Re-nationalisation

Some mention has been made regarding the railways. Before, and immediately after World War II, most of the freight was carried on the railways. However, for small freight (parcels etc, but too big for Royal Mail) the railways were inefficient, and it could take weeks for a parcel to reach its destination.

Thus, these items, which were large in number, and contributed greatly to railway revenue moved onto the roads, and road transport grew. This loss of revenue was compounded by the increasing popularity of the motor car, which was becoming cheaper in real terms. This caused a reduction in "short hop" revenue

By the late 1950s, the railways were making huge losses, so Dr. Beeching was brought in by the government to look at the entire railway network and see where costs could be saved. His report became know as the Beeching Axe, which closed most of the branch lines around the country, and many of the smaller stations on the main lines.

Despite such savage cuts, the savings were below those anticipated, and during the 1970s contraction (of the network) continued.

Come the 1980s, and the Thatcher government franchised out the rail network by area, but with responsibility for the national infrastructure being placed with one company.

Even under nationalisation, passenger rail fares have never been "cheap" and although fares have increased year on year since privatisation, it is my opinion that the increases were no greater than they would have been under public ownership. Furthermore, any government cannot now dip into any profits, thus artificially causing fares to increase.

Urban sprawl and population increase has since shown that if some of the branch lines closed in the 60s were still operational, they would be well used by commuters going into the cities. Alas, with some of these old lines now built over, or used as cycle tracks, they can never reopen.
 
If I am unhappy with my broadband provider.......I can switch.
If I am unhappy with my electricity bill........I can switch.

I do not wish to go back to the bad old days when we had to wait several weeks to get a phone installed. Or be told after complaining of a British Leyland car door seal not fitting properly, that I was lucky that the door open/closed at all.
 
Can you change your train provider?
Can you change your water provider?
Is there really any significant difference between energy suppliers?
 
Furthermore, any government cannot now dip into any profits, thus artificially causing fares to increase.

Urban sprawl and population increase has since shown that if some of the branch lines closed in the 60s were still operational, they would be well used by commuters going into the cities.

A couple of excellent points there, and I agree with Dex, there should be more competition, not less, especially in some services.

On another plane, I think that nationalisation, which is basically a Marxist ideology, has the inherent problem to cause inefficiency.

Suppose, for simplicity, you have ten shops in a Marxist (nationalised) regime, all making the same widgets. Each boss of each shop know they can produce fifiteen widgets a day. But to save themselves from problems they admit to being able to make ten per day. The other five being the in-built slack. Now in the heirarchical world of widget making, there's some slack of fifty widgets in those ten shops, per day!

I think it was Maggie who trumpeted the call to reduce slack in British industry to make us competitive. This is the ultimate desire, surely, of privatisation and capitalism, to improve efficiency, reduce slack and increase profits. Yes. some of those profits are creamed off into share-holders pockets. But without shareholders, where will the capital come from to invest in new machinery, new technology, etc? (viz the Royal Mail privatisation). Perhaps, more importantly, where will the motivation be to increase efficiency?

Edit: Forgot to mention, brain fade today caused by man flue:
Where is the motivation for Local and National Government departments to increase efficiency? Other than the governmental "efficiency savings", it can only come from privatisation.
 
The problem I have (amongst many others, but that's not the point), is why we need money at all. Providing we all agree to chip in our time and expertise fairly and squarely, then we would all work fewer hours and all receive equal goods, services and treatments.

The solution is, of course, global socialism.
 
Providing we all agree to chip in our time and expertise fairly and squarely, then we would all work fewer hours and all receive equal goods and treatments.

The solution is, of course, global socialism.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? :shock: (I'd better attribute that to Karl Marx before anyone accuses me of plagiarism :roll: )

I think you might need to practise your rope-a-dope dodge after that open-goal, Dex. :wink:
 
I used to pretty much think that capitalism, increased efficiency, competition etc was the way the world should operate. Then, one day, watching an episode of Star Trek, they mentioned that nobody used money and that it was seen as unecessary.

How can this be, I hear you utter even though I can't be bothered to use speech marks nor a question mark :wink:

Then, whilst convalescing a year or so ago, I read the Ragged Trouser'd Philanthropist. Then felt I like some watcher of the skies when a new planet swims into his ken (but enough of Keats dopping his hat to Herschel's discovery of Uranus :wink: ). The point is that I cannot find a single flaw in the theoretical argument for socialism, whereas the nature of capitalism as essentially a pyramid system is flawed at the axiomatic level of it all being built of a foundation of peasants scrabbling round in the dirt looking for something to eat and "sell", and each subsequent layer requires greed and selfishness for it to operate. It can only ever lead to wars, jealousy and crime; whereas socialism in its truest form can only lead to peace and harmony :D
 
the ultimate desire, surely, of privatisation and capitalism, to improve efficiency, reduce slack and increase profits.

