Public or private ownership of utilities

[Olerand]

Recently the French government has declared that it is looking to let go of 6 to 10 billion Euros of its ownership of EDF, France's biggest electricity company, owned by the government to the tune of approximately 85%. EDF is a very profitable, if somewhat bloated, enterprise. It dominates France's electricity sector, along with other European nations who have liberalized their electricity industries(read Britain).
EDF's market cap is approximately 45 billion Euros, and its net profit in 2013 was 3,6 billion Euros.
The government has stated that it seeks to invest those 10 billion somewhere else in the economy(read pay debt most likely).
Afterwards, our Economy Minister said that the government would like to change and rethink the "État Actionnaire", or "Shareholder State", and greatly reduce its impact and involvement.

That raises a problem for me, and many others.
EDF is a profitable and successful corporation, and the government would like to sell it off. However, our experience so far with liberalization, EU encouraged or imposed of course, has been less than stellar.
Other than in the telecommunications industry, liberalization has brought us little profit, and in some cases has actually raised our expenses, or we were made to reveal logistical information in the name of "competition"; as GDF Suez was forced to do to increase competition in the gas sector.

So, in short, NSG, who do you think should own the utilities of a country? The State or the private sector? Why?
And are there any other fields that you would leave in public hands?

I would strongly oppose any further liberalization of utilities, and would support re-nationalization. That is of course not possible due to EU laws, but regardless.
I believe the State should be in control of gas and electricity, and local governments should handle water. I also support buying back all the conceded highways(France has sold some highways to private companies to exploit and maintain) and only leasing them back to the private sector.
I also support continued State involvement, or majority ownership, of defense companies.
Along with the obvious State involvement in the current mixed, but mostly public, education and healthcare sectors.
And very importantly, State controlled public transport. Except for inner city transport which should be owned by the municipality.
Finally, continued State and local government ownership of the nation's airports and ports, which our Economy Minister has said he would also like to disengage from. That also means the re-nationalizations of the barely majority government owned airports of Paris.

On the other hand, I support the State completely selling its share of Orange, the telecommunications company, Renault and Peugeot, the car companies, and Air France-KLM, the airline conglomerate, amongst others.

[T Roosevelt]

The ownership should be mixed between the two, the business should be broken into smaller companies.

[Dejanic]

Britain here. I'd support the renationalisation and further nationalisation of utilities, I'd also 10000 percent support the renationalisation of our shitty greedy railways.

[Olerand]

Britain here. I'd support the renationalisation and further nationalisation of utilities, I'd also 10000 percent support the renationalisation of our shitty greedy railways.

Ah yes, I completely forgot about the railways. They are set to open to "competition" in the end of this decade here in France. We'll see how that goes.
SNCF is not about to be privatized however, so we still have that. For now.

[Tagmatium]

Britain here. I'd support the renationalisation and further nationalisation of utilities, I'd also 10000 percent support the renationalisation of our shitty greedy railways.

As someone who does use the rail network very regularly (often every day, depending on where I've been deployed), I've no real issue with anything other than the price. It's clean, efficient, regular and there are rarely any problems other than ones that can't be avoided.

However, the price increases year on year, with little to show for it.

I'd fucking stop government subsidies in a trice, especially since the pre-privatisation InterCity service actually ran without subsidies, despite being nationalised. The main issue seems to be that these services are flogged on and then the new owners seem to view this as an enterprise in shafting both the customer and the government. The former by jacking up prices every year and the latter by demanding free money for providing a service that was often already being run efficiently.

[Alyakia]

The ownership should be mixed between the two, the business should be broken into smaller companies.

by breaking it into smaller companies bring a new era of competition and with it lower prices and higher quality service for all consumers!

just like uh... er... uh...

[Dejanic]

Britain here. I'd support the renationalisation and further nationalisation of utilities, I'd also 10000 percent support the renationalisation of our shitty greedy railways.

As someone who does use the rail network very regularly (often every day, depending on where I've been deployed), I've no real issue with anything other than the price. It's clean, efficient, regular and there are rarely any problems other than ones that can't be avoided.

However, the price increases year on year, with little to show for it.

I'd fucking stop government subsidies in a trice, especially since the pre-privatisation InterCity service actually ran without subsidies, despite being nationalised. The main issue seems to be that these services are flogged on and then the new owners seem to view this as an enterprise in shafting both the customer and the government. The former by jacking up prices every year and the latter by demanding free money for providing a service that was often already being run efficiently.

Whilst the absurd annual price rises are enough to warrant change in my opinion (FTR I take the train about often about 4 times a week) I do personally find massive problems with the train service itself, a good 1/4 of my journeys are delayed by 15-30 minutes, and the other 3/4 are a fashionable 5-7 minutes late, with another 5+ minutes added on until we actually depart. My 6:30 train tonight didn't arrive until 6:36, and leave until 6:42 for example.

In terms of actually being on the train, I find that more often than not there simply isn't space on the train, and you often have situations where every damn seat is taken, and you have a person standing next to pretty much every seat, as there isn't even standing room; the amount of carriages need to be increased. The constant "refreshments" marketing is pretty absurd also, it's not uncommon for the food trolley to be shoved into our faces once every half hour or so, and the prices are monstrous, it's almost a quid just to buy a can of coke.

Obviously all of the above depends on which greedy corporate entities trains you're taking. Personally I'd just prefer a publically run system which runs on time and doesn't raise prices to idiotic levels annually.

[The Old Nouveau Riche]

Private corporate ownership.

[Tagmatium]

As someone who does use the rail network very regularly (often every day, depending on where I've been deployed), I've no real issue with anything other than the price. It's clean, efficient, regular and there are rarely any problems other than ones that can't be avoided.

However, the price increases year on year, with little to show for it.

I'd fucking stop government subsidies in a trice, especially since the pre-privatisation InterCity service actually ran without subsidies, despite being nationalised. The main issue seems to be that these services are flogged on and then the new owners seem to view this as an enterprise in shafting both the customer and the government. The former by jacking up prices every year and the latter by demanding free money for providing a service that was often already being run efficiently.

Whilst the absurd annual price rises are enough to warrant change in my opinion (FTR I take the train about often about 4 times a week) I do personally find massive problems with the train service itself, a good 1/4 of my journeys are delayed by 15-30 minutes, and the other 3/4 are a fashionable 5-7 minutes late, with another 5+ minutes added on until we actually depart. My 6:30 train tonight didn't arrive until 6:36, and leave until 6:42 for example.

In terms of actually being on the train, I find that more often than not there simply isn't space on the train, and you often have situations where every damn seat is taken, and you have a person standing next to pretty much every seat, as there isn't even standing room; the amount of carriages need to be increased. The constant "refreshments" marketing is pretty absurd also, it's not uncommon for the food trolley to be shoved into our faces once every half hour or so, and the prices are monstrous, it's almost a quid just to buy a can of coke.

Obviously all of the above depends on which greedy corporate entities trains you're taking. Personally I'd just prefer a publically run system which runs on time and doesn't raise prices to idiotic levels annually.

See, I regularly use the Reading/Oxford trains, and occasionally the Reading/Bristol trains. I've the benefit of living on one of the main English rail lines, so it seems to be less hit by fuck-ups that others. When working from the home office of my company, I've got to take a train in the morning at around 5:50. It's never busy; it's usually pretty empty. It's still an eight-carriage 125. In the evenings, when I'm taking the train back, usually around 17:30, the train is packed. Nonetheless, it's almost always on time and I can get a seat, usually to myself.

That's probably because I'm dressed in muddy clothes, but that's by the by. Being covered in mud and wearing hi-vis does wonders for getting a seat. I worked on one site and I had to wear orange hi-vis - the same colour as used by rail workers. A ticket inspector was surprised that I'd paid for a ticket, assuming that I was a rail worker, rather than an archaeologist working in a quarry. I didn't actually take advantage of that

However, if it isn't a 125, it's a Class 180. They tend to be unreliable and shit. With the 125s, built under British Rail (the youngest is over thirty years old), the service is cracking. Every train leaves on time, at around one minute past the hour or half hour. The only times I've been delayed is due to the unforeseeable - a train breaks down, there is flooding, some poor sod throws themselves under a locomotive.

[Occupied Deutschland]

My local privately owned electrical company has good rates, good service, and a customer service division that isn't filled with assholes like my local government offices.
My former residence's electrical co-op was also comparable in these matter. My former residence's government, not so much.

