Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

China have done us over. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    When it's a strategic asset, yes. When a country jumps from spending a billion here and there in 2005 to 100s of billions in 2015 yes. When it's a communist country on the rise, yes. When it's MUCH larger than us - yes.

    I hope our new leaders will treat us better than our last!
    Steel stopped being a strategic asset decades ago.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    And run on Chinese employment practices
    How do you figure that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    You haven't met dave of the Denbigh estate in Tipton then he would kick your ass
    Who is dave? Did he write to Corbyn for Wednesday's PMQs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Genius)
    Embarrassing how many important aspects of Britain are owned by greedy foreigners. Doesn't help having a scum government who will whore the nation out at any opportunity in power.
    Whoring your country out through privatisation is the only way the country can pay for its welfare. Consider the following:

    1. It is inherently morally wrong for a government to charge its citizens a considerable profit for the consumption of public goods and services, and thus a low-profit, cost-recovery model must be taken.
    2. A country cannot tax its own publicly-owned industries to raise revenue to pay for its welfare bill. Coupled with a low-profit model, the welfare bill cannot be paid.
    3. Investment in public institutions are not capital which can be realised if the government never privatises institutions. So they are purely low-yielding investments, considering the low-profit model, which might not even pay for itself even after 30 years. The welfare bill can never be paid.

    On the flip side of privatisation:
    1. Since the government no longer owns these industries, the industries can earn good profits, which the government can regulate.
    2. The government can tax private industries and their shareholders on profits, and even on subsequent sales of these industries. The welfare bill can be paid through this.
    3. Investment in public-turned private institutions can be recouped for by privatisation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    China is still definitely communist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Whoring your country out through privatisation is the only way the country can pay for its welfare. Consider the following:

    1. It is inherently morally wrong for a government to charge its citizens a considerable profit for the consumption of public goods and services, and thus a low-profit, cost-recovery model must be taken.
    2. A country cannot tax its own publicly-owned industries to raise revenue to pay for its welfare bill. Coupled with a low-profit model, the welfare bill cannot be paid.
    3. Investment in public institutions are not capital which can be realised if the government never privatises institutions. So they are purely low-yielding investments, considering the low-profit model, which might not even pay for itself even after 30 years. The welfare bill can never be paid.

    On the flip side of privatisation:
    1. Since the government no longer owns these industries, the industries can earn good profits, which the government can regulate.
    2. The government can tax private industries and their shareholders on profits, and even on subsequent sales of these industries. The welfare bill can be paid through this.
    3. Investment in public-turned private institutions can be recouped for by privatisation.
    Interesting. The problem is that in a private industry, profit is generated by taking something, adding value to it and selling it on at a profit or offering a service.

    However, in say healthcare, this model doesn't work. Your costs are largely fixed but your customer base fluctuates wildly and unpredictably. Similarly, the amount of money you can charge is capped. So we have companies clamouring around looking for a model that allows them to make the most amount of profit regardless of the service they actually offer. And the state is left to pick up all the hard stuff like cancer.

    I certainly don't really understand why we privatised parts of our industry to the extent that they are now a subsidised monopoly now requiring an exceedingly expensive regulator to ensure they do the will of the government i.e. the railways. These are costing vastly more money than they ever were as public entities and the irony is that much of that subsidy is now being tapped into the pockets of private investors, who even more ironically are often foreign publicly owned railway companies. So our rail subsidies are paying for French and German railways! And that is something to behold?

    The whole point in paying taxes is to pool our resources to provide public services. The idea that these services should be profitable is where the whole thing falls down. They shouldn't be profitable. They are services for the common good. That is the whole point!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Interesting. The problem is that in a private industry, profit is generated by taking something, adding value to it and selling it on at a profit or offering a service.

    However, in say healthcare, this model doesn't work. Your costs are largely fixed but your customer base fluctuates wildly and unpredictably. Similarly, the amount of money you can charge is capped. So we have companies clamouring around looking for a model that allows them to make the most amount of profit regardless of the service they actually offer. And the state is left to pick up all the hard stuff like cancer.

