Privatise Australia Post (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Who decided Australia Post would be a Government agency? (Just out of curiosity)

The citizens of Australia, the electorate as voters and shareholders of the country. By analogy, there are few differences between a country and a corporation. The leaders of a country, just like the power structure within a corporation, will do what is in their power to stay in power, but are there because they are perceived to be fundamentally beneficial for the welbeing of the country (that is, its citizens). In this case the electorate has voted (figuratively speaking) to keep Australia Post in government hands (because otherwise it would be 'political suicide'). If the shareholders decided on Action A, from the libertarian perspective it should be irrelevant that Action B is the most 'efficient' or 'best' action to take, or else it would amount to intervention by a third party alien to the individual 'entity' of the country. That would surely be a 'authoritarian', 'meritocratic' or 'socialist' viewpoint.

 

[_dhj_]

It's your thinking that that actually justifies doing things that people didn't want done, not mine. But no, "the tribe has spoken".

Oh yeah and it's worth throwing in here that we don't have much of a true choice. Any political party voted in can simply not follow through with it's promises, and it's also kinda dumb how one vote is supposed to 'set down' what you want in so many different things. With a market system you decide what you want to support (with your consumption) and the exact extent to which you want to support it. The market doesn't work for everything, but I think there's no good reason it wouldn't work with postal services. Maybe you wanna give me a reason why you think it wouldn't work?

Let me put it to you this way. Let's assume that everyone would be better off if they adopted your views on privatisation. Now, for everyone to be better off you would need to band together with other like-minded individuals and launch a campaign to 'educate' the rest of the population. It would be costly, but on the whole it would be beneficial for the population because they would elect pro-privatisation leaders or even overthrow the governmental establishment.

Of course, you would not do this because the costs incurred to you personally outweigh the benefits to you personally. As a result the population is left ignorant. But this is the very reason why privatisation doesn't work. A private company will not ensure comprehensive service criteria are met in order to provide essential postal service to the Australian people. They will cut costs and maximise profits, hence significant affect businesses and consumers in their postal correspondence among themselves. How can you leave something as fundamental to the wellbeing of the country as postal service in the hands of a theoretically self-serving entity whose shareholders are a minute fraction of the population of Australia? I think you know what I'm talking about.

 

[volition]

The citizens of Australia, the electorate as voters and shareholders of the country. By analogy, there are few differences between a country and a corporation. The leaders of a country, just like the power structure within a corporation, will do what is in their power to stay in power, but are there because they are perceived to be fundamentally beneficial for the wellbeing of the country (that is, its citizens). In this case the electorate has voted (figuratively speaking) to keep Australia Post in government hands (because otherwise it would be 'political suicide'). If the shareholders decided on Action A, from the libertarian perspective it should be irrelevant that Action B is the most 'efficient' or 'best' action to take. That would surely be a 'authoritarian', 'meritocratic' or 'socialist' viewpoint.

Ok, but the difference with a corporation is that you can change your ownership position in it. This is crucial for efficient markets. Ideally, you should want to increase your ownership in a good company and decrease your ownership in a bad one. (as in, buy/sell stocks, as well as futures trading and options trading to help add your dispersed information to the market)

So here, you're forced to hold some kind of 'hazy, but not really there' ownership stock of a government business. It's really only a notional one at best. But, you're still made to pay for it, no matter how poorly it operates. Tell me how you 'decrease your involvement' with the inefficient government firm. At least in a corporate governance scheme, if you aren't happy with how it's run you can sell your stocks away and be rid of it OR just not buy it's product (it's a bit hard to not buy a government product when you go to gaol for not paying taxes eh?).

Oh yeah, and at least your vote means a little more than just some kind of vague stab in the dark at your exact preferences, as we see with political parties today because the voting is all more focused on what matters to the company.

 

[_dhj_]

Of course you can opt out. In a liberal-democratic country like Australia you can easily migrate to another country if you are unhappy with government policies. Alternatively, you can form a union of like minded individuals and implement your ideas on an uninhabited island.

 

[volition]

Of course, you would not do this because the costs incurred to you personally outweigh the benefits to you personally.

Well actually I do generally try to convince people that markets are better, so I do make a small contribution.

