On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:03:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
Why don't we have private armies?
There are. They're called mercenaries.
Other than that, the investment is rather high.
we have private companies running prisons
and escorting people from prisons to courts, etc.
Yep. Good thing.
Consider the UK telecommunications
industry prior to the privatisation
of BT - a total shambles with customers
being referred to as
subscribers
What balls.The uptime rate of the system was far higher.
I don' t think so.
- that alone tells the story.
Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels are
appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar. Do we
get it like other countries? Not on your Nelly. We spend a fortune on
antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the appalling water
supply. To have a shower in which you don't have to run around in to get
wet we have to install pumps.
I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes fitted.
Unbelievable.
A Yorkshire water company was erecting stand pipes and cutting off supplies
as the reservoirs were too low. Over 30% of the mains were leaking, so all
their money should have been repairing the leaks and replacing mains. Not
on your Nelly! They paid a dividend shareholders and paid an extra special
divvy as well. How can these people pay dividends when the system requires
millions to make it work. Total rip off merchants. I would burn em all.
It would be possible to separate production, distribution and retail
into different elements as has been done successfully with gas and
electricity.
The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".
The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return.
Exactly. Service levels should be first, and only first. Profit is a bonus
No, the prospect of profit is what attracts investment in the private
sector and quite rightly so. Business viability, longevity, profit
and return on investment for shareholders only happens if the business
is a success. In a service industry, that only happens if people buy
the service. Where there is a choice, customers can buy elsewhere if
they are unhappy. So service does remain the key factor, because
there is keen accountability fo rthe success of the business.
That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company.
Or have no choice to, like water or drugs.
Water supply could easily be re-organised and operated with the
choices offered in the gas and electricity industries. They are all
production, delivery and suppply of a commodity. THe consumer can
benefit from choice of retail supplier.
The drugs industry is a totally different situation. The
manufacturers have vast investments for development upon which they
need a return for future investment and shareholder return.
At a certain point, new drugs become generic and prices fall.
The Internet is far from being an
enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business
today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one
of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest
The service levels given by ISPs is appalling. It is all geared to make
money, not provide a service.
That depends on the service you buy. If you want to pay £20 a month
for your connection, you are not going to get the same response in
case of problems as you will if you pay £100.
If somebody invests in the infrastucture to provide a paid service,
they expect a return on that investment - seems reasonable to me.
They aren't in business to hand out oranges and nosegays.
and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.
This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
Actually I'd prefer it to be shut down and not to be paying the
government to be in the healthcare delivery business. It does an
appallingly bad job.
I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.
Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.
With water and drugs you don't.
It's entirely possible for the water industry to be organised as other
utility industries.
The drugs industry is a completely different issue.
It's a nonsense to have a situation where when the government is in a
sector (e.g. health and education) that the customer is forced to pay
for that, then if he wants something better/different has to fund it
himself without contribution for the most part from the state, even
though the state system has been unburdened.
That is your choice if you want to feed your petty snobbery mind then do so.
You get a tax break to feed your Little Middle Englander mind.
There is no tax break if I pay for my own healthcare and education
services. It is actually worse than that because extra taxes are
paid if I do so.
--
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|