine because it is within the states rights to set up such a program.

But taking the whole route of universal healthcare is evil really just makes this whole thing look dumb.

Read the constitution. it is called federalism. If I don't want to pay exorbitant taxes to subsidize other peoples health care, while not being able to purchase the health insurance I need, I can choose to not live in Mass.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. States can choose to set up a program if they want, the federal government wasn't granted the right.

[Fara]

ccpl_fisher or how to be fucking stupid. lmao.

the point is not that states can do it, the point is that on federal level the main argument isn't "you can't do it its agains the law" more as "this is socialist sucmbaggery gtfo"

[El Capitano]

*sigh* I know, you're right. The reason I still fall for it is because he mixes his trolls in with some real posts, so it's impossible to tell if he's purposefully being retarded or actually expressing retarded views he holds. Skilled trolling +1 but there can be only one solution.

Back to ignore he goes.

normally I have a lot of respect for your posts, but I think this time you're letting your anti-union feelings blind you to the very good points Lall's making. Putting him on ignore because of the last few posts he's made in this thread would be daft.

[Glyken Touchon]

Your party kept saying we need to keep government out of the free market. Well, we did, and look what happened: ENRON, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the CPSC, hedge funds, derivatives, blah blah. Now it's the government's fault for not helping inefficient, poorly-run businesses?

And politicians wonder why a lot of us think they're all idiots/scammers. A much-simplified example from the UK side: Credit crunch is caused by inappropriate lending, so we'll tighten up on the banks' capital requirements etc. Short while later- "waaah- you aren't lending enough!" (note: it's only the whining I think is wrong)

To put it in very simple terms for the hard of thinking:

Imagine a licence if for 5 years, and generates 20 profit (before upgrades) each year
Upgrades cost 150 and are needed every 30 years
How can the licence holder fund the upgrade? It doesnt have enough profit to do so in the 5 years it has the licence/contract and, if it spends 150 of its own cash, it CANT guarantee it will keep the licence/contract for another 5+ years on expiry (if it could, this would effectively mean no competition) to recoup that investment.

You could make the licence holder pay money to the government (say, 5 a year) and then have the government provide the upgrades however this has two problems:
- the cost of upgrades is highly uncertain, and if the 5/yr isn't sufficient the government ends up taking all the risk.
- the benefit of the upgrades primarily goes to licenceholders in the first 10 - 15 years following the upgrade

A bigger problem is quantifying the upgrade requirements: "you are required to spend 123million on upgrades during your license period" doesn't work, as there is no incentive to seek value. 1 massively overpriced & overbudget project could fulfil the requirement whereas the need was for 4 "normal" projects.

[lt]

No, you're doomed 30 years from now. You'll see.

Also there is no possible way to force them to spend a percentage of profits on upgrades. That would require something like "legislation" which governments can't do.

Are you stupid or (and) did you just not read my previous post?

Upgrades are a huge capital investment. They are much, much more expensive than the profits made in the short-term that the licences last (4 - 5 years) and thus you CANT make a licenceholder do them because

To put it in very simple terms for the hard of thinking:

Imagine a licence if for 5 years, and generates 20 profit (before upgrades) each year
Upgrades cost 150 and are needed every 30 years
How can the licence holder fund the upgrade? It doesnt have enough profit to do so in the 5 years it has the licence/contract and, if it spends 150 of its own cash, it CANT guarantee it will keep the licence/contract for another 5+ years on expiry (if it could, this would effectively mean no competition) to recoup that investment.

You could make the licence holder pay money to the government (say, 5 a year) and then have the government provide the upgrades however this has two problems:
- the cost of upgrades is highly uncertain, and if the 5/yr isn't sufficient the government ends up taking all the risk.
- the benefit of the upgrades primarily goes to licenceholders in the first 10 - 15 years following the upgrade

What, wait, no. Upgrades are ordered by the government, and if the contractor doesn't do them they're out. Most likely for good. And this market generates too much monies for anyone to do something silly like that.
But I think I was unclear from the beginning (I blame phone-posting). The government still own the railway and pays contractors to fix upgrades, repairs etc of a certain part of it. Contracts are usually for 2-5 years.

I meant to post that this is some sort of middle way between real privatization and keeping it all governmental... Apologies

[Bartholomeus Crane]

No, you're doomed 30 years from now. You'll see.

