AUS DVD 43 RE WHAT WILL RIVKIN DO THIS WEEKEND
From: NeilFisher@no-spam (Neil Fisher)
Subject: Re: What will Rivkin do this weekend?
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:08:18 GMT


On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:24:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@no-spam> wrote:

[snip]

>
>**I don not think the government should be in lots of businesses.
Well, I disagree on this. Why not? Keeps the competition honest. And if, as the detractors say, it's horribly inefficient, then the competition has plenty of scope for still making a buck, so what's the problem? But the big plus is that it offsets the bits that private companies just won't touch because they know it's gonna be running at a loss.

>However,
>recent privatisations have just shown us how costly and dumb the private >sector can really be. Telstra, f'rinstance, worked just fine, whilst it was >100% government owned. As did the CES. And the health system.

And, for that matter, toll roads. So, a company can build a road, put a toll on it, pay back the capital expenditure (with interest) and still make a profit, but the govt. can't? Hmm... Oh yeah - they can make a profit only because they get a govt. subsidy and/or tax breaks.

Neil ---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young Thundercords personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au

From: "Trevor Wilson" (trevor@no-spam)
Subject: Re: What will Rivkin do this weekend?
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:36:15 GMT

"Neil Fisher" <NeilFisher@no-spam> wrote in message news:3ef785f3.51881151@no-spam > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:24:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >**I don not think the government should be in lots of businesses.
>
> Well, I disagree on this. Why not? Keeps the competition honest.

**Well, yes it may do so. However, without a vibrant and active busniess sector, an economy will fail (witness the old USSR, et al). My point to Mr Bedingfield was a couple of self-evident trths, pertaining to Telstra. Those points being:
* Before privatisation and the introduction of competition, Telstra provided a world-class service at an extremely good price (compared to other Western nations).
* Before privatisation, Telstra returned very healthy earnings to the government. Those earnings were well in excess of CPI rises. IOW: Telstra provided (and still provides) a bloody good return on investment.
* Now we have competition, we have massive and wasteful duplication of infrastructure. That infrastructure must be paid for. It is just plain dumb to have THREE cellular 'phone carriers, f'rinstance, erecting three sets of towers, switching equipment and other assorted bits, when one set will do just fine. It is also dumb to have multiple sets of fibre optic cables connecting the major cities, when one will do just fine.
* Regardless of promises made, Telstra will not maintain services in uneconomical areas (ie: the Bush).
* I wonder if Mr Bedingfield would sell a 100% secure investment, which paid him a healthy annual return, well beyond inflation figures, year in, year out. Well, this is what our government is planning to do. Talk about 'selling the cow'.

And > if, as the detractors say, it's horribly inefficient, then the > competition has plenty of scope for still making a buck, so what's the > problem? But the big plus is that it offsets the bits that private > companies just won't touch because they know it's gonna be running at > a loss.

**Governments are really good at the big stuff (roads, essential communications, insurance, etc). They're not so good at the little stuff (grocery stores, etc).

>
> >However,
> >recent privatisations have just shown us how costly and dumb the private > >sector can really be. Telstra, f'rinstance, worked just fine, whilst it was > >100% government owned. As did the CES. And the health system.
>
> And, for that matter, toll roads. So, a company can build a road, put > a toll on it, pay back the capital expenditure (with interest) and > still make a profit, but the govt. can't? Hmm... Oh yeah - they can > make a profit only because they get a govt. subsidy and/or tax breaks.

**Yeah, what a con. I have no major objection to user pays stuff. It is just plain idiotic to place tolls on roads. It's incredibly innefficient and unweildy. Much better to increase registration costs (IOW: Taxation) and let the government organise things.

-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com