People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Again, your view of what constitutes 'choice' is exceptionally narrow, to the point at which I again say you are not genuinely interested in giving people a choice except when it pertains to asserting the superiority of the private sector and the free market.

---

I am still quite mad that some people seem to think that they have the right to stick their noses into business that doesn't effect them in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

There are services that the public sector provides that could not continue on a commercial basis, but are extremely important nonetheless. Those are the instances beyond which I believe the societal benefit of public provision goes beyond the financial bottom line.

---

I can see somethings that fit your definition, and are important. Where have I once said that the public sector could not provide services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You seem to have a problem with people wishing to make different choices to your own.

---

Quite the oposite in fact. I encourage people to make their own choices as long as they feel they benefit themselves, and do not harm me. However, public services in many instances do harm me and society as they are a financial drain on society, and (now here's the key point) I am FORCED to pay for them. So I no longer have any choice in the market. My "invisible hand" now has no power to sway the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Where have I said 'at any cost'? Nowhere. Of course there must be limits. I just wouldn't set them quite as low as yours. Nor do I believe that the private sector is in any way inherently superior when it comes to the provision of said services.

---

I would not say that the private sector is inherently superior. I would say that a free market system allows for failure, and therefore in the long-ish run, services provided by the free market tend to increas value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Again, your view of what constitutes 'choice' is exceptionally narrow, to the point at which I again say you are not genuinely interested in giving people a choice except when it pertains to asserting the superiority of the private sector and the free market.

---

How is my choice narrow? If you don't believe that life has value, I don't think I can help you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I just can't get my head around the idea of a private sector in markets that are 'natural monopolies' e.g. rail network, utilities.etc. Since such markets require such an infrastructure they require a national network, this creates barriers to entry that mean 'real' competition can not develop.

---

That is not ture. Rail networks and utilities started out as private enterprises that competed with each other. Only after time and politicians thinking they had the best interests of societies in mind did they develop into "natural monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.

---

If both are/were funded by the public then neither one could be clasified as "private", the free market was not at work, people were FORCED into subsidizing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I am still quite mad that some people seem to think that they have the right to stick their noses into business that doesn't effect them in anyway.

---

So your argument would seem to be that one's life has no value, with the possible exception of your own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

It is a Department of Justice document outlining the basis of prosecutions that they will seek on lending institutions. How is that not "actual legislation"?

---

Legislation is a piece of statutory law; made by a government or legislature. This is not one of those.

Considering that this is a policy document which deals with discrimination, then that's what the scope of the document is about. You would expect the DoJ to seek prosecutions on that basis.

It does not suggest though that a lending institution should adopt imprudent lending practices.
"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory. Not lending to people because they come from a low income area is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I just can't get my head around the idea of a private sector in markets that are 'natural monopolies' e.g. rail network, utilities.etc. Since such markets require such an infrastructure they require a national network, this creates barriers to entry that mean 'real' competition can not develop.

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.

---

The (mobile)telephone operators are a very good example of an utility that was a public service with a national network, that succesfully transitioned to a free-market private service.
The privatising of the railroads failed mainly because it is impossible to operate at the high level of service for the low price the people expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory.

---

It is if a memember of a minority cries wolf and one finds oneself in court defending what you rather naively call "safe and sound lending policies."

Lawyers cost money, liberal lawyers jump at "discrimination" case like fleas jump on dogs.

It is cheap and easy to say "they did not have to do x, y or z but they are the ones who have to pay lawyers to fight discrimination charges, not internet self-appointed experts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.

---

I don't think there's much direct comparison to be made between them, to be honest, given the much narrower remit of Network Rail.

BR was making massive leaps forward at the time of privatisation; all were immediately cancelled out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I can see somethings that fit your definition, and are important. Where have I once said that the public sector could not provide services?

---

You clearly don't like it doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Quite the oposite in fact. I encourage people to make their own choices as long as they feel they benefit themselves, and do not harm me. However, public services in many instances do harm me and society as they are a financial drain on society, and (now here's the key point) I am FORCED to pay for them. So I no longer have any choice in the market. My "invisible hand" now has no power to sway the market.

---

I believe my influence over enormous corporations is minimal, should I decide not to buy their products/services. My 'choice', therefore, is all but irrelevant to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

How is my choice narrow? If you don't believe that life has value, I don't think I can help you there.

---

Your definition of choice is narrow. If you applied your same desire for a free choice to all aspects of life, you would be in favour of offering people an entirely free choice on issues such as abortion. But you don't. You feel free choice has its limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

The (mobile)telephone operators are a very good example of an utility that was a public service with a national network, that succesfully transitioned to a free-market private service.

---

I don't consider that a fair comparison, because mobile telephone services have never been provided by the state, in Britain at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

The privatising of the railroads failed mainly because it is impossible to operate at the high level of service for the low price the people expect.

---

And I believe this to be totally wrong — an extremely sweeping statement. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would cite many other reasons, such as the manner of privatisation, the sort of companies that took over, etc, etc, etc.