Also there is no possible way to force them to spend a percentage of profits on upgrades. That would require something like "legislation" which governments can't do.

Are you stupid or (and) did you just not read my previous post?

Upgrades are a huge capital investment. They are much, much more expensive than the profits made in the short-term that the licences last (4 - 5 years) and thus you CANT make a licenceholder do them because

To put it in very simple terms for the hard of thinking:

Imagine a licence if for 5 years, and generates 20 profit (before upgrades) each year
Upgrades cost 150 and are needed every 30 years
How can the licence holder fund the upgrade? It doesnt have enough profit to do so in the 5 years it has the licence/contract and, if it spends 150 of its own cash, it CANT guarantee it will keep the licence/contract for another 5+ years on expiry (if it could, this would effectively mean no competition) to recoup that investment.

You could make the licence holder pay money to the government (say, 5 a year) and then have the government provide the upgrades however this has two problems:
- the cost of upgrades is highly uncertain, and if the 5/yr isn't sufficient the government ends up taking all the risk.
- the benefit of the upgrades primarily goes to licenceholders in the first 10 - 15 years following the upgrade

What, wait, no. Upgrades are ordered by the government, and if the contractor doesn't do them they're out. Most likely for good. And this market generates too much monies for anyone to do something silly like that.
But I think I was unclear from the beginning (I blame phone-posting). The government still own the railway and pays contractors to fix upgrades, repairs etc of a certain part of it. Contracts are usually for 2-5 years.

I meant to post that this is some sort of middle way between real privatization and keeping it all governmental... Apologies

I think the point is that with a privatised public transport system (trains in this case), you get the worst of two worlds: the government still pays for everything that's expensive and unprofitable (upgrades/replacements to the transport net), while the private companies get to make use of that for a profit. It is a substantial subsidiary structure to the benefit not the general public, as it is supposed to do, but for a private company in the name of so-called efficiency that hasn't been expressed in low travelfares. And this is especially the case with trains. I don't know of a single privatisation of the trains that has worked, i.e., provides a better, cheaper service for the general public. In the UK (and elsewhere) the fares on trains are almost exorbitantly high (on par with plane tickets, in fact, for long distances (Edinburgh-London) it is not only faster but significantly cheaper to fly than to buy a cross-country train-ticket).

In fact I would argue that all the privatisation efforts in the UK or most of the EU, be they energy, water, or trains, have failed to offer better value for money for the general public. So what of that efficiency then?

You know a train system that is actually very good, in comparison, and one the whole? The French railways provide cheap, fast, and efficient travel for all, covering all of France. You know what's striking about that? They are publicly owned. If only they didn't go on strike every other month it'd be perfect. But hey, that's a French thing.

The point is: in the vast majority of cases privatisation hasn't worked. Privatised services offer less value for money for the people who count: the citizens. They still pay the higher taxes for the costs the private companies externalised to the government, and on top they have to pay a higher fare for the service so that the private company can make a profit. It has given the government a single injection of cash at the point of sale, but has brought with it a massive headache of regulation, while it externalised costs to the disadvantage of those very same citizens. Where is the efficiency in that? Where, for that matter, is the competition in the open market if you have next to no choice?

There are those who hate Maggy Thatcher for what she did to the unions. There are many more who hate her even more for her blind faith in the privatisation of everything. Most accept that the unions needed to be busted, but they are still paying for the other delusion, while the conservatives are still at it (tried it with education just recently, to only partial success)!

The only positive to this is that at least in the UK we can point and laugh at the US. Because they're fucked over by the Republicans even worse. Hey, at least she didn't get to dismantle the NHS (not through lack of trying mind you).

Serious, fuck privatisation. Certain things are best left to the private sector. In others they simply can't be trusted while their profit motive wipes out every supposed efficiency benefit they may bring to the table. The examples are legion and blatantly obvious. You have to be particularly blind and stupid not to recognise them.

[Frug]

*sigh* I know, you're right. The reason I still fall for it is because he mixes his trolls in with some real posts, so it's impossible to tell if he's purposefully being retarded or actually expressing retarded views he holds. Skilled trolling +1 but there can be only one solution.

Back to ignore he goes.

normally I have a lot of respect for your posts, but I think this time you're letting your anti-union feelings blind you to the very good points Lall's making. Putting him on ignore because of the last few posts he's made in this thread would be daft.