    I certainly don't really understand why we privatised parts of our industry to the extent that they are now a subsidised monopoly now requiring an exceedingly expensive regulator to ensure they do the will of the government i.e. the railways. These are costing vastly more money than they ever were as public entities and the irony is that much of that subsidy is now being tapped into the pockets of private investors, who even more ironically are often foreign publicly owned railway companies. So our rail subsidies are paying for French and German railways! And that is something to behold?

    The whole point in paying taxes is to pool our resources to provide public services. The idea that these services should be profitable is where the whole thing falls down. They shouldn't be profitable. They are services for the common good. That is the whole point!
    Then what about British Gas, BT, and British Airways? The truth of it all is privatisation works for some things, but not others like healthcare, what you have astutely noted. Furthermore, if there is a private entity competing with a public entity, then let them compete! Ultimately it will be better for the average consumer/citizen. Let all the rich people go to see private doctors for all they want if they offered a better service; that will free up the backlog for the NHS.

    The whole thing about foreign investors making a profit being wrong is also not true. I can understand the frustration of government subsidies helping these foreign companies, but the truth of the matter is, contracts are award usually by competitive tender, and if a private UK company did not win the contract despite having been given incentives, that means that they were not the most cost-efficient bidder for the contract. Choosing the UK company over the foreign companies would ultimately be more costly to the average consumer.

    In addition, just because these companies choose to reinvest their money in their own country does not mean that they didn't invest in the UK in the first place. And without their investment, the UK may never have had these industries in the first place!

    Lastly, public services must be cost-efficient and effective. If the private sector can do it better than the private sector and be profitable at the same time, the public is the one who benefits ultimately.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If they the business isn't making a profit then there isn't a business. The workers are of secondary importance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Then what about British Gas, BT, and British Airways?
    Agreed. Telecoms and the airline industry are two examples of where privatisation have genuinely worked. Energy is not so clean cut. We have companies selling the same product that they are buying at the same price. There is little in the way of value added and hence when one company rises its prices, they all do.

    I have no beef about foreign investors but I do not believe the Tory mantra that private companies are more efficient. Private companies will do what they have to in order to generate a profit and when it comes to public services, it is the service that suffers not the profit. The government are also hopeless at commissioning private services and end up signing agreements that are so detrimental to the government that we can't go back even if we wanted to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Agreed. Telecoms and the airline industry are two examples of where privatisation have genuinely worked. Energy is not so clean cut. We have companies selling the same product that they are buying at the same price. There is little in the way of value added and hence when one company rises its prices, they all do.

    I have no beef about foreign investors but I do not believe the Tory mantra that private companies are more efficient. Private companies will do what they have to in order to generate a profit and when it comes to public services, it is the service that suffers not the profit. The government are also hopeless at commissioning private services and end up signing agreements that are so detrimental to the government that we can't go back even if we wanted to.
    That's why regulations are needed to restrict prices to ensure that they are fair and not arbitrary. Those companies which go under because of this are simply not competitive, and a better company will eventually take their place.

    Though I can't really comment on government competency, if they're so hopeless at commissioning work, I'm sure they would be even more hopeless in running the said work!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Whoring your country out through privatisation is the only way the country can pay for its welfare. Consider the following:

    1. It is inherently morally wrong for a government to charge its citizens a considerable profit for the consumption of public goods and services, and thus a low-profit, cost-recovery model must be taken.
    2. A country cannot tax its own publicly-owned industries to raise revenue to pay for its welfare bill. Coupled with a low-profit model, the welfare bill cannot be paid.
    3. Investment in public institutions are not capital which can be realised if the government never privatises institutions. So they are purely low-yielding investments, considering the low-profit model, which might not even pay for itself even after 30 years. The welfare bill can never be paid.

    On the flip side of privatisation:
    1. Since the government no longer owns these industries, the industries can earn good profits, which the government can regulate.
    2. The government can tax private industries and their shareholders on profits, and even on subsequent sales of these industries. The welfare bill can be paid through this.
    3. Investment in public-turned private institutions can be recouped for by privatisation.
    you raised some fantastic points. I gave you rep. but the word 'whoring' was unnecessary.

