It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
with the same staff and the same managers, they did the same job for less
I'm guessing that you want to believe that a state-organised delivery is automatically cheaper and better than a private company with shareholders to reward, but I'm afraid the evidence is against that
I prefer more laid back and superficially indifferent reporters
However, I'm not convinced she's biased
Just watching the news this morning, if I hear the phrase "strong and stable leadership" one more time I'm going to cry.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
*Cries*
However, the assertion from the likes of Tim Harford (and me) is that public owned services can never be "run properly", there is no way to remove all the inefficiencies in a "command economy" model,
competition and the nature of economics are pretty well understood.
For example: there's a reason that we have anti-monopoly laws (and competition laws): when a company has a monopoly on supplying essential goods or services, it can charge what it likes, and be run badly, and those who need to use the service have to pay what is charged and tolerate the poor service.
State run monopolies have the same problems, but that doesn't make it "OK", just because there are no shareholders or dividends being paid.
There are some services that probably work best as monopolies:
I think it's more that, in theory, there should be no difference in the service - the same people do the same job. The only difference should be that one model has profits leaving to shareholders and the other charges less for the same service as profit is not needed, and as the same people are doing the same job the job gets done in the same way.
Whether it can work like this in practice I don't know. What is it that shareholders add to a business model, or is it just incentive to do better? If so, perhaps there is a way of getting the same "do better" approach from a public run model.
Or perhaps it's not.
but basically companies set up to make a profit/loss taking a risk tend to try a lot harder to be efficient, and obviously the profit made has to be included in the cost charged, so the profit is not directly relevant to the purchaser: one company might make 1% profit and charge more than another company making 10% profit
I'm hoping a dose of reality from this GE will either wake up the labour party members who have been supporting Jezza, or inspire many with a different view to join
However, it's quite possible that most labour party members are content to simply protest, rather than govern
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!