It's my bias against Lall's habitual trolling that would be blinding me, if anything. I've had him on ignore before and took him off, which imo is a mistake. He kind of forfeits debate when half the time he's just trolling. Why waste time explaining it to him if he knows better?

But if you want to hear arguments against it, I can give that. His position is simplistic. He's providing basically what Lubica said he was (though an argument by reductio ad absurdum is a good argument when you're trying to -disprove- something). You can't reduce things to omit important details and think you still have a case. For example, he's either purposefully omitting (I think he is) or oblivious to the crux of the argument for privatization, which is incentive. I can't imagine anyone going on about this topic without addressing that. Public organizations have few incentives to reduce costs, trim fat, or engage in proper bidding processes when purchasing things because they operate as a monopoly (transit is a great example of this) without any of the good aspects of market forces (even as a leftie you should admit that market forces aren't all literally hitler). On the contrary, the way a lot of public services are run, it is in their best interest to do nothing but push for more money and bloat themselves rather than operating in the public interest. These agencies want to have higher costs every year, because that's how they justify going to the government to ask for more funding. If they actually did reduce costs, the funding itself gets reduced so why would they do that?

It takes a bit of explaining to go on about this, which is why i didn't want to bother with him. He says ridiculous things like how, if its government operated, the profits will all go back into infrastructure. What profits? There are no profits. These agencies run at a loss and that gap is filled up with subsidies. The primary reasons for that loss is a lack of incentive to actually make money, and the fact that government jobs come with fat pay cheques, benefits, job security, and big pensions. They don't run at a loss because they're altruistically re-investing their money into new infrastructure. It is the polar opposite of the greedy corporation paying minimum wage and fucking over everyone to keep cash and unless it's an area where you want to attract the best and the brightest (teachers, doctors) you probably shouldn't go down that road. I live in a place where everything he's claiming in his posts are the exact opposite in practice. The stations are falling apart and complete garbage, there are no profits to put back into maintenance because they run at a horrendously wasteful loss and they don't care. If and when anything needs to be rebuilt or added, they ask for more funding. And they get it, because it needs to be done.

If you privatize it, the workers will probably still be unionized and you will still need to subsidize it because it's an essential service and it needs to get done even in areas where it would cost more than it returns. But at the very least it incentivizes savings and rewards efficiency, rather than the opposite. If its totally public (as it is here) the wages for everyone involved, including the bosses, are still high. It doesn't become some benevolent, profit earning agency that white knights it by investing back into infrastructure. They just get themselves higher salaries, do the same kind of cronyism you would find in the private sector, and ask the public to fund expansions.

Also I may want to obliterate some unions, but I don't hate all unions a priori.

[GeromeDoutrande]

I'd say your position is roughly as simplistic as the one that you seem to take so much offense in.

[El Capitano]

That's all well and good, but riddle me this, how come the entire British rail network is despised, whereas the London Underground is considered if not amazing, reasonably decent for the demands placed on it? There's even an argument about what to do with the London Underground's surplus right now. Our privatised system is floundering, our nationalised one is at least doing well. Reconcile that with your simplistic theories.

[Frug]

That's all well and good, but riddle me this, how come the entire British rail network is despised, whereas the London Underground is considered if not amazing, reasonably decent for the demands placed on it? There's even an argument about what to do with the London Underground's surplus right now. Our privatised system is floundering, our nationalised one is at least doing well. Reconcile that with your simplistic theories.

If you're just going to toss 'oh you're simplistic' around back and forth like a hot potato around, maybe i should call you an idiot and not respond. So why don't you tell me why it's the opposite here? How about you explain your miracle of public transit and why it's successful. Sweden's system was also cited as a working example of partial privatization, wasn't it? How about actually providing an argument.
Maybe someone else has something to add about how it's run. I've seen it and it was way better than ours. I don't know anything about how they contract out their work or how they manage to turn a profit so maybe you would care to actually expand on that. And you do realize that they are heavily subsidized as well, right?

The £8 (US $13) congestion tax imposed on drivers entering the downtown area generates nearly one-tenth of Transport for London's annual revenue.

London is pretty fucking dense compared to here. That's not an ideal solution for a lot of places. But maybe i'm being simplistic. :]

It takes £1.8 billion (US $3 billion) to keep London buses running, but riders only pay £1.1 billion (US $1.8 billion) in fares, creating a 40 percent subsidy at the expense of motorists. The London Underground subway system is more efficient with £1.8 billion (US $3 billion) in fares collected to cover £2.4 billion (US $3.9 billion) in expenses, meaning riders only enjoy a 25 percent discount at the expense of drivers.

