toots wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what your point is tbh. It seems you are pointing out the situation we have currently. If we have nationalised companies working along side independent privately owned companies such monopolies and subsidy would not be available, another alternative would be to have a similar free market to that of the taxi driver, whereby anybody can work it but somebody else restricts their income by way of a maximum tariff they can charge
You stated;
It's about choice and competition instead of price fixing and one company being much the same as the otherI stated:
You mean like those power and other utility companies, or those rail companies which win monopoly rights and receive subsidy, or indeed the banks that were bailed out?You seem very selective in what you want to compete and what you believe shouldn't (although you didn't say in the snippet what you thought should be nationalised.
Most right minded people appear to believe its unethical for companies to make profit from Water, Electricity & Gas - all three are more or less essential for human existence - therefore a company making a profit - whilst the government effectively subsidises pensioners fuel bills - is simply wrong.
The problem with what the Labour party announced is in my view that its about as much use as t*ts on a man - its a veiled threat and nothing else, it will give the energy monopolies time to ensure they fix prices and whatever else to ensure their profits. The conservatives and their feckwit liberal mates will castigate labour because they haven't a [edited by admin] clue what their doing anyway.
What labour should have said, is what I said (less the swear words).
The thrust of my point is that it is impossible for any free market to work with a finite resource - they are all buying the goods from the same producers - what we have is energy companies [edited by admin] about with prices - in effect we all pay the same, well eventually, its just that our bills are all tarted up differently.
I don't follow your logic of how a privately run firm could or should be able to compete with a state controlled business whose interest isn't profit.
I also cannot understand how you say banks shouldn't be state controlled, because the events of 2008 needed the state to bail them out - the state had little choice but to bail them out, the consequences of not doing so would have led to catastrophe.
We seem to be working under the impression that private healthcare is better than state healthcare - it may be better managed, but invariably the doctors are the same - and proper investment in medicines comes from the state - it seems to me the private hospitals simply have better PR.
Login
Register
FAQ
oops yer a yokel dont do tables do yer 
