| Revision as of 21:40, 25 March 2006 editSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 edits →Please explain accusation← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:40, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,209 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (301 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Privatization/Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|<!--90 days-->|header={{automatic archive navigator}}|maxarchsize=100000|minkeepthreads=4|numberstart=3}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== We should put the opinions from IGM Forum European Economists == |
|
{{expansion}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolute Majority agreed about Privatization in Eastern Europe which was strong Positive |
|
|
Some economists wrote down |
|
|
"this is No brainer" I think this source is useful |
|
|
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/privatization-in-central-and-eastern-europe ] (]) 12:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Privatization unquestionably allowed corruption to take greater hold in eastern europe. The mechanism is obvious: while state capitalism implied concentrated corruption intranationally, privatization allowed corruption to flow into these countries internationally. |
|
==Archives== |
|
|
|
:Eastern europe is not filled with miracle economies like the spanish miracle or the chinese miracle. The contrast should be obvious, and it would have been famous otherwise. ] (]) 15:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
they lies if they sad. The boss is in the jsilhe can't be injail Because ittreind of then.boss and boy soliestheylessonthem instead oofme Because it my power ] (]) 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. |
|
|
If further archiving is needed, see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:the man's are jelouse all of them.that got gurus and that don't have gurus so liesabout boss helping themfor4000peoplesthat staying with my enemies soliesabdhoy foessamething behind my back no body injail lies it theirfreind ] (]) 11:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
'''Previous discussions:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why no mention of how privatization is imposed upon poorer countries? == |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a specific mechanism created by IMF, World Bank and USA to impose privatizations on the poorer countries, it even has an article here in wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/Washington_Consensus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, why is there no mention here? This article is like as if privatization is a matter of taste. It's not! ] (]) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Some distinctions to be worked towards == |
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously this will be a controversial page, as the Talk history shows. I think it would help to structure the page more around the principle that the basic pro-privatization argument is that any social costs are outweighed by increased efficiency, and the basic anti argument that often any increase in efficiency is either outweighed by social costs, or an illusion (costs are externalised not reduced, and/or services reduced). |
|
|
|
|
|
Also there are some distinctions or categorisations that might be worked towards, and if done properly it would make the pro/anti arguments clearer. We might try to avoid an overly-technical language ('merit goods' etc) as the basis for classification, though maybe the terms should be used/explained somewhere on the page. First, post-communist privatization is clearly a category of its own - that's why we have the term 'transition economies' (a term not currently in Misplaced Pages AFAIK). Second, privatization of companies operating in (more or less) standard competitive markets. Third, natural monopolies. Fourth, public services. Each of these categories raises different aspects of the basic issues, and explaining the pro/anti arguments specifically in each will be much more helpful. The general pro/anti argument sections could then hopefully be reduced to summaries, and mention some of the broader issues (eg cultural impact such as concerns about the marketization of society). |
|
|
|
|
|
There might also be a specific section on economic/social/regulatory context - in particular the effects of privatizing where there are weak institutions, and what kind of institutions can be considered 'strong'. There could be some mention of links with liberalisation/deregulation here, especially in terms of how the order of economic reforms can affect their success. Finally, I think the list of privatizations should have its own page - here it's mostly a distraction from the arguments, and is very partial anyway. A summary would suffice and be less misleading by omission. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have time at the mo for making any actual changes - maybe in a couple of weeks - so plenty of time for people to pick this up and/or respond here. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've cleaned up the page a bit, but the central pro/anti structure remains to be tackled. It's not necessarily easy, but I think the page would be much better structured around the issues, such as incentives; competition/liberalization; externalities; and so on. ] 20:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arguments against privatization == |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed: |
|
|
|
|
|
These bits still need to be reincorporated: |
|
|
|
|
|
--==-- |
|
|
|
|
|
Although this strategy allows often corrupt elements to capture control |
|
|
of state enterprises, this strategy would have fostered a viable capital |
|
|
market, which is the mechanism for bringing private savings into |
|
|
investment in enterprises. |
|
|
|
|
|
that few privatizations of the past few decades can be deemed unqualified successes. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Deutsche Post == |
