Infrastructure: Should it be public or private?

[Aaron]

Roads, telephone lines, electricity, water... is it a goverment responsibility or is it a good that should be sold? Should the market have a play in how we obtain the essentials in life? Please try talk in general terms, rather than nation specific. Discuss.

[pppoe]

Government responsibility.

[BillyBonebrake]

public

[siva_chair]

Depends.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Government. Infrastructure generally costs so much that a company overlooking it would need to do a terrible job in order to make a profit.

Places with private public transport (lolz i never realized how dumb that sounded) get poor service in places that aren't profitable for busses, companies would never spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvements with long-term economic benefits, etc.

[thunderzstruck]

Government responsibility.

I agree with you, but our governemnt fails miserably at this

Like, a lot

[siva_chair]

Things like roads, ect. certainly are best left to the govt, but things like certain utilities where competition in a free market can lower the cost to the consumer and whatnot seems like a good idea to me. Obviously, this isn't always feasible though and thus the state government oftentimes needs to step in and do it.

For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing the entire postal service opened up to the private sector. The competition in the free market could keep quality of service high and costs low.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Things like roads, ect. certainly are best left to the govt, but things like certain utilities where competition in a free market can lower the cost to the consumer and whatnot seems like a good idea to me. Obviously, this isn't always feasible though and thus the state government oftentimes needs to step in and do it.

For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing the entire postal service opened up to the private sector. The competition in the free market could keep quality of service high and costs low.

The problem with making things like this private is that people in less populated locations tend to get screwed. I don't disagree with what you said as long as there's a lot of regulation to ensure that companies don't only offer good service to places where they make an easy buck.

Typical example - bus companies would provide inadequate service during off-peak hours, power companies might not spend all that much effort making sure the boonies have electricity, postal service might not pick up the mail every day from every single mail box, etc. Public services aren't supposed to be profitable every single day and at every single point of service; that's why they're public in the first place.

[Reaganista]

both but private should be preferred

[BassRevelation0]

Public infrastructure should be the responsibility of the public.

[mph4ever]

infrastructure is government, utilities that you can choose to use or not should be private


For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing the entire postal service opened up to the private sector. The competition in the free market could keep quality of service high and costs low.

the postal service will never be privatised successfully. junk mail users i.e. the companies who use the postal service to plague us all with their latest brochure or product offering would never be feasible if the tax payers money didn't prop up the postal service

[Reaganista]

u can chose not to use anything

[Chrysostom]

Anything that everyone in a given country needs and is essential - water, gas, electricity, postal service etc. should be government run. Simple as that.

[Reaganista]

that doesn't make any sense if private providers can do it at a lower cost

[Chrysostom]

that doesn't make any sense if private providers can do it at a lower cost

Lower cost doesn't always mean better quality of service though. I can think of a few examples of private companies over here (Britain) either shafting the consumer directly or providing poor service. And let's not forget that ultimately (or in large part at least) private companies that deal with utilities are out to make a profit for their shareholders.

That said, nationalization isn't a perfect system either, and I would never claim it was. Someone I know has said that "something that's owned by everybody is owned by nobody". He is however, very right wing.

Both systems have their pros and cons but of the two I prefer nationalization.
I am after all a big fan of Clement Attlee's 1945-51 government which nationalized the sh*t out of Britain.

[Reaganista]

sure it doesn't always mean a better quality of service but it tends to work out that way in practice
government service isnt really noted for its high quality anyway

[DekWannaBFlea]

It should be a mix. It just depends on the situation and what type of infrastructure you are talking about.

[mph4ever]

u can chose not to use anything

like lighting in a public place or levees that protect the area you live in from a flood

[Radiobass81]

Public.

[Reaganista]

like lighting in a public place or levees that protect the area you live in from a flood
ya u can chose not to live there

[Radiobass81]

ya u can chose not to live there

Choosing not to live in an area is sometimes hard, buddy. Especially now, with the market having ima-gonna-cry prices.

[Reaganista]

ya lots of stuff is hard sometimes

[Aaron]

that doesn't make any sense if private providers can do it at a lower cost
Why does it have to be lower cost? Do you know what a price ceiling is and why it's used?

[Reaganista]

it's used when you want to artificially lower supply and it has no bearing on whether or not private providers can provide at a lower cost

[Aaron]

Well it does have to do with this thread...

