Privatisation is morally wrong and ineffective. Watch

Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
Let's take water for example. Water is a human right, no one should pay to have access to clean water. Yes, I realise you will end up paying for nationalised water in tax but it would be much cheaper than ludicrous water utility rates. Secondly, the whole goal of privatisation is to increase efficency and to create competition. Yet there is no competitition in the water industry. You have single companies holding massive monopolies for entire regions. Someone in Norfolk can't decide they want to go with Welsh Water because its cheaper than Anglian or whatever.

And the whole idea of transport being inefficeint if nationalised is grossly misleading. Look at the current state of the UK rail network. Ridiculously expensive fares and trains are never on time or running correctly. So much so, The tories seem to agree with Labour and have already nationalised two rail companies!
1
reply
aioheuiawe
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
I mostly agree here, entirely.
I would word it that necessities or large industries that are important to the fabric of the country should not be privatised, for moral reasons - it's morally wrong to provide substandard travel if it means you increase your profit; or it's morally wrong to try and increase prices of water because you're not making a profit.

I'm sure I could have worded that in a better way and if I can think of a better way, I'll edit my post lol. On the Tories nationalisations, it sort of sickens me that they're so against it, fundamentally, but when they see the country's tune changing in favour of Labour's age-old position, they quickly adopt it as well, slimy in my opinion.

I do not think all privatisaiton is wrong, merely that which is integral to the people of the country and cannot be substituted.

edit: touchy subject, but care. I believe it's abhorrent that a company will attempt to care for those who the NHS cannot care for, because they have no budget in this area. Companies are engineered for profit, which works in many cases, not something as human as care. I have witnessed this pitfall, personally, and it disgusts me. The beauty of socialism is that we do not want to nationalise everything, just that which makes logical sense.
Last edited by aioheuiawe; 1 week ago
1
reply
lazerbeem
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
I think people should have to pay to access clean water. Most water we get doesn't really come through the tap as safe to drink since it has to be treated first. I don't think it's safe to be able to drink rain water from a Resevoir without it being treated.
Treating water isn't free, installing the pipes to everyone's house isn't free, having people to work in the water treatment plants isn't free. Its got to be paid for somehow right? If taxed was raised to cover water then people would complain about that too. Food is a human right but we don't get that for free either.
Im afraid that's how the world works. You can't get something for nothing.
2
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by lazerbeem)
I think people should have to pay to access clean water. Most water we get doesn't really come through the tap as safe to drink since it has to be treated first. I don't think it's safe to be able to drink rain water from a Resevoir without it being treated.
Treating water isn't free, installing the pipes to everyone's house isn't free, having people to work in the water treatment plants isn't free. Its got to be paid for somehow right? If taxed was raised to cover water then people would complain about that too. Food is a human right but we don't get that for free either.
Im afraid that's how the world works. You can't get something for nothing.
I acknowledged that, but water companies make massive profits. Charge, sure, but only enough to run it. It shoult not be profitable. And even so, surely the point of privatisation would be to allow for competition, and as I said, there is none.
1
reply
lazerbeem
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Ferrograd)
I acknowledged that, but water companies make massive profits. Charge, sure, but only enough to run it. It shoult not be profitable. And even so, surely the point of privatisation would be to allow for competition, and as I said, there is none.
But if no business was ever profitable, where is the incentive to do anything? I liken it to those who say everyone should get the same wages no matter what. It removes incentive to aim for anything higher.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Let's take water for example.
What about BA? Or the Tote?
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by lazerbeem)
But if no business was ever profitable, where is the incentive to do anything? I liken it to those who say everyone should get the same wages no matter what. It removes incentive to aim for anything higher.
The incentive is, peoples' thirst is quenched.
0
reply
aioheuiawe
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by lazerbeem)
But if no business was ever profitable, where is the incentive to do anything? I liken it to those who say everyone should get the same wages no matter what. It removes incentive to aim for anything higher.
Nobody is talking about that. I would suggest that the incentive comes from being paid. They are still paid, but no profit is generated - like charities almost. We'd all object to charities being for-profit, I'm sure. But when it comes to a necessity like water, oh that's fine, yea rip us alloff. The workers would be paid, the bosses would be paid, but no profit would be generated because it's inconsequential, the government would fund it, with the correct funding required.
0
reply
Johnny Tightlips
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Let's take water for example. Water is a human right, no one should pay to have access to clean water. Yes, I realise you will end up paying for nationalised water in tax but it would be much cheaper than ludicrous water utility rates. Secondly, the whole goal of privatisation is to increase efficency and to create competition. Yet there is no competitition in the water industry. You have single companies holding massive monopolies for entire regions. Someone in Norfolk can't decide they want to go with Welsh Water because its cheaper than Anglian or whatever.

And the whole idea of transport being inefficeint if nationalised is grossly misleading. Look at the current state of the UK rail network. Ridiculously expensive fares and trains are never on time or running correctly. So much so, The tories seem to agree with Labour and have already nationalised two rail companies!
I mean what you say is correct. But that doesn't mean the entire mantra of privatisation is inherently wrong. It has advantages and disadvantages, and works well in many areas and doesn't in many others. To take an absolute approach is lazy and silly.
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Yes, I realise you will end up paying for nationalised water in tax but it would be much cheaper than ludicrous water utility rates.
Is Scottish Water (nationalised) cheaper?
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by lazerbeem)
I think people should have to pay to access clean water. Most water we get doesn't really come through the tap as safe to drink since it has to be treated first. I don't think it's safe to be able to drink rain water from a Resevoir without it being treated.
Treating water isn't free, installing the pipes to everyone's house isn't free, having people to work in the water treatment plants isn't free. Its got to be paid for somehow right? If taxed was raised to cover water then people would complain about that too. Food is a human right but we don't get that for free either.
Im afraid that's how the world works. You can't get something for nothing.
We can decide, as a society, that we should care for each other. We can collectively decide that our taxes should go towards providing food and water for everyone. We will be happier when we do. We decide how the world works. We built it, and we build it every day.
0
reply
MWills99
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by lazerbeem)
But if no business was ever profitable, where is the incentive to do anything? I liken it to those who say everyone should get the same wages no matter what. It removes incentive to aim for anything higher.
Exactly, they would do the bare minimum to get by, as a consumer I don't want that.