    It's interesting to see a British university have campuses in other countries. I wonder how much has this university earned in terms of profit. Any idea?







    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    That's why regulations are needed to restrict prices to ensure that they are fair and not arbitrary. Those companies which go under because of this are simply not competitive, and a better company will eventually take their place.

    Though I can't really comment on government competency, if they're so hopeless at commissioning work, I'm sure they would be even more hopeless in running the said work!
    And this is where I don't really understand the privatised model. You can't trust the market so you regulate it with a government funded and exceedingly expensive regulator to ensure that the private company does the government's bidding.

    So we have a private company, scooping off a handsome profit for private investors, operating as a monopoly, being regulated by an expensive regulator. And that is better than a public funded, public run service in just what way?

    If ever there were a license to print money, this sure is it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~Seraphina~)
    you raised some fantastic points. I gave you rep. but the word 'whoring' was unnecessary.

    It's interesting to see a British university have campuses in other countries. I wonder how much has this university earned in terms of profit. Any idea?
    Thank you. To be fair, I was quoting Evil Genius, who mentioned the whoring.

    Also, I must note that the whole taxation perspective to the matter of privatisation is important in my opinion, considering that the person who started it all in the UK, Margaret Thatcher, was a tax barrister prior to entering politics.

    I'm not sure about dollar profits made by British Universities which partner/set up campuses overseas (in fact I think they're very risky businesses which can fail easily), though I'm very sure that there are a lot of unmeasurable benefits to the country due to such projects, e.g. the goodwill generated, and students at these foreign campuses going to the UK to do their post-graduate studies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    in my opinion, china is a hella messed up country, and we are fine with how we work together now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And this is where I don't really understand the privatised model. You can't trust the market so you regulate it with a government funded and exceedingly expensive regulator to ensure that the private company does the government's bidding.

    So we have a private company, scooping off a handsome profit for private investors, operating as a monopoly, being regulated by an expensive regulator. And that is better than a public funded, public run service in just what way?

    If ever there were a license to print money, this sure is it?
    Even if industries were run by the government, an independent and expensive regulator would still have to be set up to ensure that the government is not exploiting their citizens. This is partly due to the fact that the citizens are unable to influence the price of the public goods and services, because they do not have an alternative to purchase their goods and services from.

    The best solution to the company monopoly problem is to implement and enforce competition law to ensure that monopolies are not formed and that society will have the freedom to choose whom they buy from and influence the price of goods and services. I'm no expert on it, but I know that the EU competition law is a major consideration for companies when they decide to merge/acquire companies.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Even if industries were run by the government, an independent and expensive regulator would still have to be set up to ensure that the government is not exploiting their citizens. This is partly due to the fact that the citizens are unable to influence the price of the public goods and services, because they do not have an alternative to purchase their goods and services from.
    Not at all. There is no health regulator at present. There is an inspectorate and ultimately the commissioning bodies are accountable to the government. It is pretty efficient. When we privatise the government, much of the regulation will be tied up in the contract offered to the private company. So once the contract is signed, if we don't like it, tough. There is no accountability and you or I will certainly never be privy to the contract signed by the government due to commercial reasons.

    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The best solution to the company monopoly problem is to implement and enforce competition law to ensure that monopolies are not formed and that society will have the freedom to choose whom they buy from and influence the price of goods and services. I'm no expert on it, but I know that the EU competition law is a major consideration for companies when they decide to merge/acquire companies.
    This isn't a solution. There are some things for which there can not be competition. Are you suggesting that train companies should be able to run their trains on the same lines? How would that work when there is limited capacity? And how to you bring competition to healthcare? Would you choose to have your operation at the cheapest hospital?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Not at all. There is no health regulator at present. There is an inspectorate and ultimately the commissioning bodies are accountable to the government.
    That's by all means, in my opinion, very much like an independent regulator, albeit part of a government body.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    This isn't a solution. There are some things for which there can not be competition. Are you suggesting that train companies should be able to run their trains on the same lines? How would that work when there is limited capacity? And how to you bring competition to healthcare? Would you choose to have your operation at the cheapest hospital?
    True, some things cannot be competitive. But the examples you raised can be made (somewhat) competitive. For example, instead of selling land for rail lines and stations (I'm not sure if the UK government does this, though I doubt so), governments can award contracts and leases to rail companies and land developers who win bids based on their efficiency, for short periods of time (like 5 years or so). If they turn out to not fulfill their contractual promises or become ineffective at what they do, then the contract will either be allowed to expire, or the government can revoke the contract (provided how it is drafted and other legal issues), replacing the inefficient and uncompetitive company.

    As for healthcare I believe that there should be a mix of private and public institutions, allowing people to choose a private hospital for treatment if they have a better quality of service and if they have the means to do so. As a public hospital is essentially free to patients (though not truly so since they pay national insurance and taxes), the private hospital will have to truly be competitive in pricing and services provided - this will benefit those who use it. However, the converse is not true: the introduction private hospitals will unlikely result in the quality of service of public hospitals dropping (ignoring the trend of public doctors leaving for the private sector).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stochasticking)
    Did you also hear on BBC news yesterday that the government are thinking of selling their debt to CHinese investors to fund the Chinese central bank. :lolwut:
    OMG, is that right?! (Hastily goes off to check news sites.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The real reason for the Tory love-in with China.
    http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...lopments-mipim

    Tories love property and land deals more than anything else, the Conservative Party is completely beholden to the hedge funds and offshored property developers who benefit from all this.

    That's also why Boris tours foreign capitals attempting to sell bits of London to them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Bupdeeboowah;60100421]That's by all means, in my opinion, very much like an independent regulator, albeit part of a government body.

    The difference between an inspectorate and regulator is that the inspectorate only reports. However, the government (accountable to us) set the rules the body is inspected against. A regulator is accountable only to the government and often in private. They set the rules and enforce them. However, private contractual agreements stop the government messing or changing policy.

    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    True, some things cannot be competitive. But the examples you raised can be made (somewhat) competitive. For example, instead of selling land for rail lines and stations (I'm not sure if the UK government does this, though I doubt so), governments can award contracts and leases to rail companies and land developers who win bids based on their efficiency, for short periods of time (like 5 years or so). If they turn out to not fulfill their contractual promises or become ineffective at what they do, then the contract will either be allowed to expire, or the government can revoke the contract (provided how it is drafted and other legal issues), replacing the inefficient and uncompetitive company.
    What is this land you talk of? Most land in the country is privately owned so the government would have to compulsory purchase land to sell to another private company to build a second railway line to be seen to be allowing competition. But what if a third company wants to compete for passengers?

    As for the 5 year contracts - that is what currently happens only the current term is 7 years. Clearly lines like the West Coast are hugely profitable, but the less glamorous ones like Northern Rail require huge subsidies. Not that Serco are risking their profit. They do very well out of it. It is the government that stumps up the loss while the poor public are squeezed into 30 year old trains.

    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    As for healthcare I believe that there should be a mix of private and public institutions, allowing people to choose a private hospital for treatment if they have a better quality of service and if they have the means to do so. As a public hospital is essentially free to patients (though not truly so since they pay national insurance and taxes), the private hospital will have to truly be competitive in pricing and services provided - this will benefit those who use it. However, the converse is not true: the introduction private hospitals will unlikely result in the quality of service of public hospitals dropping (ignoring the trend of public doctors leaving for the private sector).
    Again what have described is the current status quo. What the government are proposing is that certain functions of the NHS are privatised. So if you want a hip replacement, you are treated by a private company. This is fine in practice, but the NHS is only as strong as its components. If you break it up, you are left with a mish mash left to treat the hardest conditions but there isn't a critical mass of staff or expertise anymore because it has all been sold off. Consequently it costs even more, whilst lots of private companies continue to skim off their cut.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.