As a result the population is left ignorant. But this is the very reason why privatisation doesn't work. A private company will not ensure comprehensive service criteria are met in order to provide essential postal service to the Australian people. They will cut costs and maximise profits, hence significant affect businesses and consumers in their postal correspondence among themselves. How can you leave something as fundamental to the wellbeing of the country as postal service in the hands of a theoretically self-serving entity whose shareholders are a minute fraction of the population of Australia? I think you know what I'm talking about.

Your argument could equally be used to create the 'government furniture making service' as I was talking about earlier. Care to tell me why the government shouldn't make all our furniture too?

Anyway, if you think that having private postal services will mean only poor service at high cost, think again. It's more with competition between firms that we typically see high quality at low cost, because it is fundamentally important that businesses have the chance to fail. When a business fails it is like creative destruction, we see a better one rise up in it's place with its better methodology. This is the way of progress.

On theo ther hand, a government business cannot fail, it merely has to tax more from its people. Inefficiency in govt business is tolerated, which is why I generally want to move away from it.

Of course you can opt out. In a liberal-democratic country like Australia you can easily migrate to another country if you are unhappy with government policies. Alternatively, you can form a union of like minded individuals and implement your ideas on an uninhabited island.

So basically by being born here you accept this social contract unconditionally and if 51% of the population votes to kill you/take your money it's justified? Democracy ain't perfect.

Besides, you can't opt out of certain things, which is also important.

 

[_dhj_]

What nonense. Postal service are no more essential to modern business than say broadband internet connections which are provided adequately by private companies. Postal services are hardly vital, the fact that they will try and maximise profits also does not indicate they will provide less efficient service. Especially since they are now competing with electronic communications and other courier services they may have more insentive to provide better services.

The service would not be provided in the form expected unless there are stringent government regulations or agreements that universal coverage, and a certain degree of quality is provided. If those sort of regulations and checks are agreed on, privatisation would in reality be in name only. Australia Post is already corporatised - the marginal increase in efficiency, if any, would not outweigh the benefits from existing checks and safety valves on the entity.

 

[_dhj_]

Your argument could equally be used to create the 'government furniture making service' as I was talking about earlier. Care to tell me why the government shouldn't make all our furniture too?

Furniture production is not a natural monopoly, whereas basic postal service is. As you know, monopoly yields inefficient output levels when profit is maximised. That can be overcome by a government whose aim is not to maximise profit but to maximise the returns to the Australian people (the electorate to whom it is accountable). Also, in the case of furniture value is created through product differentiation. Postal service on the other hand ought to be standardised, not differentiated.

Anyway, if you think that having private postal services will mean only poor service at high cost, think again. It's more with competition between firms that we typically see high quality at low cost, because it is fundamentally important that businesses have the chance to fail. When a business fails it is like creative destruction, we see a better one rise up in it's place with its better methodology. This is the way of progress.

On theo ther hand, a government business cannot fail, it merely has to tax more from its people. Inefficiency in govt business is tolerated, which is why I generally want to move away from it.

Of course, ordinarily private enterprise is more efficient in its conduct than government enterprise. Here, there are compelling reasons for government intervention as I have already mentioned. It is just a question of whether the compelling reasons outweight the difference in efficiency of conduct. In my opinion it does in the case of Australia Post, particularly given that corporatisation of the entity has moved its efficiency of conduct much closer to that of private enterprise.

 

[withoutaface]

Only half read the last few posts but:
1. Why does it have to be a monopoly?
2. Is the fact that it's a monopoly not the fault of the government interfering where it wasn't welcome in the first place?

 

[sam04u]

The market doesn't work for everything, but I think there's no good reason it wouldn't work with postal services. Maybe you wanna give me a reason why you think it wouldn't work?

Somebody already answered that.

1. There is no profit in delivering mail to rural Australians.
2. Operating at increased expenses of the people (which is very possible) means that we will not only potentially have to pay more for postal delivery than we would through tax to the government. But there is also a high likeliness that expenses will be cut, hence worse service.
3. How about Government mail? (Pre-paid envelopes, Applications, etc.) Who would pay for that? Would that come out of taxes? or would a "privatised" Australia Post stll cover that mail?
4. Government controlling Australia post means it's easier for them enforce laws regarding the privacy of mail.

