Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Nationalisation.

I didn't say it was. Besides, there’s no single standard of efficiency to base your evaluation on. Try and restrict your discussion of this point to the specifics - there is nothing Christian about anything in the above three lines.

It transpires that as emotional beings, what ostensibly appears to be competition for its own sake is actually more “efficient”.




You're editing to alter an argument that's moved on again.
 
If all you are saying is that the different modes of production use different definitions of efficiency
Different people or institutions use different definitions of efficiency based on their values and goals. Different definitions of cost, effort, desirability of outcome.
Does it connect to anything else you have written?
I don’t know. I wasn’t aware I was being studied as a body of work.
 
"Nationalised"? I was under the impression that the rail company was basicaly handed back to the government. I could be wrong.

NXEC have given up their franchise, so the DfT will have to run it until a new franchisee can be found. It's not nationalisation in any meaningful sense.

Re. rail nationalisation in general there are umpteen threads in the transport forum and there's no point going over it all again, but suffice to say that fifteen or twenty years ago British Rail was moving two-thirds as many people as the privatised railway for one third of the cost, managing major infrastructure projects on time and within tight budgets and provided the highest proportion of trains on any European system running at 100mph. It was a very effective organisation for running a mdoern railway service on a miserly budget. Arguably it was one of the most efficient rail operators in the world, and it was certainly more efficient than the railways are now.
 
Yeah. I'd add that it's not so much a question of nationalisation vs privatisation, more one of the provision of public goods. There’s no doubt that the provision of shared infrastructure like rail, energy, water and so on requires rigorous design and evaluation and that we’re somewhat obstructed from doing that by the ideological totems proffered by traditional bourgeois political factions which can’t break out of value laden analysis, the Marxist question of property and right wing dogma on the “virtues” of private enterprise.
 
Rail Privatisation has been an utter fuck up, the whole thing needs bringing back in house, but it wont happen because this country is run by the CBI & the bankers.

Also the reason Adonis didnt do a deal with NX is because every other TOC is lining up to give back their franchises anyway Stagecoach, Firstgroup, Arriva...they all want rid.

The only way East Coast will get a new bidder is if the premium drops and therefore the level of government subsidy rises so whats the point?
 
this country is run by the CBI & the bankers.
Well they do get the food and energy into the country after all. Elevating this-or-that to an essential service is all very well, but isn’t really going to help when we’re dependant on imports for basic resources. We print money, they raise prices. Game over.
 
Nationalisation, in the burocratic sense is preferable to leaving the market to it. Especially in sectors that are essential to society like health, education, energy, transport networks.
As a small example does anyone remember the days that directory inquiries were free? It's a prem rate service under privatisation. In these times when energy production and consumption is such an important issue for both the environment, the economy and for many people who cant afford to keep themselves warm in winter, nationalisation of the energy companies and of the coal, gas and oil industries makes sense to me.
I do not see nationalisation, as in handing over to or forcing capitalist governments to take on large industries as an end in it's self. I think that nationalisation should be means of putting the working class in control of production, distribution and planning them in a democratic way.
You just have to look at the NHS to see how politicians will use a key nationalised sector like a political football to the detrement of the service it's self.
One of the reasons I started this thread is bacause there is something of a theoretical gap in my mind on this issue. Is state capitalism a step towards direct working class control? Or is it just a dead end of social democracy?
 
Especially in sectors that are essential to society like health, education, energy, transport networks.
I don't want to sound funny, but aren't you just plucking "rights" out of the air and turning them into public goods for emotional reasons? Anyway, like I say, making this-or-that into an essential service is all very well, but in an import economy it just makes for a 70’s style oil/currency crisis. That's why the IMF made us stop doing it.
 
I don't want to sound funny, but aren't you just plucking "rights" out of the air and turning them into public goods for emotional reasons?
what's wrong with emotional reasons all of a sudden? it's what most decisions are based on.
 
what's the original Maurice Brinton quote?
It's actually Stan Brinton, runs a local chippy....
http://www.uncarved.org/pol/irat.html
No appeal to psychology was necessary to understand why a hungry man stole bread or why workers, fed up with being pushed around, decided to down tools. What social psychology had to explain however 'is not why the starving individual steals or why the exploited individual strikes, but why the majority of starving individuals do not steal, and the majority of exploited individuals do not strike'. Classical sociology could 'satisfactorily explain asocial phenomenon when human thinking and acting serve a rational purpose, when they serve the satisfaction of needs and directly express the economic situation. It fails, however, when human thinking and acting contradict the economic situation, when, in other words, they are irrational'
 
So can anyone answer my two earlier questions?

a) did bargaining power for unions go up in the industries that were nationalised in the 1990s and later?
b) have fares shot up on the trains since privatisation?
 
So can anyone answer my two earlier questions?

a) did bargaining power for unions go up in the industries that were nationalised in the 1990s and later?
b) have fares shot up on the trains since privatisation?

a) On the railways, no in the case of track workers but arguably yes in the case of drivers, who can now play off different employers against one another.

b) Fares were rising more quickly than previously in the years before privatisation as the Tory governments of the 80s and 90s encouraged BR to stick fares up in markets that could bear it, which effectively meant inter-city and commuter trains. It's a moot point whether the rate of increase has speeded up. It has in the case of standard tickets, but that's partly offset by a great many special fares now offered by TOCs as they move towards a more airline-style system ticketing system, encouraging people to book ahead and buy tickets for particular services rather than open returns.
 
i'm loving your threads gg

1225491498049_f.jpg


tee hee :)

Did you know there's even GG dolls now, i know someone who got 20 to sell and got a complaint there wasn't enough blood and shit on his!!
 
I thought people were doing a good job of ignoring single issue numpty:(
I've enjoyed the way his attempt to bump his "what really matter" thread has been treated with the degree of respect it deserved.
Look, Carousel ascribes all motivations or actions to quasi religious morality. That's his only point.
Which isn't really a point, more of a religious belief. :)
 
He doesn't think there is anything particularly efficient about capitalism. He simply thinks he's winding up excitable lefties and hopes to attract gullible admirers for his fearless challenging of 'left-wing sacred cows'.
Inaccurate.
He hopes to attract gullible female admirers, so that he might (although it's a vanishingly small possibility) lose his virginity. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom