NSW Power privatisation defeated (3 Viewers)

[sam04u]

Firstly, I would like to reiterate this point. This is a scandal. We don't need to privatise our energy. There is an energy shortage, but jacking the price wont fix that problem. It'll only make it more expensive, and as a result make the lives of the people more miserable. Instead of doing the right thing and building more energy stations, or methods of producing energy, they're trying to sell it off, which is not only dangerous, but it's also totally wrong.

LOL yeah I'm sure the Government won't make any regulations governing what the privatized power company can do.

Don't be stupid banco55. Do you think a private business would even consider touching this if they knew they couldn't get pretty much free reign over it? It's a problem we've known about for long time. There isn't enough energy, the government knows if the energy companies are government owned, they can't change the prices, and thus they're trying to create an even bigger problem rather than fixing the problem by building new energy stations, or alternative energy methods.

When are they going to learn that raising the price of something, or putting taxes on something will not neccessarily reduce the demand for it, at all? It will still be demanded, but just not affordable.

It's a scandal for a so-called labour party to do something like this. What they're doing is hiding a problem they could fix, at the expense of the comfort of poor people in this country. The rich will still be able to afford to consume the same amount of energy under the higher prices. The poor however, will not. What's worst of all is the relentlessness of private companies in things such as debt recovery. There are going to be a whole lot of houses blacked out of the switch board if this happens. And although it solves a temporary problem, it means SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE FUCKING ELECTRICITY.

DO you understand that? Does that fit into your head banco? Can you see how wrong that is? That some people may not be able to experience the fullness of life that a richer person might, just to put a band-aid over this serious wound.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I agree with you comrade, but looking towards the future I think that option is the lesser of two evils. With oil prices (and hence oil related products, aka everything) going up, the money from the selloff would provide invaluable infrastructure for much of Sydney. The private sector, I assume at this time would be better equipped (financially) to build new power stations that aren't so coal hungry.

Privatisation doesn't seem like the world's best idea in my eyes, far from it, but privatisation in this case sure looks a lot more beneficial than the alternative: a state with a piss poor outlook for infrastructure developments (including power, public transport) and a lot less money for schools and hospitals.

 

[spiny norman]

I agree with you comrade, but looking towards the future I think that option is the lesser of two evils. With oil prices (and hence oil related products, aka everything) going up, the money from the selloff would provide invaluable infrastructure for much of Sydney. The private sector, I assume at this time would be better equipped (financially) to build new power stations that aren't so coal hungry.

Privatisation doesn't seem like the world's best idea in my eyes, far from it, but privatisation in this case sure looks a lot more beneficial than the alternative: a state with a piss poor outlook for infrastructure developments (including power, public transport) and a lot less money for schools and hospitals.

But in selling a business that makes money, are we not getting a short-term bump where, if kept, we could for a long time to come remain getting this money that can go into Sydney's infrastructure etc? Which we won't get if sold, because all that money'll be spent soon enough.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I've been led to believe two things

a) we need money now
b) keeping power generation in public hands would cost the state dearly right now and continue to do so in the future (because of lack of funds to build new ones that are desperately needed)

Failing those two things then my opposition to privatisation would, of course, rise.

 

[melanieeeee.]

But in selling a business that makes money, are we not getting a short-term bump where, if kept, we could for a long time to come remain getting this money that can go into Sydney's infrastructure etc? Which we won't get if sold, because all that money'll be spent soon enough.

i agree with nebuchanezzar. i don't think you have taken into consideration the extreme costs it is to maintain this company. the revenue that they would receive would be peanuts compared to these costs. if the government does sell it not only would they not have to pay these maintenance costs but also they get revenue for selling it which as nebuchanezzar already mentioned can be put towards schools and hospitals etc. also i dont see how putting the money in schools and hospitals or other infrastructure for that matter would be a "short term bump" because they can last a life time and i'm pretty sure the government can also collect revenue from that.

 

[zstar]

Firstly, I would like to reiterate this point. This is a scandal. We don't need to privatise our energy. There is an energy shortage, but jacking the price wont fix that problem. It'll only make it more expensive, and as a result make the lives of the people more miserable. Instead of doing the right thing and building more energy stations, or methods of producing energy, they're trying to sell it off, which is not only dangerous, but it's also totally wrong.


Don't be stupid banco55. Do you think a private business would even consider touching this if they knew they couldn't get pretty much free reign over it? It's a problem we've known about for long time. There isn't enough energy, the government knows if the energy companies are government owned, they can't change the prices, and thus they're trying to create an even bigger problem rather than fixing the problem by building new energy stations, or alternative energy methods.

When are they going to learn that raising the price of something, or putting taxes on something will not neccessarily reduce the demand for it, at all? It will still be demanded, but just not affordable.

It's a scandal for a so-called labour party to do something like this. What they're doing is hiding a problem they could fix, at the expense of the comfort of poor people in this country. The rich will still be able to afford to consume the same amount of energy under the higher prices. The poor however, will not. What's worst of all is the relentlessness of private companies in things such as debt recovery. There are going to be a whole lot of houses blacked out of the switch board if this happens. And although it solves a temporary problem, it means SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE FUCKING ELECTRICITY.

DO you understand that? Does that fit into your head banco? Can you see how wrong that is? That some people may not be able to experience the fullness of life that a richer person might, just to put a band-aid over this serious wound.