|
|
|
|
|
"An example cited by proponents is Deutsche Post, once part of the German postal service, which began generating profits after it became a part of the international corporation TNT Worldwide Express." I can't find any deals between ] and ] () () . - ] 20:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:I looked in Lexis-Nexis, and the example seems to be a mangling of several things. The privatised ''Dutch'' post office acquired TNT Express for several billion dollars in 1996 (later becoming TPG); Deutsche Post (not-yet privatised) bought some German operations of TNT in 1997. There are plenty of examples of privatised companies becoming profitable, but the above was inaccurate. ] 16:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Privatised versus public company== |
|
|
As a non-legal expert I'm not sure how to word this, but I am researching the history of the British railways, and the distinction between a private and a public railway is slightly different, which the term "privatisation" confuses, in that the reulting companies are 'public' ones, that is to say they are funded by public subscription in the form of shares. |
|
|
|
|
|
The early railways, or wagonways, were built by coalmasters etc. at their own, or the company's expense, hence were private. When larger schemes (also for turnpikes and canals) looked for outside finance, they became public railways subject to Act of Parliament to protect investors against ill-conceived or fraudulent schemes. As an example, the Duke of Norfok built a line to carry fare paying passengers and goods for profit, but he paid for it himself, therefore an Act of Parliament was not necessary. There were of course other Acts which laid down methods of operation, for safety or other reasons, but they are a separate issue. ] 10:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== public hands == |
|
|
|
|
|
"The above arguments have centered on whether or not it is practical to apply privatization in the real world, but some reject the profit incentive, the theoretical basis for privatization, itself. Some opponents of privatization argue that because the driving motive of a private company is profit, not public service, the public welfare may be sacrificed to the demands of profitability. ''There is no definitive answer, but it is very often argued that essential services, such as water, electricity, health, primary education, and so forth, should be left in public hands.'' This argument, of course, relies on the view on the obligations of the state, regarding what it should or should not be obliged to do. What is seen as desirable by a socialist may not be by a supporter of capitalism, and vice versa." |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question regarding this sentence. Is it confusing. To say "public hands" means nothing, does it not? Did the writer not mean to say instead something to effect of those resources/services not being sanctioned for profitability etc.. Both nationalized and Privatized goods and services are essentially/ properly in public hands aren't they? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:it depends what's meant by "public". Those who use the phrase "public hands" are generally refering to a (democratically accountable) state. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Request for expansion== |
|
|
|
|
|
The section on ] is blank, save for a subhead titled "Coproratization." Needless to say, this does not look right. I'm not really sure what the expectations are for a section based on something for which there's already an article. --] 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Request for examples in Outcomes section== |
|
|
It's rather difficult to make claims regarding outcomes without any examples. I have a vague notion that this may be difficult to discuss without tripping over NPOV, so perhaps merely linking to specific instances of privatization without much commentary is the right thing to do. If there is to be a discussion of outcomes, it needs to be less abstract. |
|
|
] 23:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Untrue == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd question the statement: |
|
|
|
|
|
"A good example of this is long-distance telecommunications in Europe, where the former state-owned enterprises lost their monopolies, competitors entered the market, and prices for international calls fell dramatically." |
|
|
|
|
|
This was happening anyway and surley was due to technological innovation? Im not questioning the point, I just think its a bad example. ] 15:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Please explain accusation== |
|
|
|
|
|
] reverted an addition I made to the article, calling it "Lyndon LaRouche propaganda." 172, please provide some evidence for this accusation, and explain further your rationale for deleting what I consider to be perfectly well documented and relevant material, added to an article labeled "Category: articles to be expanded." --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The agenda behind getting ] mentioned in this article is clear. LaRouche has a bizzare obsession with Rohatyn, whom he seems to think is central to the cabal of Jewish bankers he believes rules the world. A Google search of www.larouchepub.com turns for Felix Rohatyn turns up 108 search results. To LaRouche, Rohatyn's international conspiracy of Jewish bankers might be the driving force behind privatization. Nevertheless, per the Arbcom ruling, LaRouche's Jew-baiting has no place in this article. ] | ] 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is that the best you can do? Your conspiracy theory is preposterous. A notable conference about a novel and controversial type of privatization was held at a prestigous location, Middlebury College. I have added a reference to it to an article about -- you guessed it -- privatization, and cited it to the official transcript of the conference. The last time you tried this sort of dishonest tactic (i.e., claiming that one of my edits had some oblique connection to LaRouche,) it failed. I suspect that it will fail this time as well. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 07:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The conference is not too relevant. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic conferences on privativation have been held over the years. You just think the one involving Rohatyn is important because Rohatyn is a key member of the "Synarchist International" like Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger, George Soros, and other Jewish LaRouche boggymen. ] | ] 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The issue of National Security Privatization is the biggest controversy of all those about privatization, particularly now that Negroponte and the Justice Department are looking into the Halliburton business. Your comments betray either an unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or just an impulse to be disruptive. I have filed a RfC. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The idea of national security privatization has not been very well researched. The conference discussed an interesting but somewhat farfetched idea; national security, after all, is the most traditional of state domains. That particular conference was hardly important enough to warrant mentioning in this article; these kinds of conferences happen all the time. You quote a flippant comment by a skeptical academic at the conference. As someone who has been to conferences, I can tell you that flippant comments by academics being introduced to a new, controversial idea at a conference, are to be expected. (I've been to many similar conferences. I've made similarly flippant comments expressing my skepticism. Can by off-the-cuff remarks go in encyclopedia articles too?) Regardless of what LaRouche says, the conference was not evidence that Rohatyn and other "synarchists" are planning to privatizate national security in order to restore "feudalism." ] | ] 16:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've come via the Rfc. As the section on national security mentions nothing regarding actual steps towards privatization of national security, it should be removed or rewritten as such. I see no reason to merely mention the fact that an academic conference took place where people discussed privatization of national security in the abstract. - <font color="#013220">]</font>·''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see why not to include it, from the sounds of it it is a conference of some signifigance in regards to privitization. Privitization of the military is a pretty unlikely possibility, in my estimation however. ] 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed it, as in its present form it is definitely unencylopedic - it sounds like WikiNews. It's also speculative and US-centric. The topic may deserve its own article (]?) if someone wants to start it, but it is tangential to a good encyclopedia article on privatization in general. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:To avoid any misunderstanding, I totally accept that the article needs lots of work! It's just that this addition is not what it needs. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In response to Sam Spade-- not really. Academic conferences are a dime a dozen, especially on privatization, which has been a hot topic among social scientists in a diverse array of fields for years. The rare conference has a big influence on public policy. Many conferences, however, are just attended by academics seeking to get published to fill up their CVs in order to get tenure. Herschelkrustofsky thinks the conference is important because LaRouche seems to think Rohatyn is a part of a global "synarchist" conspiracy to bring back feudalism. Still, for those of us who do not follow LaRouche, I don't see what's the big deal about one of countless academic conferneces that has taken place on the subject. ] | ] 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Regarding the comments of Sam and others that privatization of the military is an unlikely possibility (actually, we are discussing a category somewhat broader than just the military,) consider this quote from Felix Rohatyn's article in the ''Financial Times'', November 17, 2004: |
|
|
|
|
|
::"The past decade has witnessed a quiet revolution in the way the US projects its power abroad. In the first Gulf war, the ratio of American troops on the ground to private contractors was 50:1. In the 2003 Iraq war, that ratio was 10:1, as it was for the Clinton administration's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. As these figures reflect, key military functions have been outsourced to private companies; both Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily privatised crucial aspects of US national security. For a rough sense of the magnitude of this shift, Halliburton's total contracts in Iraq to date are estimated at $11bn-$13bn (£6bn-£7bn), more than twice what the first Gulf war cost the US." . |
|
|
|
|
|
:Furthermore, Peter Feaver is not just a "skeptical academic"; he is sufficiently noteworthy that he has his own Misplaced Pages article (]) and presently serves as an advisor to the NSC. And, although the tone of his quoted comment may seem flippant, I don't think that it actually is. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, I find all of 172's speculation about my intentions to be offensive and a violation of ]. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point! What do you say to starting a ] article (or something similar)? ] 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
they lies if they sad. The boss is in the jsilhe can't be injail Because ittreind of then.boss and boy soliestheylessonthem instead oofme Because it my power 41.116.8.232 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a specific mechanism created by IMF, World Bank and USA to impose privatizations on the poorer countries, it even has an article here in wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/Washington_Consensus