[ps you confuse me. 73% of your posts are confusing babble, the other 27% are really quite switched on and intelligent]

[Reaganista]

it happens to the best of us

[ringworm]

i agree with tway 100% on this thread :)

[BassRevelation0]

that doesn't make any sense if private providers can do it at a lower cost

um who do you think pays the private providers

you've apparently never heard of the unnecessarily overpaid, no-bid contracts awarded to private corporations who don't do any better.

[Aaron]

um who do you think pays the private providers

you've apparently never heard of the unnecessarily overpaid, no-bid contracts awarded to private corporations who don't do any better.
That's a legislation issue.

[Smokey D]

um who do you think pays the private providers

you've apparently never heard of the unnecessarily overpaid, no-bid contracts awarded to private corporations who don't do any better.

Erm, the public pays the private providers.

And the public pays the government.

So if the government does things more expensively, we should use private providers.

[Reaganista]

um who do you think pays the private providers

you've apparently never heard of the unnecessarily overpaid, no-bid contracts awarded to private corporations who don't do any better.

an intriguing observation im sure but not particularly relevant to anything i said

[BassRevelation0]

Erm, the public pays the private providers.

And the public pays the government.

So if the government does things more expensively, we should use private providers.

um perhaps you didn't read the part that said unnecessarily overpaid, no-bid contracts (see hurricane katrina).

Which would mean *surprise* that the private corporations in this case would be doing it more expensively than the government and other potential corporations

[Aaron]

Which is still unrelated to what this thread is discussing. We're discussing the merits of private and publically run infrastures, not no-bid contracts. They're diferent things. Do you read threads?

[griftadan]

things that are easily monopolized due to geography or the nature of the technology should be regulated/nationalized

usually this is things like rails/roads/water systems. things like communications are probably best left private.

[Smokey D]

um perhaps you didn't read the part that said unnecessarily overpaid, no-bid contracts (see hurricane katrina).

Which would mean *surprise* that the private corporations in this case would be doing it more expensively than the government and other potential corporations

Seems to me like a reason we should minimise the government's ability to issue no bid contracts and maximise antitrust laws.

[Charlie Daniels]

Well, I'm not exactly against the privatization of some roads... such as the Metlink roads in Victoria. I like this idea because it means that it's the users of the service (the road) that pay for it's construction and upkeep... because they were incredibly expensive to build and maintain.

In general, though, I think it's best for the government to be in charge of such things. Or at least over seeing everything closely. The governments overall motive is service for it's citizens rather than profit, so that's the key difference I think.

[Iskandar]

Services that are intended for the public should be overseen by the public sector. It seems clear to me.

Contrary to popular belief, government utilities are often cheaper and easier to maintain because of their centralized nature.

[mph4ever]

ya u can chose not to live there

but what if i was born there? what if i was institutionalised there? what if i didn't have a choice?

[BassRevelation0]

Which is still unrelated to what this thread is discussing. We're discussing the merits of private and publically run infrastures, not no-bid contracts. They're diferent things. Do you read threads?

yeah asking the all-inclusive thought "should infrastructure be public or private" does not limit it to the merits (whatever that means)

If you knew what contracts were you and tway would realize the government can do things less expensively than corporations in certain situations.
Seems to me like a reason we should minimise the government's ability to issue no bid contracts and maximise antitrust laws.
Right on, bro. Right on.

[Aaron]

If you knew what contracts were you and tway would realize the government can do things less expensively than corporations in certain situations.
I know what a contract is. I'm studying contract [business] law and economics, sir. What you fail to realise is that the least expensive option is not always the best option in many instances in markets, especially in relation to big projects that are paid by the government. I agree with you that limitations should be set on government setting up business relationships with private firms without floating tenders, but you should be realistic and realise that the competition at the upper end for civil works is extremely tight [not too many organisations can feasibly build a 1000km road within a two-year timeframe for example].

[BassRevelation0]

What you fail to realise is that the least expensive option is not always the best option in many instances in markets
Here is where you're off. A no-bid contract does not measure any of that.

[Aaron]

How?

[Smokey D]

Why are you still talking about no bid contracts since that has nothing to do with whether or not governments should build infrastructure.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Here is where you're off. A no-bid contract does not measure any of that.

There is, however, one advantage of no-bid contracts - if you know you're dealing with a good company, you know they will not cut corners to come up with the lowest bid, and knowing who the contract is going to gives you more time to look at the plans and cut off possible shortcomings.

I'm not saying I would go with no-bid contracts if I was in government, but they're not completely evil depending if a good company gets the contract. Automatically going for the lowest bidder guarantees lowballed offers and crappy work.