Privatisation of power (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

Um, just a quick poll to see what people think of this.

 

[dieburndie]

You might want to elaborate some.
Like maybe saying what you think and why or something.
I don't know. It just seems a little pointless.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You might want to elaborate some.
Like maybe saying what you think and why or something.
I don't know. It just seems a little pointless.

I would have expected that as the thread progresses, that discussion about the issues would develop on its own.

But ok. I feel that the benefits of 15 billion dollars being invested into public transport (amongst other things) by far outweighs anything negative that can come from privatisation of state owned electricity. That there'll be an independant watchdog to ensure that NSW citizens won't be ripped off at all by any of this increases my belief that it's a good idea. Infrastructure around and in Sydney is becoming crippled. Something has to be done and even though it's not my most preferred option (massive federal investment would be optimal), it looks to be the most likely option that'll acheive the most.

EDIT: I just flicked through yesterday's Herald and noticed that there won't be a watchdog, but that the prices will be set by that independant pricing dealie thing. That doesn't really change my opinion...

 

[Iron]

Id like to know whether it would complicate limitations on emissions, or whether carbon trading schemes would be more efficient in private hands

 

[townie]

that poll is very biased


edit: saw title of poll, makes it slightly better

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

How is it very biased?

 

[townie]

an objective poll would simply ask whether electricity should be privately of publicly owned.

the current poll implies that if you have publicly owned electricity, you cant have infrastructure investment, which isnt necescarily true. it also implies that if it is privately owned, you will have investment in infratructure, again, not necescarily true.

 

[Foxodi]

Agree... bias poll.. I mean.. just read what you wrote as possible options ^^

 

[Dumsum]

It's about the first good thing Mr Iemma has ever proposed... and I still have my reservations. Hasn't it been shown that after privatisation, the cost of electricity in other states has gone up? And I think electricity is more of a fundamental necessity than top-notch infrastructure (and could this government be trusted to know how to best spend/invest the $15 billion and NOT just waste it?)

Add to this that any infrastructure upgrades would be far off when I would most likely be living elsewhere that has decent infrastructure already, while rising electricity costs would affect me in the short term.

On the other hand, if they propose to ensure that things will be kept underwraps then I'm totally for it. There is no doubt Sydney has serious infrastructure issues, it's just a matter of whether or not these are more important than keeping electricity costs relatively low.

At this point I'd have to say I lean towards the "go for it" side of things, but I really want to wait on some more details of how it's all gonna be managed and implemented.

 

[volition]

Privatise electricity, 'spend' the money on tax cuts. This will bring more freedom to the people.

 

[townie]

no utilities should ever be entirely privately owned, under any circumstances.

 

[jb_nc]

I don't see how the poll is bias because this is what Morris is planning to do either:
a) sell off retail arms of power companies and use the profits to build stuff
b) don't sell off anything and don't build infrastructure.

 

[volition]

no utilities should ever be entirely privately owned, under any circumstances.

So even if some private businessman wanted to build his own, the govt should stop him?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

an objective poll would simply ask whether electricity should be privately of publicly owned.

the current poll implies that if you have publicly owned electricity, you cant have infrastructure investment, which isnt necescarily true. it also implies that if it is privately owned, you will have investment in infratructure, again, not necescarily true.

But the issue isn't whether you like or dislike privatisation, it's about a very specific event that's going to happen. Iemma and his cronies want to sell off their electicity assets to pay for several specific infrastructure developments.

 

[volition]

well if hes gonna be a monopoly then yes

Its like if you dont like Sydney water, where are you gonna go to?

Do you realise that you're trying to solve the problem of a non-coercive monopoly, with a coercive monopoly (govt)?

Resorting to the govt to solve the problems of society is madness people.

 

[Iron]

hahaha
I love Schro

 

[townie]

But the issue isn't whether you like or dislike privatisation, it's about a very specific event that's going to happen. Iemma and his cronies want to sell off their electicity assets to pay for several specific infrastructure developments.

yeah, but your making a major assumption that they will actually follow through

 

[townie]

So even if some private businessman wanted to build his own, the govt should stop him?

no, not at all, i have no problem with competition, but i feel the government should have a hand in all utilities incase the private companies fuck up

 

[volition]

You don't like the coercive monpoly(govt) you can sack them in every 4 yrs

It's not just the politicians, but also the ever-growing bureaucracy they create, which does not disappear when you "vote the bastards out". Once those jobs are 'created', people will fight tooth and nail to preserve them, which means its kinda hard to back down from. Besides, you only end up with one choice so you have to balance your vote amongst every candidate/policy. This could hardly be considered a good check system against the abuse of power.

no, not at all, i have no problem with competition, but i feel the government should have a hand in all utilities incase the private companies fuck up

So do you also think we should have *SOME* government food stores? And govt car tire stores? and govt car radio stores? etc I think you get the point.

Unless you're going to draw the distinction between "utilities" and "non-utilities" in which case I'll ask you: why do you think this is a crucial distinction?

 

[veridis]

But the issue isn't whether you like or dislike privatisation, it's about a very specific event that's going to happen. Iemma and his cronies want to sell off their electicity assets to pay for several specific infrastructure developments.

if you want to be specific then be specific, the question currently makes investment in infrastructure sound like a good thing, but when morris is planning to piss it all up against the wall by building a metro that duplicates half of the shittyrail system, giving his mates millions for reports on desalination and helping private developers then the investment is near worthless. when there are some decent proposals that need funding i may change my mind on the privatisation matter, but with whats on the table right now it's not worth selling out for.