Local Elections

Villain

Originally posted by Stark
Maybe even force pub owners to reduce the prices on soft drinks/bottled water.

LOL I think you are living in dream land if you think that will happen.

2 Chances Bob Hope and No Hope

Theres only one way to address the alcohol situation, that is more Gardai on the streets late at night and loads of arrests for Public order offences, and of course a lot of people voted for FF and the PD's because they promised 2000 more gardai but where are they?? pack of lying twats. Take everything that is promised at election time with a pinch of salt.

AngelofFire

I agree with irish1.Gardai patrolling the streets at closing times is the best way to prevent fights from breaking out.

Reducing the closing hours and banning happy hour does nothin to curb alcohol related violence. the pub around the corner from me used to have great entertainment on a thursday nite until the intoxicating liqour act was brought in. Its just an attack on peoples liberties.

Victor

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Gardai patrolling the streets at closing times is the best way to prevent fights from breaking out.

How about people taking responsibility for their actions and drinking?

How about making clubs serve food again?

Villain

Originally posted by Victor
How about people taking responsibility for their actions and drinking?

We'r talking about Ireland here:D

Mighty_Mouse

I'm a SF supporter and I will be giving them a vote, but my preference in my local area will be for the councillors I know will actually get off their ass and try to get and things done...................FF , FG ........doesnt matter

can I just say :eek:

Villain

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
can I just say :eek:

LOL, theres no Sinn Fein counillors in my area, didn't really want to say that but thats the truth, but they will be getting my NO1 in Europe.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
State-owned monopolies, including in the electricity sector, are generally a bad idea. I If I am dissatisfied with how much the ESB is charging me, then I want to be able to choose a different supplier. The Left would deny me that right, thereby imposing higher prices on me. I don't see how that helps anyone, especially the poorer members of our society Labour always claim to champion.

On the health-care issue I say that the lack of return for the 50% increase in investment in the Health-Service (as shown by Niamh Brennan's report) is testament to the tendency of State-owned companies to waste money.

I agree increasing investment in the health service often means bringing in another layer of management or setting up a commitee of enquiry to give people cushy jobs the service itself is often neglected. this is due to corruption within the authorities but its not sufficent cause for privatisation as it is physically possible for state agencies to run efficently. for example in norway the state owned company statoil has huge profits. the money made has cleared norway`s national debt and has helped to develop preipheral regions in the north of the country.

Whilst the state acknowledges that people should have the right to choose what services they wanna use, the right to choose should be balanced with the need to provide efficent public service to everybody. For example privatisation of transport in the uk was a disaster. fares doubled in the space of 4 years.

Back to election issues. mary harney said that she`d walk away from government if the transport minister refused to privatise dublin bus. Harney loves serving the interests of big business even the interests that contradict those of the consumer. As i said before a private company would refuse to grant concessions to school children the elderly and the handicapped. Big business will refuse to operate non profitable routes and will cut jobs in order to maximise their profit. it would lead to a national transportation disaster.

arcadegame2004

AngelofFire I think that the railways are probably the only example of an area of business best left under state-control, simply because it is hard to see how effective competition can be brought about in this area. The privatisation of the railways in the UK was a mistake, especially with onver 200 regulatory bodies being responsible for enforcing safety standards, leading to many of them passing the buck to another body.

However, I take issue with your apparent opinion that privatisation is always bad for the transport sector. Look at Ryanair. It has forced Aer Lingus, through price-competition, to lower their prices.

"As i said before a private company would refuse to grant concessions to school children the elderly and the handicapped. Big business will refuse to operate non profitable routes and will cut jobs in order to maximise their profit. it would lead to a national transportation disaster." (AngelofFire)

I disagree. A bus-regulator could lay down certain minimum standards such as providing the concessions you refer to in relation to the handicapped, the elderly and school-children. I recall the chaos of previous Bus Eireann strikes in this country. I don't think it is healthy to allow the trade-unions to determine that I cannot travel by bus to a particular destination. I want the power to choose what bus-company I use to get to a particular destination. Competition can clearly be implemented effectively in the bus-industry. I don't think it is right that Dublin Bus has a monopoly on bus-services in Dublin. Monopolies always charge higher prices than the private-sector because they have no incentive to do otherwise. They are used to being bailed out of their financial problems by taxpayers' money and that encourages wasteful expenditure of money by them. A privatised bus-industry with full competition could only make profits by charging lower prices than their competitors and improving their quality of service. In a democracy we should have choice. I am particularly concerned here with breaking the power of the trade-unions to hold the country to ransom.