(Original post by Ferrograd)
Let's take water for example. Water is a human right, no one should pay to have access to clean water. Yes, I realise you will end up paying for nationalised water in tax but it would be much cheaper than ludicrous water utility rates. Secondly, the whole goal of privatisation is to increase efficency and to create competition. Yet there is no competitition in the water industry. You have single companies holding massive monopolies for entire regions. Someone in Norfolk can't decide they want to go with Welsh Water because its cheaper than Anglian or whatever.

And the whole idea of transport being inefficeint if nationalised is grossly misleading. Look at the current state of the UK rail network. Ridiculously expensive fares and trains are never on time or running correctly. So much so, The tories seem to agree with Labour and have already nationalised two rail companies!
The problem is that providing water to everybody's homes isn't free, it has to be paid for. Plus there are free water points about in key places where I live, if you want the convenience of it being in your home, you should pay.
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by MWills99)

The problem is that providing water to everybody's homes isn't free, it has to be paid for. Plus there are free water points about in key places where I live, if you want the convenience of it being in your home, you should pay.
Which is why the OP you quoted said it needed to be paid for? Take it you didn't actually read the post you quoted?
0
reply
BasicMistake
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

Blanket statements like that are completely useless. While you can make the argument that water as a utility and a natural monopoly ought to be nationalised, try justifying the government running sh*t like the sugar industry.
1
reply
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Let's take water for example. Water is a human right, no one should pay to have access to clean water. Yes, I realise you will end up paying for nationalised water in tax but it would be much cheaper than ludicrous water utility rates. Secondly, the whole goal of privatisation is to increase efficency and to create competition. Yet there is no competitition in the water industry. You have single companies holding massive monopolies for entire regions. Someone in Norfolk can't decide they want to go with Welsh Water because its cheaper than Anglian or whatever.
Why do you think nationalised water would be cheaper? The water industry is more efficient now, which suggests it should be cheaper. Yes, bills are more expensive, but that's likely due to the massive investment that has occurred since privatisation (over £100 billion I believe) as it was under-invested in when it was under state control.

And the whole idea of transport being inefficeint if nationalised is grossly misleading. Look at the current state of the UK rail network. Ridiculously expensive fares and trains are never on time or running correctly. So much so, The tories seem to agree with Labour and have already nationalised two rail companies!
The rail system in Britain is far from perfect, nor is it even the best in Europe, but it has generally improved. Fares are expensive as the government has been moving the cost of the railways more onto those who use them.
1
reply
lazerbeem
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by aioheuiawe)
Nobody is talking about that. I would suggest that the incentive comes from being paid. They are still paid, but no profit is generated - like charities almost. We'd all object to charities being for-profit, I'm sure. But when it comes to a necessity like water, oh that's fine, yea rip us alloff. The workers would be paid, the bosses would be paid, but no profit would be generated because it's inconsequential, the government would fund it, with the correct funding required.
Relax. I'm not the water company y'know, I'm not ripping you off.
If simply being paid only what you needed was incentive enough, then business would never charge over the odds for everything. They run on greed, which is why they always want more. Do I agree with it? No. Can I do anything about it? No. But from my experience with some companies that provide free service, they don't often do as good a job as those who charge for their service.
0
reply
lazerbeem
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
The incentive is, peoples' thirst is quenched.
I do like my thirst quenched, as do people who run the water companies. But they also like their pockets full more than they like to quench peoples thirst for free.
0
reply
Johnny Tightlips
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Smack)
Why do you think nationalised water would be cheaper? The water industry is more efficient now, which suggests it should be cheaper. Yes, bills are more expensive, but that's likely due to the massive investment that has occurred since privatisation (over £100 billion I believe) as it was under-invested in when it was under state control.



The rail system in Britain is far from perfect, nor is it even the best in Europe, but it has generally improved. Fares are expensive as the government has been moving the cost of the railways more onto those who use them.
A private company shouldn't run a natural monopoly.
Thames Water has been notorious for sewage leakages, flooding, water pollution etc. Yet they make £100 million profits and more every year. Without competition they have no incentive to git gud

And I think we had the train conversation before xD
0
reply
lazerbeem
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
We can decide, as a society, that we should care for each other. We can collectively decide that our taxes should go towards providing food and water for everyone. We will be happier when we do. We decide how the world works. We built it, and we build it every day.
We could decide that but we don't. We could also decide to be nicer, be more careful with our carbon footprint, not litter, raise our kids well, work hard, help the homeless or simply not road rage at each other, but we dont do any of those either even though we all would be happier. We destroy what we build, just as fast as it is being built.
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by lazerbeem)
We could decide that but we don't. We could also decide to be nicer, be more careful with our carbon footprint, not litter, raise our kids well, work hard, help the homeless or simply not road rage at each other, but we dont do any of those either even though we all would be happier. We destroy what we build, just as fast as it is being built.
''People don't always make good decisions so let's be like them and not make good decisions.''

''The world isn't fair so let's make the world less fair.''

''Life sucks so let's make people's lives suck even when they don't have to.''
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (378)
67.14%
No (185)
32.86%

Watched Threads

View All