 

[volition]

If you advocate freedom in decision-making, or value the agency of individuals, you ought to acknowledge that the collective of individuals have spoken - they want essential services in the hands of the government, not of corporations acting in self interests.

I was having a look through the thread and I just thought I'd just point out how idiotic it sounds that you think that the 'collective'(read: majority) of individuals agreeing to something somehow implies that ALL individuals want the same thing. Your method of thinking makes things happen(like having money taken away from you) where people may not want it to. Tell me, under which definition of liberty is it where other people get to decide what to do with your money/life?

Somebody who truly values freedom in decision-making would actually acknowledge the free market for it's ability to allow people to make a real choice about whether they want to support something or not. Not some kind of fake notional ownership share in a company that can't be exercised and can't be sold or properly governed.

You aren't the one advocating freedom in decision-making.

Even with these moral considerations aside, there are perfectly good efficiency reasons also (which you choose to conveniently avoid in your replies). Like the fact that it's essential to have private ownership of capital to perform rational economic calculation. This capital must be able to be bought and sold privately to solve the problem of dispersed information.

This is also why corporatisation of Australia Post isn't enough, we actually need people to be able to buy and sell it to come to the most efficient way of doing things. Corporatisation is NOT as good as privatisation.

So even if you don't want to call it libertarianism (because you have a warped view of what liberty means), it still makes sense to move towards free markets for efficiency reasons.

Furniture production is not a natural monopoly, whereas basic postal service is. As you know, monopoly yields inefficient output levels when profit is maximised. That can be overcome by a government whose aim is not to maximise profit but to maximise the returns to the Australian people (the electorate to whom it is accountable). Also, in the case of furniture value is created through product differentiation. Postal service on the other hand ought to be standardised, not differentiated.

1. Why must postal service necessarily be a natural monopoly? It's more like, it's a monopoly at the moment because the government keeps it that way, and you just can't envision it working any other way. That's not a good enough reason to keep it government run.

The reality of it is that private competition is remarkably good at finding ways to compete, and if you look at something like credit cards/bank cards you'll see how private companies are able to work together to do something even though they are all in competition. They don't all have to agree with each other and yet they are still able to resolve their differences enough so that they can accept each other's credit and work the entire system of credit.

It wouldn't be that hard to work out a system where there are different mail carriers for regions who pay each other to do things as necessary. (just like how you can go to other banks ATMs and still withdraw cash, eg. i can go to a st george ATM and take money out with my commonwealth bank card)

As for standards issues like postcodes etc, private certification and standards already exist! Just look at the way the internet has developed we have so many different file formats and standards that are privately done that surely it is possible. But most probably any private system would just continue to use the current postcode system for simplicity and ease of use for the customers.

2. Product differentiation/standardisation is irrelevant to the privatisation debate. If it really were relevant, then how would competition for something like bottled water work? It obviously does (Mt Franklin water seems to just carve it up in this market), so clearly differentiation/standardisation is irrelevant.

1. There is no profit in delivering mail to rural Australians.
2. Operating at increased expenses of the people (which is very possible) means that we will not only potentially have to pay more for postal delivery than we would through tax to the government. But there is also a high likeliness that expenses will be cut, hence worse service.
3. How about Government mail? (Pre-paid envelopes, Applications, etc.) Who would pay for that? Would that come out of taxes? or would a "privatised" Australia Post stll cover that mail?
4. Government controlling Australia post means it's easier for them enforce laws regarding the privacy of mail.

1. There is no reason to suggest it could not be made into a profitable business, you're the only one saying it wouldn't be, and you haven't even told me why!

2. This isn't necessarily true, it just means that people would have to start paying the true cost for their own mail, rather than pushing the cost onto other people. You might think you're being nice and helping the rural people or whatever, but at the same time I could equally argue that we should help all 'people who like pianos get their pianos'. If we started doing that, then there's lots of things we could be doing.

At the moment, it's probably just functioning as a bit of a wealth transfer at the moment. Just like the ABC, which is typically only watched by people with above average incomes. Why do people who don't want to watch it (the poorer people) need to pay for what they don't use? The ABC is a classic example of wealth transfer.

3. Governments can just use private services, much like how they use private advertising services or any other privately done services/goods. Governments don't make their own food and stuff as it is now, they BUY it.