No keeping electricity state owned means that the government has to tax higher and stop other important projects thus the poor suffer because of this.

Society will always have a wealthy and poor class that's how the market works.
Those who abide by good market principles (i.e low taxes, free trade, small government etc) history shows time and time again that is the best method for fighting poverty.

Communist states who have government owned electricity grids always suffered from serious shortages that is a fact.

The government is not an electricity company therefore they are not experts in knowing how to run the system, Neither do they have the funding to keep up with demand.

 

[Slidey]

No keeping electricity state owned means that the government has to tax higher and stop other important projects thus the poor suffer because of this.

Society will always have a wealthy and poor class that's how the market works.
Those who abide by good market principles (i.e low taxes, free trade, small government etc) history shows time and time again that is the best method for fighting poverty.

Communist states who have government owned electricity grids always suffered from serious shortages that is a fact.

The government is not an electricity company therefore they are not experts in knowing how to run the system, Neither do they have the funding to keep up with demand.

http://ozleft.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/eight-electricity-privatisation-myths-exposed/

 

[sam04u]

a) we need money now

No... just no.
We need more energy, not more money. >_>

 

[melanieeeee.]

No... just no.
We need more energy, not more money. >_>

why cant we have both?

 

[Kwayera]

What's this I hear about NSW Labor structuring their entire budget on the sale of the state's power assets?

True/false?

 

[spiny norman]

Those who abide by good market principles (i.e low taxes, free trade, small government etc) history shows time and time again that is the best method for fighting poverty.

I'm pretty sure the New Deal shows otherwise.

 

[sam04u]

why cant we have both?

It costs money to build power stations. If our energy is privatised, don't think for a second they'll start building new power stations.

What they would do is the following.
1) Make things more "efficient", that usually results in downsizing, shit response times, bad customer service, ruthless debt recovery to the point of disconnecting people as soon as possible to get them with the bill and also with a "reconnection fee", basically they're going to try and suck everyone dry.
2) Raise prices. Raising prices = raising profit margins.
3) Spend less on maintenance, and possibly spread the company overseas (if you read that link that Slidey resposted, they move these companies overseas, places like the Cayman islands where there are little to no taxes to avoid the government getting hold of some of their profits.)

And then FINALLY maybe, they'll hook up some extra power to light up more bulbs on the switch board.

It's fail.

 

[Slidey]

What's this I hear about NSW Labor structuring their entire budget on the sale of the state's power assets?

True/false?

lol.


Anyway, first I've heard of an energy crisis. If it exists, I think we can blame the Liberal government, no? If there's not enough infrastructure, I think they've been around long enough - 10 years - to have caused it or fixed it. We certainly don't have a lack of energy resources.

 

[Kwayera]

How can you blame the Lib government for a State issue (and Labor's been in there just as long)?

 

[Rafy]

more details of the mini-budget

Mr Costa's reform plan would involve the privatisation of rail maintenance and Sydney ferry management, further cuts to the public sector on top of 5000 already slashed since 2006, rationalisation of departments and agencies and the sale of billions of dollars worth of "lazy" state property assets.

 

[Slidey]

How can you blame the Lib government for a State issue (and Labor's been in there just as long)?

Haha my bad. I forget about the curtain between state and federal.

 

[aussie-boy]

privatisation of energy has already occured to a large extent

we have private retail companies that buy wholesale power from the gov (AGL, integral...) - yet for some strange reason the gov has kept its own retailer (energy australia)

at the other end of the supply chain we have private companies that have built green power stations that sell power to the grid... so theoretically anyone could build a power station and compete for gov business (however all the big plants are owned by gov)

so im happy with all this being fully privatised
the bit that pisses me off is the idea of selling off all the wires and substations.... this is pure foolishness because its the only part of the whole system where competition can't occur (similar to how telstra can now rip off all ISPs with exorbitant ADSL data prices on its wires)

so surely the gov could find some money by selling just energy aust and the power stations?

 

[zstar]

Ok some people here a worried that the company will have the ability to do whatever it wants but I don't think that's true. As long as the electricity companies are made to compete against each other then they have to provide cheaper electricity and good service.

Furthermore it will give people the freedom to choose which company they want to join. Just like ISP's and the internet. Originally broadband was out of reach for the average person but as competition was introduced soon broadband became cheaper and this also allowed people the freedom to chose from a wide range of companies. I think the same thing can be done for the states power.

http://ozleft.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/eight-electricity-privatisation-myths-exposed/

That's a leftist site, Surely you don't think those people would ever support the free market?

I'm pretty sure the New Deal shows otherwise.

New Deal was a failure.

In fact FDR's policies slowed America's recovery rather than accelerate it.

The only reason why America got out of the depression was because of the oncoming war which all of a sudden saw a spike in the armanments industry and the fact that all the men went off fighting the war meant many positions were not filled.

 

[sam04u]

I seriously hate how dumb some people are. "Competition" is such a ridiculous idea that capitalists believe happen in business. In the parts of business that count, they don't compete. They know that's bad for business. What they do however is merge, takeover one another, or "destroy the comptetion". The true nature of this sort of capitalism is not "healthy competion". Quite the opposite. It's a monopoly in every industry.

The difference being business works in the best interest of it's shareholders, and a government is supposed to work in the best interest of it's people.

 

[Slidey]

That's a leftist site, Surely you don't think those people would ever support the free market?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Shall we dance?