privatisation of government railways, airlines, etc... Is good or bad...?

The privatization of any essential service is an absurdity. It doesn't look like it today, because it has been done repeatedly for at least 30 years and in a period of relative peace.

But with the way in which corporations have inserted their tendrils in every pot—much like the EU for that matter—nations that have sold thier assets to foreign economic interests can say goodbye to their sovereignty... Yes, it's BAD!

sahasrarabliss said:

privatisation of government railways, airlines, etc... Is good or bad...?

Click to expand...

Privatisation to me sounds annoying.
Nationalisation on the other hand sounds a bit more exciting for some reason, don't quite know why.

I mean the local shopkeeper down the road is "privatised" but you naturally think more of large supermarket chains like Walmarts Lidls and Targets. I think for now food distribution through these means is something that can stay privatised but privatisation of more critical matters like healthcare, policing, transport services etc. Is foul play against the people, jew-y capitalism at work. Those things should be totally under the control of the government and have a fixed baseline level of funding, affordability (in the case of public transport). For industry and other employment sectors there are already strong regulations and laws in our western countries preventing the abuse and arbitrary treatment of workers. There's no need to nationalise the service industry or anything that would just be a big mess, and manufacturing and resource procuring industries (like mines) should only be nationalised in the event of war- even then those industries are soon being automated mostly.

Privatisation of public means of transport is a totally negative thing because it means that those who are less fortunate suffer under the whims of third party management of the transport system, whereas an enlightened government controlling that same system has to ensure they are aiding everyone sufficiently, not causing misfortunes or in the case of employees- laying people off in economic rough patches. The government has more of a sense of responsibility to its citizens, which bends and falters depending on how corrupt and kiked out the government is hence why I say 'enlightened' nationalisation. A company only has its image, and the senses of the people controlling it who are usually focused only on making a profit and not helping people out.

When it comes to nationalisation in terms of food distribution I actually think there should be some kind of government regulated system that encourages closer contact between consumers and farmers - more 'hand-to-mouth' oriented markets that cut out the monotony of the supermarket chain and replace it with more technologically advanced local marketplaces. Cut out the middleman and also educate the alienated younger generation of people today somewhat about rural living and self-sufficiency. A bit like Varg's ideas and the Dig for Victory scheme, except not as extreme. We shouldn't rely on other nations for food from a holistic viewpoint either, because imported food is not as fresh and thus has a higher tendency to contamination. It also devalues the sense of community in a nation and the truly built and local 'wealth' like construction of great works. That wealth which is conjured within the people and not the coffers of some international business magnate. Benefiting everyone and not just the family and business ladder of some random jude in a suit.

The abundance of delivery drivers needed today for deliveries might have to become a nationalised convention, atleast partly. Amazon and related fully reap the profits of goods distribution but really the goods need to start getting manufactured once more within our nations. This would create a more productive and socially cohesive state of things for people to live in.

Inflorescentia said:

The privatization of any essential service is an absurdity. It doesn't look like it today, because it has been done repeatedly for at least 30 years and in a period of relative peace.

But with the way in which corporations have inserted their tendrils in every pot—much like the EU for that matter—nations that have sold thier assets to foreign economic interests can say goodbye to their sovereignty... Yes, it's BAD!

Click to expand...

I agree with that privatization of essential services causes abuse and overpricing for fucking HUMAN NEEDS over making over the top profits its ridiculous fuck the jews they make working a job not worth it what with how little you get and how expensive everything is how do you survive on this fucked up planets system :x :x :x :x :x :x :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

As long as there is not a monopoly, privatization and free market capitalism is one of the most beneficial sources in all the world. Responsible for most of the modern advances in medicine, technology, and making these things available to the widest amount of people throughout the world.

It naturally makes everything more affordable. Because there is competition between multiple companies, they are encouraged to lower their prices. Because if one company lowers the price, the other ones would go out of business. So all of them end up lowering their prices, and the product is now available and affordable for the most amount of people.

It also encourages invention, new better designs, and efficiency. Companies are encouraged to make higher quality products, and invent new better designs, because then more people will buy from them instead of the other companies. They also are encouraged to invent new ways to produce products more efficiently with less waste and less pollution, because when they waste less materials, they can build more product and make more money.

Nationalization has the opposite effects. Because they don't need to think of a smart way to do anything, because the government will always bail them out and give them more money. So they can fail horribly in every way, and the government will waste endless money keeping them alive. Why be efficient with the way you use your materials when the government gives you endless materials? Why invent a better design when everybody is forced to buy the low quality design you have because there are no alternatives?

Nearly all medicines in the entire world are invented in America. Because the American medical industry is made of private companies which each have money to spend on researching and developing new medicines. And if they succeed, they make their money back and make a profit. This gives them the flexibility to take more risks and work on designs that are more difficult.

The best example I can think of comparing privitization with nationalization is the US Postal Service. The US Postal Service is total garbage. It works pretty well, but it has it's problems and it's just not sustainable. Every single year, the US Postal Service falls into Billions of dollars worth of debt, and every single year the government pays off this debt for them. Without the government keeping it on life support every year, it would not survive even 6 months. But at the same time, we have the private companies like UPS and Fedex that are very highly profitable and successful. Because they compete with each other on having better service, they compete with each other on having better prices. And this refines them into becoming better quality, more efficient, and lower priced. Because they have to be to survive. Each company has to find a way to get the package to its destination in the fastest and safest way, for the least amount of money. A nationalized company doesn't need to worry about that kind of quality. It will get there whenever it gets there, and it might be damaged, and we don't care because we're your only option and you have to keep being our customer.

When there is an endless supply of money coming in, regardless of work or performance, people get lazy. They don't need to do a good job, they don't even need to do anything. They are going to keep getting paid no matter what. And they're only going to get paid more and more every year. Because the government is always there to pay their debt for them. And whatever inefficiencies and problems there are now, they only multiply every year. Because it's a guaranteed check coming to them. Actually they are encouraged to purposefully be more inefficient and more wasteful. Because if we do not use up our entire budget for this year, they will give us a smaller budget next year. So we need to waste at least as much money this year as we did last year, and we should actually waste even more after that so they'll give us an even bigger budget the year after.

Free Market Capitalism is what brought the quality of life over most of this planet up to the highest levels in history. Because it is the creator of technology, advancements, and it is the force which makes these technologies less expensive and able to be shared with more people for less money.

Most certainly Privatization is good.

The word Privatization was formed after the policies of the National Socialists who created an economic miracle by solving their economic collapse situation in a couple of years. And as Leon Degrelle states in his seminal work "How Hitler consolidated power in Germany ", Private enterprise was at the forefront of this boom.

Taking a balls to the wall approach, they even privatized railways and ports which were traditionally under Government.

When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) and tariffs on imports. Weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms.

Click to expand...

Abstract: The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

Click to expand...

https://archive.org/details/PrivatizationInNationalSocialistGermany

However the greatest problem with Privatization is that corrupt Government officials could play corporate politics on the payroll of the corporations and they could end up with monopolies which is the death of competition and growth. To successfully pull off a feat such as Privatization you'd need a group of hardcore fanatics who love the nation and the people more than they love material possessions.

sahasrarabliss said:

privatisation of government railways, airlines, etc... Is good or bad...?

Click to expand...

For short term benefits to people it might be, but in the longer term it is always the MNCs that take over them partially if not completely.
Nationalisation on the other hand can rid of present problems with a change in governance etc.
On occassions govts do privatise these in hopes of better service, more genration of income, better growth etc. But as in many cases its long term impacts arent that good.