Privatisation of power (1 Viewer)

[townie]

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?

perhaps i should have used the term "essential services" rather than utilities. i.e. power, water, gas, telecommunications, banking, transport, etc/

food, however is an interesting point, i will give you that. however it's safe to assume that food will always be profitable/cost effective, throughout the country, i dont think it's likely any private enterprise in their right mind would stop selling food in an area because it wasnt "cost effective" which they may well would do with power, electricity etc.

Let me put it this way, if World War 3 broke out and we can assume power supply would become scarcer as it would be in greater demand, who would you rather be in charge of power supply, the government who (hopefully) would want to provide power to the most amount of people or the private sector who (presumably) would provide power only to the most profitable sectors?

 

[banco55]

The key question isn't should it be privatized? the key question is how will it be regulated? If you think any NSW government is not going to heavily regulate a privatized power company after some of the fiascos in places liks South Australia and overseas you are crazy. Not even Iemma is that dumb.

 

[volition]

Musk: Here's a PDF for what I was talking about above with the ever growing bureaucracy - Policy without Parliament: the growth of regulation in Australia

perhaps i should have used the term "essential services" rather than utilities. i.e. power, water, gas, telecommunications, banking, transport

Do you know that basically all of these services were done in the past, completely privately? iirc Even the train network in England was privately owned, and later nationalised.

Lighthouses have also been run as a private good in the past, even though so many people try and use them as an example of something that would just "fall victim to freeriding".

Let me put it this way, if World War 3 broke out and we can assume power supply would become scarcer as it would be in greater demand, who would you rather be in charge of power supply, the government who (hopefully) would want to provide power to the most amount of people or the private sector who (presumably) would provide power only to the most profitable sectors?

I think there's a problem with this: I understand why power may be in greater demand, but this does not necessarily include supply not being great enough to match it.

In fact, markets are dynamic, they aren't just static things that don't change. If it was the case that demand began to outpace the supply for electricity, then obviously there's room for competition and expansion of current electrical services and money to be made from it.

So I have to ask you, does that really happen? In reality, electricity providers would be increasing their capacity, as demand was increasing, not after the fact.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

Who cares? It's a poll based on a very specific current event, dealing with the outcomes that have been predicted/stated. I wasn't asking you what you thought about privatisation in general, I was asking a highly specific question about this particular issue.

Same with your post, veridis.

 

[townie]

my point is you wouldnt get away with a question like that in any reputable survey

edit: the poll question should infact be:

do you agree with Morris Iemma's proposal on the privatisation of power: Yes or No or Unsure

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

That is what the poll is asking though. Jeez...

 

[veridis]

but you phrase the question in such a way to include enough details to support your view(the gov gets more money for infrastructure) while not having enough detail to undermine it(the gov is going to spend it on stupid inefficient schemes). your claim that it's a "highly specific question about this particular issue" is laughable, you want to be specific where it suits and general where it suits. thats not even getting into how misleading it is assuming that infrastructure investment is a binary that is wholly dependant upon privatisation of power.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Well one might consider government investment in infrastructure a bad thing

 

[townie]

That is what the poll is asking though. Jeez...

maybe that was the intention, but the question is framed in a way to make one response seem more "positive" than another.

i dont deny that the thread is a good idea, and an issue that requires vigorous debate etc. in NCAP, but the poll is no more objective than i am a heterosexual

edit: i would also concede that most people will probably vote as if the question were framed objectively, but it still irritates me, enourmously. (i'm a statistician)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

but you phrase the question in such a way to include enough details to support your view(the gov gets more money for infrastructure) while not having enough detail to undermine it(the gov is going to spend it on stupid inefficient schemes). your claim that it's a "highly specific question about this particular issue" is laughable, you want to be specific where it suits and general where it suits. thats not even getting into how misleading it is assuming that infrastructure investment is a binary that is wholly dependant upon privatisation of power.

Firstly, you are a penis. Secondly, there is one positive and one negative in each option, both extremely general (and yet related to specific current affairs), that are the most likely options being touted by the media/govt. I'm not being specific/general where it suits, I'm being general everywhere about a highly specific issue. I didn't include anything more specific, for instance what infrastructure would result, because that would be biased and quite frankly, unreliable. The poll was asking what people thought of the privatisation of power linked with the touted infrastructure investment, not what people thought of privatisation seperate to infrastructure, or what people thought of a metro system, or what people thought of this that and the other. I framed the options that way because in terms of what the media was reporting on that day, those two options were the only two options. The state govt was either going to sell off their power assets and put that money into infrastructure, or not sell them off and continue along as they have been. Hey, maybe they won't end up investing it into infrastructure, but that hasn't a damn thing to do with the poll since it wasn't what I was interested in asking anyway!

maybe that was the intention, but the question is framed in a way to make one response seem more "positive" than another.

Yes, probably, but as I just said, they were the two most likely options.