4. Privacy law incursions wouldn't really be any worse than the current system, we already have privately done couriers as I've said before. So not really much of an argument here either. It's like how you might be concerned about hotmails privacy with your own email. As long as people care about their privacy, efficient private companies (whether they do your email or your snail mail) will protect your privacy, or lose money by not doing this. (captain obvious statement of the day: Businesses don't like losing money)

 

[ur_inner_child]

What prices, no one sends shit anymore, its called the internetz

Work at any office and you'll take that back.

 

[townie]

oh for god's sake, why must we privatise everything for some quick money. i'm sorry, i would classify the post as an essential service, which should not be privatised. i mean it was bad enough that telstra and qantas were, and the CBA for that matter

i mean what next? Sydney Water? The RTA? The Police?

by all means allow for other companies to try and compete, thats fine, but Australia Post should remain in public ownership

 

[sam04u]

What prices, no one sends shit anymore, its called the internetz

Yah, that's why I edited my post to say "Physical Mail."

Internetz is taking over.

 

[_dhj_]

I was having a look through the thread and I just thought I'd just point out how idiotic it sounds that you think that the 'collective'(read: majority) of individuals agreeing to something somehow implies that ALL individuals want the same thing.

Where have I said that?

Your method of thinking makes things happen(like having money taken away from you) where people may not want it to. Tell me, under which definition of liberty is it where other people get to decide what to do with your money/life?

Other people decide your fate and the fate of your properties all the time. Modern society is about interdependency and nothing can be achieved without it. It is about whether, at the fundamental level, you confer onto others that discretion in return for some benefit.

Somebody who truly values freedom in decision-making would actually acknowledge the free market for it's ability to allow people to make a real choice about whether they want to support something or not. Not some kind of fake notional ownership share in a company that can't be exercised and can't be sold or properly governed.

If you receive so much benefit from being a shareholder of that company, you will make a rational decision to keep ownership despite disagreeing with the some of the decisions its power structures have made. Not only that, you are given the right to vote and have a say in the personel of the power structure.

You aren't the one advocating freedom in decision-making.

I don't need to advocate freedom in decision making because it is there. You are free to do what you want - to leave the country, to break the law, to kill yourself, to kill others. The idea that you are not free is a mere psychological conjuration. It is just a case that you don't take particular actions such as leaving the country because the benefits of staying far outweigh the disbenefits.

Power structures are created by the passage of time, by the free decisions that individuals have made over infinite periods along the chain of causation. One ought not be so naive to view them as some sort of impositions that can be overthrown if people make free decisions to overthrown them. For example, communist movements have attempted to overthrow historical power structures. Ironically they end up in creating their own power structures, not because they are inherently evil but because free-thinking and rational individuals have assented to their imposition and perpetuated them.

My point is not that what the majority wants is what you want, but that if everyone is given the liberty to act freely the end result is something you don't regard as 'free'. That is obvious from my initial post.

 

[coblin]

Can't really turn the postal service into an oligopoly. The market tends to be a monopoly because of organisation issues.

Just like how you can't really have multiple train companies running a state network.

 

[volition]

Can't really turn the postal service into an oligopoly. The market tends to be a monopoly because of organisation issues.

Just like how you can't really have multiple train companies running a state network.

Well, actually... The system in Victoria with a govt subsidised, but otherwise privatised railway system DID have multiple train companies, Connex and Yarra Trams as two different franchises.

Other people decide your fate and the fate of your properties all the time. Modern society is about interdependency and nothing can be achieved without it. It is about whether, at the fundamental level, you confer onto others that discretion in return for some benefit.

Yeah ok I understand that we are interdependent, but it's actually the exchange of money that helps this process anyway! The vast majority of businesses today aren't exactly "completely self-reliant", and we don't exactly farm all our own food and make our own electricity. It's the market that helps us solve our problems of interdependency, it helps us apportion resources in the most efficient fashion.

As for your statement about "in return for some benefit", I don't really see much benefit in a government run postal service, so why must people be made to pay for it?

If you receive so much benefit from being a shareholder of that company, you will make a rational decision to keep ownership despite disagreeing with the some of the decisions its power structures have made. Not only that, you are given the right to vote and have a say in the personel of the power structure.

Keep ownership? You mean, not leave the country?