AngelofFire

another testiment to the governments subservience to big business is the prioritisation of the lisbon agenda which calls for the mass privatisation of all our public services in order for big business to make a profit out of them. The government have refused to adress the barcelona declaration which calls for the provision of better services for people with special needs. one of the major special needs service centres was closed down last year therefore the government have completely ignored the declaration. also the government have refused to implement the temporary agency workers act 2002 which calls for the extension of the minimun wage and just working conditions for temporary workers.

AngelofFire

arcadegame2004 the fares that dublin bus charge isnt even enough to cover the cost of the service. it must rely on subsidies from the government to do that. Therefore there is no way a private company could charge less and still make a profit. complete privatisation of the transport network means that the lowest a company willing to bid for the service could charge would be around 2 euro per fare. i mean its expensive enough having to pay €1.65 to get into town. Privatisation of dublin bus is unworkable and unnessesarry. I would have no problem allowing private companies to operate on profitable routes. but dublin bus/bus eireann should remain a state agency. i mean a private company would not want to taxi 4 elderlies 12 miles across donegal as they would loose a fortune.

bonkey

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Therefore there is no way a private company could charge less and still make a profit.

This is based on the unbelievably faulty assumption that Dublin Bus are as efficient as possible and have no costs that could not be reduced.

jc

arcadegame2004

"another testiment to the governments subservience to big business is the prioritisation of the lisbon agenda which calls for the mass privatisation of all our public services in order for big business to make a profit out of them."

I contend that the lack of a profit motive in much of the State sector is one of the reasons they tend to be more wasteful in their spending of taxpayer's money. The reliance on State bailouts/subsidies reduces the motivation to spend the money efficiently, because they complacently realise that the State will always be there to bail them out/reward their failures.

In the private-sector, companies that provide customers with what they want will be profitable and survive. If some companies in the private-sector die out it is because they are not providing the standard of service the customer desires and as such they don't really deserve to survive. The consumer must come first. Call it consumer-democracy if you like.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
However, I take issue with your apparent opinion that privatisation is always bad for the transport sector. Look at Ryanair. It has forced Aer Lingus, through price-competition, to lower their prices.

Are flights to London an essential service like getting to work in the morning?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A bus-regulator could lay down certain minimum standards such as providing the concessions

Like in the telecommunications business? Which has been a spectacular regulation failure.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I recall the chaos of previous Bus Eireann strikes in this country. I don't think it is healthy to allow the trade-unions to determine that I cannot travel by bus to a particular destination.

Any examples of "sorry boss, we don't do Lucan."?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I want the power to choose what bus-company I use to get to a particular destination.

A power you should not have. If you want price or service competition then have it, infrastructure competition has never works.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Monopolies always charge higher prices than the private-sector because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

And what about private monopolies?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A privatised bus-industry with full competition could only make profits by charging lower prices than their competitors and improving their quality of service.

Lower prices - increase profits. Hmmm, where did you do economics again?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In a democracy we should have choice. I am particularly concerned here with breaking the power of the trade-unions to hold the country to ransom.

So how are councillors going to achieve this? But to be honest just shows your (PD blue?) colours.

If privatisation is such a panacea, why are Luas fares so much higher than Dublin Bus fares, when Luas has had all their infrastructure, vehicles and maintainence paid for them separately?

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor
Are flights to London an essential service like getting to work in the morning?Like in the telecommunications business?

Competition obviously isn't inherently linked to privatisation in any case:)

arcadegame2004

"Lower prices - increase profits. Hmmm, where did you do economics again?" (Victor)

Well Victor, lower prices can still bring higher profits if it attracts significantly more consumers to do business with that company.

"And what about private monopolies?" (Victor)

At least there is NO law conferring monopoly-status on private-sector companies, unlike the situation pertaining to Aer Rianta, the ESB, Bord Gais, Bord na Mona etc.

I agree that monopolies in general are bad, including in the private-sector. But the Dept. of Enterprise and Employment has the power to break up private-sector monopolies. There are safeguards to protect against that.