Nothing wrong with efficiency , or reducing slack but how often is this achieved by simply " reorganisation and downsizing the workforce" or put another way sacking people so they become a burden not on those privatised companies but on the state directly. And let's not forget companies competing with each other introduces different inefficiencies into the system with over production ( see the thread about all the stuff thrown away at M&S) and duplication of effort. With a little effort it would be perfectly possible to have very efficient nationalised industries.
Capitalism isn't totally evil, indeed we could very easily have a form of state capitalism if we wanted. The real threat is corporatism-
http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta
said to increase efficiency-
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
but in reality this sort of thing results-
http://you.leadnow.ca/petitions/cos...-3-times-let-s-make-sure-it-listens-this-time

perhaps sign this-
http://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-lawsuits/?
 
Use of money; we've made quite a fair advancement towards the non-use of money. We even have the introduction of Bitcoins.

But if you're suggesting that we can manage our affairs on a barter system alone, that would fail, at the axiomatic level, because there would always be a need to account, in some way, for the exchange.

To refer to your theoretical approach to global socialism, I would agree that, at the axiomatic level, the functional requirements would be met.
It's the design parameters, or the tools, that presents the big stumbling block.
I've already mentioned in another thread, about man's innate competitive characteristic, to control/own the best resources. Hence man is driven by avarice. Unless we can control or remove this motivational streak, there will always be the problem of global socialism not working to its theoretical model.

Whereas, capatilism is motivated by avarice.

To return to the possibility of controlling man's avaricious characteristic, are we considering overt state control? Aka; communism?
 
But if you're suggesting that we can manage our affairs on a barter system alone, that would fail, at the axiomatic level, because there would always be a need to account, in some way, for the exchange.
The word "exchange" is more conducive than "barter". Recording/accounting is a relatively simple monitoring task which could be resolved technologically if we put our (collective :mrgreen: :wink: )minds to it
To refer to your theoretical approach to global socialism, I would agree that, at the axiomatic level, the functional requirements would be met.
It's the design parameters, or the tools, that presents the big stumbling block.
I suggest that the corollary to capitalism has, does and will continue to cost us more in the "stumbling block" field

I've already mentioned in another thread, about man's innate competitive characteristic, to control/own the best resources. Hence man is driven by avarice. Unless we can control or remove this motivational streak, there will alway be the problem of global socialism not working to its theoretical model.
Whereas, capitalism is motivated by avarice.
Avarice is a man made con trick. The only thing that motivates man is self protection for his and his sphere of interests. Greed is not an innate property of any animal, of which we are one.

To return to the possibility of controlling man's avaricious characteristic, are we considering overt state control?
We are the state.
 

Sorry, been off reading ladylola's links.

I think you're in danger of mixing up your arguments, ladylola.
Your first link refers to agreements, as reported by a left-wing journal, between US & EU. The third link refers to an agreement between Canada and Costa Rica.

The third link that you claim is a result of the first, is fallacious.
 
The third link that you claim is a result of the first, is fallacious.

no not really fallacious merely pointing out how big business is attempting to control whole countries in its pursuit of profit rendering the state impotent. It's a global economy after all and being increasingly run for the benifit of the few.
As you had the decency to read the links here's a couple more-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l62YLGrl5IA&desktop_uri=/watch?v=l62YLGrl5IA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement
http://newcommuneist.com/2013/11/07...harge-what-might-a-trade-agreement-look-like/
 
Recording/accounting is a relatively simple monitoring task which could be resolved technologically if we put our (collective :mrgreen: :wink: )minds to it
How would you define this economic accounting mechanism?
IMO, money is a universally known term.

I suggest that the corollary to capitalism has, does and will continue to cost us more in the "stumbling block" field
I absolutely could not disagree with you. A bit of an open-goal, if I tried.
It's the alternatives that may produce even more cost in human suffering.
I appreciate that endemic corruption pervades the existing Marxist systems, (was that an example of prolixity?...I had to look up that one) but on the whole, are they better or worse than a capital system?


Avarice is a man made con trick. The only thing that motivates man is self protection for his and his sphere of interests. Greed is not an innate property of any animal, of which we are one.

I disagree on this point, Dex. I think avarice is what distinguishes us from/in the animal kingdom. Although, I'm sure there are examples of other animals' greed.

We are the state.
Except that at any one time nearly 50%, or more disagree with the state. I'll not bother to quote incidents of the government introducing unpopular policies. Nor will I bother to quote incidents of governments carrying out secret, immoral activities, then at the least, pretending it didn't happen or at the worst denying them in the most outrageous way.

But my apologies for today, although I enjoy the discussions, my stamina is flagging today.
(I can't keep it up as long these days, either. :oops: )
I'm off to find a warm comfortable spot with a book.
 
Back
Top