So this "surplus" is achieved after being heavily subsidized. Wikipedia gives lower numbers on the subsidies but again I have no details on how much of what they do is contracted out either.

[definatelynotKKassandra]

The TUbe got taken back into public ownership after the various private companies in charge of different parts went out of business - the exact details of why that happened I don't know. The railway infrastructure company (Railtrack/National Rail) got effectively renationalised after cost-cutting and shoddy maintenance led to a crash (Hatfield) and the discovery that the infrastructure was basically falling apart, leading to months of massive speed restrictions across the whole network while they xrayed every single track to find all the ones that should have been replaced over the previous 10 years but hadn't been. In the years that followed several of the engineering companies that maintenance was subcontracted to were prosecuted (or were wound up following to avoid potentially massive legal liabilities) for causing crashes due to improper maintenance (Potters Bar, that one up in Cumbria). GNER had to be taken back into public control because the franchise holders basically said 'yeah, I know we put in a really aggressive bid to get the franchise, but now we've found we can't make a profit so we're off unless you massively up our subsidy'.

Maybe Sweden somehow found a formula to make it work (and if so I'm intigued t discover what it was), but rail privatisation in the UK has been an unmitigated disaster.

[GeromeDoutrande]

Germany's Deutsche Bahn is publicly owned and posted around 1 billion Euros in profits in 2010.

[Aramendel]

Germany's Deutsche Bahn is publicly owned and posted around 1 billion Euros in profits in 2010.

Maintenance and extension of the rail network gets subsidized though.

[Al Simmons]

Privatisation worked for telecoms, there are a lot more phone and broadband providers available and much greater competition now than if we'd stuck with just BT. Of course they still own most of the fibre networks, but that works because they're actually pretty good at maintaining it. I guess spinning out a reel of fibre cable is a lot less expensive than upgrading rail tracks though.

Edit: also it's a lot easier to switch between telecoms providers, thus making the "choice" aspect actually tangible. Whereas if you need to get from Bristol to London on the train, you're stuck with shitty First Great Western and a horrendously overpriced and crowded service.

[El Capitano]

If you're just going to toss 'oh you're simplistic' around back and forth like a hot potato around, maybe i should call you an idiot and not respond.

So it's OK for you to use it in response to Lall's specific and detailed points but it's not OK for me to use it for your post of recycled libertarian tropes?

So why don't you tell me why it's the opposite here?

Can you give me examples of where you have wonderful and amazing privatised rail systems in Canada to contrast with your terrible unionised public sector ones?

How about you explain your miracle of public transit and why it's successful. Sweden's system was also cited as a working example of partial privatization, wasn't it? How about actually providing an argument.

Lall provided an argument, you threw it away in a tantrum.

Maybe someone else has something to add about how it's run. I've seen it and it was way better than ours. I don't know anything about how they contract out their work or how they manage to turn a profit so maybe you would care to actually expand on that. And you do realize that they are heavily subsidized as well, right?

Do you want me to make your argument for you or something? I don't know why Sweden's is successful, perhaps you should actually give reasons.

The £8 (US $13) congestion tax imposed on drivers entering the downtown area generates nearly one-tenth of Transport for London's annual revenue.

London is pretty fucking dense compared to here. That's not an ideal solution for a lot of places. But maybe i'm being simplistic. :]

Sure, London has a dense population, it's an ideal city for public transport and the private companies still royally fucked it up. It's not like this was something done years back, some parts of the tube were renationalised just a few years ago.

It takes £1.8 billion (US $3 billion) to keep London buses running, but riders only pay £1.1 billion (US $1.8 billion) in fares, creating a 40 percent subsidy at the expense of motorists. The London Underground subway system is more efficient with £1.8 billion (US $3 billion) in fares collected to cover £2.4 billion (US $3.9 billion) in expenses, meaning riders only enjoy a 25 percent discount at the expense of drivers.

So this "surplus" is achieved after being heavily subsidized. Wikipedia gives lower numbers on the subsidies but again I have no details on how much of what they do is contracted out either.

The privatised rail lines in the UK are subsidised to a greater extent than the London Underground. At least the surplus goes back into the tube, whereas the profits from the privatised rail lines are probably squirreled away to a tax haven.