"If privatisation is such a panacea, why are Luas fares so much higher than Dublin Bus fares, when Luas has had all their infrastructure, vehicles and maintainence paid for them separately?" (Victor)

I have already made it clear that I don't include rail-transport in the categories of business I consider privatisation as necessarily a good idea, primarily because it's hard to see how you bring about competition in this sector, unlike most other sectors.

This is relevant to the local-elections because I believe the taxpayer could get better value from money by franchising out some council services e.g. bin collection, to the private sector. Tendering entails getting the cheapest price offered by companies bidding for contracts, and so can save the council (and hence taxpayers) money. And yes, I express no shame in admitting that the PDs are the closest to my political thinking. This is a democracy after all and I am entitled to support a political party.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Victor, lower prices can still bring higher profits if it attracts significantly more consumers to do business with that company.

But this usually isn't the case with transport. Demand change is relatively slow (although modal shift can be much quicker). However, even if you only have one passenger per bus paying nothing, you can't magically increase demand.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
At least there is NO law conferring monopoly-status on private-sector companies, unlike .....

Well that’s the problem, there is no (effective) law when it come to the likes of eircom, which is a fundamental failure by the relevant ministers (Dermot Ahern and Mary Harney).

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I agree that monopolies in general are bad, including in the private-sector. But the Dept. of Enterprise and Employment has the power to break up private-sector monopolies. There are safeguards to protect against that.

So how many cartels and monopolies have been broken up in the last five years? How many people have been convicted of breaching competition law? (Answer: none)

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I have already made it clear that I don't include rail-transport in the categories of business I consider privatisation as necessarily a good idea

Would this be because the government's flag ship PPP project (Luas and it's cost overruns) is a rail project?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
it's hard to see how you bring about competition in this sector, unlike most other sectors.

Would this be because it is hard to make a profit there as a private company or because a benevolent, but competent (usually public) monopoly is better?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
This is relevant to the local-elections because I believe the taxpayer could get better value from money by franchising out some council services e.g. bin collection, to the private sector.

Then go discuss bin collecting.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Tendering entails getting the cheapest price offered by companies bidding for contracts

And often an adversarial relationship, where the contractor does their damndest to make money and to hell with fulfilling the intention of the service. Of all industries in this country, waste disposal is probably the least competent despite years of competition (takes a lot of beating when you have a comms industry like ours).

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
so can save the council (and hence taxpayers) money.

You should really change the "can save money" into "might save money".

Trebor

i'm going to vote green/labour only because they have a good rep in my area.

regarding the privatisation bit:
Ireland is such a small country with a tiny population that the more companies you have competing in one industry means that they have to share the market this means that few can profit from economies of scale. although the competition will make sure that they are efficient this means that they can not lower their prices and we will end up with several companies charging us the same price as none of them can afford to go lower. with economies of scale one company supplying the entire market would be able to spread cost more thus letting them lower prices. also in a competitive market the consumer ends up paying for advertising.

thegills

Lower prices - increase profits. Hmmm, where did you do economics again

But this usually isn't the case with transport

What about the Aer Lingus School of Economics. They have turned around massive losses by lowering fares and increasing customers whilst reducing their overheads. Could the same not be done at Dublin Bus??

Dublin Bus got rid of the bus conductor years ago and they should have retraining the conductors to drive buses and then say doubled the bus fleet or used the same buses twice as long each day. There is a demand for it if the routes were better planned. eg: How many buses go from say West Dublin over to Sandyford Ind Est. (none) and how many people drive that route every morning clogging up the M50 (thousands). Dublin Bus have been given a free ride for years, jobs for the boys and all that, they need some competion and like Aer Lingus (faced with the Ryanair threat) I'm sure they could react positively.

I'll be voting Fianna Fail in Clondalkin coz' my brother is running there.

thegills

arcadegame2004

"regarding the privatisation bit:
Ireland is such a small country with a tiny population that the more companies you have competing in one industry means that they have to share the market this means that few can profit from economies of scale. although the competition will make sure that they are efficient this means that they can not lower their prices and we will end up with several companies charging us the same price as none of them can afford to go lower. with economies of scale one company supplying the entire market would be able to spread cost more thus letting them lower prices. also in a competitive market the consumer ends up paying for advertising." (Trebor)

Trebor, I don't really understand that logic. That sounds almost like the kind of argument that the Irish Insurance-industry might use to justify the lack of competitors in the insurance-market in Ireland.

