Job Discussion Forums

[MotherF]

In my opinion there is no place for privatization in utilities. There will never be true competition as the companies that provide these services have to use the municapal network. Water comes into my house on a network the government laid out. It's not like walking into a store and choosing between nine different kind of milk on offer. We're not going to have nine differnt sets of electrical wires running through a neighborhood for customers to choose from. I'm much happier since Walmart brought Bodega Aurrora to my little town, but comsumer products and utilities/public services are two totally different things.

Phil, as a brit you should know that private ownership and public ownership are not the only two options. England is home to many employee owned companies, such as The John Lewis Partnership--which has a business model I'd love to see more off. Why should companies be accountable to outside shareholders--those shareholder only care about profit, not about the products or services offered or the well being of the employees. They often offer products they know are harmful and push employee exploitation as far as possible. Much better to have employee owned businesses or cooperatives where the stakeholders are also the shareholds of any profit. John Lewis Partnership owns the Waitrose Grocery Stores and the Peter Jones department Stores. If Waitrose came to town, I'd shop there all the time over any of the competition.

(see Can there be Good Corporations? for more information about the John Lewis Partnership and other employee owned companies and cooperatives.)

[Guy Courchesne]

(responding to Phil) Hmm...I'd argue the opposite, in that companies will often only work in the short term...to what's profitable today and in the next quarterly report. Governments do similar things, yes, but not with the same cutthroat motive.

Two great examples of where private industry thrived in privitization...one old, one new. Telecommunications and space exploration. One could have argued about 30 years ago that privatizing telecomms would spur growth, lower prices, and bring new tech. And it did...we now have the Internet, smartphones, and a whole host of cool stuff.

But it wasn't deregulation that started it. It was work at the government level, at universities, at DARPA that brought us these technologies.

Right now, the US is moving space exploration to the private sphere...because it's time to, after 50 years of publicly funded NASA work.

[geaaronson]

Phil K
Just keep in mind that when it comes to privatization vs. nationalization, the politicians` powerful positions are at stake when government services become costlier, whereas if there is a monopoly, what CEO is going to give a damn how many complaining emails he gets? He`s not going to lose his position. He answers to the shareholders and the greater the profit, ie. gouging of the public, the happier they will be. It`s simple Pyschology 101.

[Phil_K]

Wow, so many posts directed to me, and so many answers to give!

First, let me say thank you to all the contributors for a very civilized debate - I love this kind of stuff, and like any political debate we probably won't come to any concensus, but due to the late hour, (and the fact that Mad Men is about to start ), I'll take up the challenge tomorrow.

[Dragonlady]

All of you are presenting excellent arguments for your platforms! Hard to know who to vote for!

However, hands down, best comical statement of the night goes to Guy for
"I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"

Suddenly the name Pe�a Nieto comes to mind.

DL

[MotherF]

This was kind of fun.

http://porquienchingados.org.mx

While set up to look neutral, it may not be, some of the questions seemed loaded to me, but maybe that's becaue of the way I feel about the issues?

I did get three none AMLO points, one for Josefina ( ), and two for Quadri de la Torre, who I already thought sounded interesting.

[Guy Courchesne]

[BadBeagleBad]

I only have one thing to say about Josefina. Menos Vasquez, mas Mota.

I got all Lopez Obrador, except one for Pena Nieto (the first question, about senators), one de la Torre (abortion) and one none of the above (television).

I have a few people I am going to ask to take the quiz.......thanks for the link.

de la Torre has a lot of support in the academic world, as well as among some economists. He does have some good ideas, but it not well known enough, nor does he have enough money to get anywhere. Probably the most intelligent of the lot, though.

[BadBeagleBad]

[MotherF]

[Guy Courchesne]

Oh, I'm well aware that I'm a social libertarian...and can freely agree with a lot of what AMLO promises.

His ideas are great but the man himself is simply a charlatan who will say whatever to get elected.

[MotherF]

The way I see it all politicians are---and at this point Mexico really has nothing to lose in giving him (and the left in general) a try.

[Guy Courchesne]

True about politicians...

But I think Mexico has a lot to lose by choosing a capricious leader too far to the left on many issues. For the last 12 years, Mexico has enjoyed stability in the economy, the currency, and interest rates. It has a high rate of foreign investment, holds low public debt, relatively low inflation, and keeps a large foreign reserve. These things are important and when missed, cause all kinds of problems elsewhere. Just look at the shocks this country endured under PRI since the 70's Took PAN to finally get it right.

[Phil_K]

I have to say, against all my instincts and good sense, I'm beginning to get interested in what AMLO is saying - and that's a massive confession from me!

[Isla Guapa]