The only option you gave me for decreasing involvement with an inefficient government business was just to leave the country, bit drastic don't you think? You might be happiest here, but for that one thing, you say people should just leave the country? Why not just sell off your stocks in Australia post and refuse to purchase it's products (in the privatised form of postal services)? This makes much more sense, and you don't have to leave the country!

My point is not that what the majority wants is what you want, but that if everyone is given the liberty to act freely the end result is something you don't regard as 'free'.

But I'm saying you only get the freedom to choose, when you actually get to choose whether you pay for Aus Post... You think freedom to choose means "lets all have a vote and then everyone will do what the vote says no matter what you voted."

The voting system in the country isn't multifaceted enough, it's too one dimensional and that's not good enough. You get one vote every 3 years for someone who might not even give a damn about the state of the postal services/ABC/whatever else you want to make a statement about. This means that govt companies stay up when they shouldn't. You get problems of staff capture, poorly used resources, and sometimes poor service.

by all means allow for other companies to try and compete, thats fine, but Australia Post should remain in public ownership

Part of the reason is that the very existence of a govt organisation could be making it hard for a private firm to come into the market without a significant disadvantage. It's hard to compete when your consumers are already paying money (via taxes) to one business which then makes it cheaper for some of them to just stay with Aus Post (given that whether or not they choose to use private services, they will be paying for Aus Post indirectly). But this may not be the best solution because govts distort markets.

 

[Lachlan18]

A stupid idea. Australia Post is working perfectly in my opinion; it's efficient, prices are acceptable, and I think it's profitable. What benefits would we get through a privatisation? Short term cash for the government? Must everything be privatised? You know, there are advantages when certain things aren't privatised, such as the ABC, and Australia Post.

The state of broadband in this country is fucked for a very long time thanks to the privatisation of Telstra since they now basically own the network and hence, have a monopoly. The network should have been owned by the government so as to make a fair level playing field for all companies. Now that they're wholly privatised, we've basically fucked our chances of creating a good Broadband network on par with countries such as Sweden and Finland. Thanks Howard!

Maybe we should think about the consequences of a privatisation first. Perhaps there will be job losses? Perhaps fees will increase? Actually the 2nd option is a good bet.

I'm happy Labor has dismissed this silly idea and I'm sure the majority of Australians feel the same way.

 

[volition]

A stupid idea. Australia Post is working perfectly in my opinion; it's efficient, prices are acceptable, and I think it's profitable. What benefits would we get through a privatisation? Short term cash for the government? Must everything be privatised? You know, there are advantages when certain things aren't privatised, such as the ABC, and Australia Post.

How about being able to pay less tax? That is a worthwhile goal.

"Short term cash" - Commsec says it could fetch $7 billion, this isn't exactly chump change we're talking about here.

The state of broadband in this country is fucked for a very long time thanks to the privatisation of Telstra since they now basically own the network and hence, have a monopoly. The network should have been owned by the government so as to make a fair level playing field for all companies. Now that they're wholly privatised, we've basically fucked our chances of creating a good Broadband network on par with countries such as Sweden and Finland. Thanks Howard!

I'd just like to remind you here that the reason Telstra had a monopoly in the first place was because of government involvement. Telstra and the ACCC are constantly slugging it out in court over 'anti-competitive behaviour' where Telstra charges other ISPs to use their telephone system.

I think if you give the other ISPs a chance, they will catch up to Telstra soon and there are actually plans for a group-funded network, privately done. So there's not much need for public investment in a fibre to the node style scheme.

Even without this group project network, it won't be long til new wireless technologies burst out onto the scene like WiMax or whatever else. Broadband is good enough as it is for the vast majority of Australia, we don't need to take a chance on a govt network.

Maybe we should think about the consequences of a privatisation first. Perhaps there will be job losses? Perhaps fees will increase? Actually the 2nd option is a good bet.

I'm happy Labor has dismissed this silly idea and I'm sure the majority of Australians feel the same way.

A job is not something to be protected purely 'because it is a job', you need to realise that you only have jobs when your services are needed, if someone doesn't need your services, tough luck, find a job somewhere else. This is the only way society would ever move forward anyway, with old industries caving in to newer ones.

 

[Chemical Ali]

bring up my post

 

[Optimus Prime]

Funnily Australia Post is most profitable in the market in which it doesn't have a protected monopoly, i.e. packages and document services.