We are unquestionably paying scandalously high premiums in the motor-insurance industry in this country, especially compared to other countries in the Eurozone.

Competition, without one semi-state company continuing to get rewarded with state-injections of cash in response to their failure to attract customers with lower prices or better services, means that each competitor has to lower prices and/or improve their quality of service to attract consumers. I reject totally the idea that Ireland's market is too small for competition. Look how far telephone call-per-minute charges fell after Eircom/Telecom Eireann was privatised (by 17%). Also, you used to have to week 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed before Telecom Eireann was privatised.
There is definitely further scope for such price-reductions in the area of electricity. Let the Irish people choose for themselves who provides their electricity.

The profit-motive is actually a reason for a private-sector company to provide a good quality of service at a low price. And Victor, regarding what criticism you maee on the private-sector waste-disposal companies, I point out that an advantage of private-sector waste-disposal industry is that if the Council is unhappy with the quality of service provided they can simply confer the next contract on another company. Whereas with a monopoly there could be no change no matter how bad the service was.

Let the people choose. Let them not have something forced on them. We are a demcracy after all - or are supposed to be. It is largely the controlling-mindset of the Irish Left that makes them so hostile to letting people choose who they get their services from. They are as interfering in people's commercial choices as the religious right were in people's sexual/social/religious choices, in Irish days gone by.

sceptre

Holy crap, I've never heard such kindergarten economics in my entire life. At least not since I knew people who were in kindergarten.

Mentioning of insurance companies and linking them to high prices (correctly) without admitting that they're theoretically in competition with each other, bringing up of call price drops from Eircom since competition without recognising (or perhaps being aware) of the cross-subsidisation from increased line rental, linking of profit motive to increased standards of service without a single example to demonstrate the possibility, let alone demonstrate it as a fact, mentioning of a six-week wait to get a phone line without mentioning either the fact that there was a 21-day customer charter in place a number of years before privatisation nor the fact that it hasn't made any actual difference to waiting times since the late 80s (in the early 80s the waiting period was over a year in some places, this dropped dramatically /long/ before privatisation was even mooted) and more rubbish that isn't worth addressing. Oh and the mentioning of possible further price drops in electricity (again) even though it's already been mentioned by someone that the wholesale and retail prices of electricity in Ireland have been raised specifically to draw in non-ESB companies to attempt to comply with EU directives.

And the continual linking of privatisation to competition without any formal basis for demonstrating an inherent or tangiable link. And this is the key point I'll leave y'all with. Apart from the asinine examples given of why privatisation of "everything except the railways" is inherently good and inherently necessary, there has been no link provided between competition and privatisation, either in particular or in general. Coherency is not this thread's strong suit (either of argument or direction).

Waste of time arguing with wobbly-man posts. Regardless of what coherent points you make you get the same reformatted drivel bounced back. Call me when this thread passes the competent level.

arcadegame2004

"Mentioning of insurance companies and linking them to high prices (correctly) without admitting that they're theoretically in competition with each other...." (sceptre)

There are too few of them in this country. The fewer competitors there are in an economy, the greater than likeliehood of cartels. Duopolies or even Triopolies are inadequate long-terms guarantees of competition. The fact that foreign-insurance companies are now eyeing the Irish market is grounds for hope that real competition will bring down premiums in the future.


"bringing up of call price drops from Eircom since competition without recognising (or perhaps being aware) of the cross-subsidisation from increased line rental, linking of profit motive to increased standards of service without a single example to demonstrate the possibility..."

Hence the need to introduce competition in the line-rental charge, plans for which have already been announced.

"And the continual linking of privatisation to competition without any formal basis for demonstrating an inherent or tangiable link."

The private-sector is less wasteful with spending their cash, because they have no-one to run to for a state-bail-out. Because they are more careful with their costs, the prices they have to charge to make a profit are lower. Look at Ryanair.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
There are too few of them in this country. The fewer competitors there are in an economy, the greater than likeliehood of cartels. Duopolies or even Triopolies are inadequate long-terms guarantees of competition. The fact that foreign-insurance companies are now eyeing the Irish market is grounds for hope that real competition will bring down premiums in the future.

