SF> Can't say that I'm a great follower of Government owned
SF> businesses particularly with the corruption and massive
SF> free handouts which would never be given to private ent.

JG> The truth of the matter is that no private enterprise would
JG> have really been interested in the supplying such things as
JG> Telecommunications, Rail Hospitals, Electricity, Sewerage and
JG> Water, etc, to a country as sparsely populated as Australia was

Thats distinctly arguable actually, electricity for
example was done privately initially and there are
still some who do their own IN those most remote areas.

Railways have done their dash, flying works very differently.

JG> These services have been always been privately run
JG> in the USA, where (I think) entrepenours have always
JG> had a greater sense of national pride and civic duty.

Nope, their railways werent done like that at all and in fact they
were literally shooting at each other when the competition hotted
up. And they werent called Robber Barons for nothing, they really
went for it boots and all, eventually so obscenely that the laws
were changed when the public couldnt stomach the worst excesses.

They did it to make money and some like
Rockefeller and Carnegie etc got stinking rich.

JG> It would be naive to think that a group of people would just
JG> come in and say we are going to supply **all** of Australia with
JG> Telecommunications, this system will be state of the art and fairly
JG> competitive. Not without a lot of help, concessions, subsidies, etc.

Thats a completely separate issue it being a government
monopoly tho. With stringent law preventing competition too.

JG> The truth of the matter is that public ownership
JG> has served Australia well over the years.

Thats harder to say. We have also come to realise that the fad for
nationalisation of everything in sight just plain doesnt work very well.

JG> That is not to say that this is not in need of review for some sectors.

The fundamental problem tho is that a government monopoly has no
incentive to operate efficiently, its MUCH easier to just pass on the
high cost of inefficiency on to customer who is locked in with no choice.

Quite a bit of the time that ends up with what is basically
a gigantic sheltered workshop if you dont watch out.

JG> However, privatisation should not be carried out without
JG> proper thought, on an ideological whim, or to pay for
JG> election promises made on environmental issues.

It aint a whim, its a recognition that nothing else exposes
an operation to real competition and achieve real efficiency.

Sure, there are SOME things which it makes no sense to try to privatise
like the police, but there are also other where it no longer makes any
sense ot have just one of the major banks owned by the government too.

SF> govn run fleet of limousines charged out their hourly rate
SF> at $80.00 per hour.  Considering they pay no sales tax on their
SF> vechicles, their drivers are on saleries not the hourly rate and
SF> their fuel and running cost would be almost half that of private
SF> ent, yet the private ent charge out rate is $55.00 per hour.

JG> TV is a bad teacher.

Or it makes it impossible for out politicians
to keep us in the dark and feed us bullshit.

JG> In fact gov enterprise could always undercut priv
JG> ent because of all of the things you already stated.

They also have their own killers tho, particularly on wages.

JG> The fleet of lemos would be there for another (primary) function.

They are limos actually, not lemons |-)

JG> The letting out is an additional extra.

She's talking about that the govt car fleet, ComCar,
charges those who use the cars, say the pollys.

And it aint academic either, the pollys could just
use a private limo at the lower charge instead.

JG> However, **it is government policy** (the decision is made by politicians
JG> not public servants) that gov ent should not compete with priv ent.

She's not talking about them renting them out to the public.
@EOT:

---