Straw-grasping. You didn't address the central point. And in any case it's nowt to do with privatisation, the trojan horse with which you started this thread.

Hence the need to introduce competition in the line-rental charge, plans for which have already been announced.

You may (based on the above) be less than au-fait with the reality of the situation so I'll do a favour and explain what's actually happening. The wholesale price point has been set at a level of 6% under the current retail price point. What that means is that all competitors who go with single billing will have to provide a full service of everything except line repair (that includes being a first point of call for the consumer with a line problem and other customer service) based on 6% of 19.98 ex VAT per month. Saying the above line on the Ireland Offline board would get you laughed out of the shop. We had this discussion over there months ago, go look for it.

The private-sector is less wasteful with spending their cash, because they have no-one to run to for a state-bail-out. Because they are more careful with their costs, the prices they have to charge to make a profit are lower. Look at Ryanair.

Sure, we can look at Ryanair. Not that Ryanair has anything at all to do with privatisation mind. Ryanair have become very successful at operating a bare-bones service to people at a very low price and making the money back on ancillary services. Not mandatory services, mind you, so the base price for the service is still very low. They've taken the business model from SouthWest Airlines (low base fares, lots of flights by fast plane turnaround, hub and spoke system) and run with it in Europe. They've raised (or rather lowered) the bar for other airlines to follow and they were the only European airline making a profit in the aftermath of the New York Al'Qaeda attacks. Good for them. They've forced a situation where airlines have to choose between going for the luxury market with fewer passengers paying more or the mass market with many (and many new) passengers paying less. Most airlines with a modicum of sense have gone for the latter, at least on internal European flights. All of which demonstrates in a particular way that competition tends towards lowering prices for goods and services. Which you certainly knew because it was the first thing taught to every secondary school economics student. Which I certainly knew because I didn't disagree with that. However, while we all know (and we do all know) that, at best, in a perfect market, supply-side competitition tends to lower prices and we all know that supply-side competition certainly never acts to raise prices, we don't have any connection between competition and privatisation that would be in any way relevant to the drivel you've posted, nor do we have any evidence that privatisation inherently results (including a guarantee) in less wastage, even ignoring the service level for the public paying for it. Try harder.


And incidentally, you might have missed all the stories in the business pages over the past six months about Ryanair going to court over the retention of a little state payout in Belgium. Michael O'Leary has been all over the news complaining about it. It's not a big issue but it's just something you might consider before posting back.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"regarding the privatisation bit:
Ireland is such a small country with a tiny population that the more companies you have competing in one industry means that they have to share the market this means that few can profit from economies of scale. although the competition will make sure that they are efficient this means that they can not lower their prices and we will end up with several companies charging us the same price as none of them can afford to go lower. with economies of scale one company supplying the entire market would be able to spread cost more thus letting them lower prices. also in a competitive market the consumer ends up paying for advertising." (Trebor)

Trebor, I don't really understand that logic. That sounds almost like the kind of argument that the Irish Insurance-industry might use to justify the lack of competitors in the insurance-market in Ireland.

We are unquestionably paying scandalously high premiums in the motor-insurance industry in this country, especially compared to other countries in the Eurozone.

Competition, without one semi-state company continuing to get rewarded with state-injections of cash in response to their failure to attract customers with lower prices or better services, means that each competitor has to lower prices and/or improve their quality of service to attract consumers. I reject totally the idea that Ireland's market is too small for competition. Look how far telephone call-per-minute charges fell after Eircom/Telecom Eireann was privatised (by 17%). Also, you used to have to week 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed before Telecom Eireann was privatised.
There is definitely further scope for such price-reductions in the area of electricity. Let the Irish people choose for themselves who provides their electricity.

The profit-motive is actually a reason for a private-sector company to provide a good quality of service at a low price. And Victor, regarding what criticism you maee on the private-sector waste-disposal companies, I point out that an advantage of private-sector waste-disposal industry is that if the Council is unhappy with the quality of service provided they can simply confer the next contract on another company. Whereas with a monopoly there could be no change no matter how bad the service was.

Let the people choose. Let them not have something forced on them. We are a demcracy after all - or are supposed to be. It is largely the controlling-mindset of the Irish Left that makes them so hostile to letting people choose who they get their services from. They are as interfering in people's commercial choices as the religious right were in people's sexual/social/religious choices, in Irish days gone by.

Do I take it then that you can't create a link between the Local Elections and either privatisation or competition?

AngelofFire

Under Labour people with modest incomes could afford a house. Now a family needs a combined income of €90,000 to afford even the cheapest of housing. Now the average cost of building a house is €100,000 the profits housing firms are raking in are now higher than before FF/PDs are responsible. over the last 7 years they have stood by and did nothing as they were busy giving much of the wealth from the celtic tiger to the rich in the form of Massive personal and corporate tax cuts.

The way things are i cant afford a house. The government has let public services deteriorate. changes to the taxation system are needed. i wouldnt mind having to pay more tax if it meant that waiting lists would disappear, the schools would recieve proper funding and that i was able to afford a house.

Valentia

Try bringing a guitar with Ryanair - the cost suddenly jumps from €1 to €100.

Clever boys. They are marketing merchants. For most the flights are not cheap. How else would they make the millions?

The campaign is going well!

Xterminator

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Under Labour people with modest incomes could afford a house. Now a family needs a combined income of €90,000 to afford even the cheapest of housing. Now the average cost of building a house is €100,000 the profits housing firms are raking in are now higher than before FF/PDs are responsible. over the last 7 years they have stood by and did nothing as they were busy giving much of the wealth from the celtic tiger to the rich in the form of Massive personal and corporate tax cuts.

The way things are i cant afford a house. The government has let public services deteriorate. changes to the taxation system are needed. i wouldnt mind having to pay more tax if it meant that waiting lists would disappear, the schools would recieve proper funding and that i was able to afford a house.

You mean Labour say you would be able to afford a house under them.

However where do you think the money they spend, making housing affordable wilol come from? and thats at the same time as increasing spending on their other pet projects.

Labour, with their links to the unions would be even less capable of gettting the reforms needed in our public services. Instead the the status quo will be maintained eg in areas like Dublin Bus, An Post, ESB etc.

Nor did labour support governemt attempts to reform the health services, to modernise, specialise, and reform. Instead they played local politcs questioning Hanley ... etc. Our health system is like a black hole, spending more and more, with little tangible benifits. Its not just more moeney they need, its fundamental changes, removing the consultantcy run system we currently labour under.

Labour have been big on promises, but I dont think they have the bite to tackle the issues where its idealogy conflicts with the real world. And we do live in the real world.

X

Valentia

This is from a Labour press statement.

".....after seven years of Fianna Fail and the PDs

• House prices have trebled. In 1997, the average price of a new house was E97,000. Now it is over E300,000.
• House prices have increased by 9 times the rate of inflation; 5 times the rate of increase in average earnings and 4 times the rate of increase in the cost of building.
• A house which takes 100,000 to build, costs 300,000 to buy! That gap opened up in the last seven years, under Fianna Fail and the PDs.
• Nearly half of all new families can not now afford to buy a home. According to the Local Authority Housing Strategies, 33% of new families nationally, 42% in urban areas and 50% in Dublin can not afford to buy!
• The numbers on Council Housing lists have doubled, up from 26,000 in 1996 to over 60,000 now. Less than 5,000 local authority houses are being built each year. It was 8,000 under Labour in the mid-eighties, when the country was much poorer. "

It would be really interesting to see what would happen if Labour could form a Government.

Xterminator, the assertions you make about Labour will remain that, assertions, until that happens.

In my view there is no contradiction with Labour's view of "people first" and privitisation or capitalism for that matter. It just means that it would require adding a pinch of conscience and humanity to the formulae.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004


The private-sector is less wasteful with spending their cash, because they have no-one to run to for a state-bail-out. Because they are more careful with their costs, the prices they have to charge to make a profit are lower. Look at Ryanair.

Do Ryanair operate non profitable routes? No. Private companies will see non profitable routes as "wasteful" therefore they will refuse to operate on them leaving people in certain areas without a bus service that would be an even bigger injustice than your claims that state owned companies are depriving you of freedom of choice.
Freedom to choose must be balanced with the need to provide a good service to everybody. neither must contradict each other.