So no, definitely don't nationalize that to 'improve' things.

[Tagmatium]

My local privately owned electrical company has good rates, good service, and a customer service division that isn't filled with assholes like my local government offices.
My former residence's electrical co-op was also comparable in these matter. My former residence's government, not so much.

So no, definitely don't nationalize that to 'improve' things.

The problem is that others have the opposite experience.

It's entirely subjective.

In my own experience, privatisation has done nothing other than spawn and encourage companies that are slovenly, greedy and uncooperative, who demand subsidies whilst increasing prices for the customer every year, when the equivalent nationalised organisations actually ran at a profit, or at least in a situation that meant they didn't need any subsidy.

[Dejanic]

My local privately owned electrical company has good rates, good service, and a customer service division that isn't filled with assholes like my local government offices.
My former residence's electrical co-op was also comparable in these matter. My former residence's government, not so much.

So no, definitely don't nationalize that to 'improve' things.

The problem is that others have the opposite experience.

It's entirely subjective.

In my own experience, privatisation has done nothing other than spawn and encourage companies that are slovenly, greedy and uncooperative, who demand subsidies whilst increasing prices for the customer every year, when the equivalent nationalised organisations actually ran at a profit, or at least in a situation that meant they didn't need any subsidy.

That's the thing, if these "private" entities were actually independent functioning entities, it would be a more even sided debate, but more often than not they're largely tax funded but without any benefit for the public.

If certain utilities can't be ran "privately" without huge subsidies, then perhaps it's a hint that they just shouldn't be run privately in the first place.

[Occupied Deutschland]

My local privately owned electrical company has good rates, good service, and a customer service division that isn't filled with assholes like my local government offices.
My former residence's electrical co-op was also comparable in these matter. My former residence's government, not so much.

So no, definitely don't nationalize that to 'improve' things.

The problem is that others have the opposite experience.

It's entirely subjective.

In my own experience, privatisation has done nothing other than spawn and encourage companies that are slovenly, greedy and uncooperative, who demand subsidies whilst increasing prices for the customer every year, when the equivalent nationalised organisations actually ran at a profit, or at least in a situation that meant they didn't need any subsidy.

Indeed.

Probably a good idea to restrict 'privatization' versus 'nationalization' challenges to those private companies which aren't working well or those national ones which aren't.
Due to international vagaries, that's likely to change in between countries in the latter instance, and due to market and supply ones change in the former.

[Tagmatium]

The problem is that others have the opposite experience.

It's entirely subjective.

In my own experience, privatisation has done nothing other than spawn and encourage companies that are slovenly, greedy and uncooperative, who demand subsidies whilst increasing prices for the customer every year, when the equivalent nationalised organisations actually ran at a profit, or at least in a situation that meant they didn't need any subsidy.

That's the thing, if these "private" entities were actually independent functioning entities, it would be a more even sided debate, but more often than not they're largely tax funded but without any benefit for the public.

If certain utilities can't be ran "privately" without huge subsidies, then perhaps it's a hint that they just shouldn't be run privately in the first place.

I can kind of suggest a reason as to why this has happened.

"Flogged to the government's mates" is the sole reason, I think.

By the Tories, who are apparently pro-Free Market.

We all know they're not, but that's the charade they keep up.

[Rio Cana]

Our electric company is island government owned. Its in debt. It charges plenty. Commercial rates are supposed to be higher then residential rates. Residential rates were around 27 US Cents per Kilowatt hour. That is expensive. There is a subsidy for some people. But still its expensive. When it comes to the subsidies, those who live in government subsidize homes generally pay a flat rate. Could explain some with many air conditioners. They say the high prices are because of the need to pay the bond debts, the electric power that is subsidized and money lost to corruption. The electric company also buys power from certain companies which have signed overtly too good of a deal. Some think corruption is also involved. There were talks of privatizing but they have a strong Union which does not want that. Currently, a restructuring study is under way. Some say that they might recommend a higher electric which will most certainly harm the economy and peoples pockets. Plenty of people cannot afford there electric bills.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ric ... _Authority

[Shilya]

Define "utilities".

There's different kind of utilities and they are of different importance to the people of the nation. The most essential utilities - water, power, that kind - should most definitly be state-owned. It may be a tad more expensive, but the higher reliability is well worth the price. The state won't go out of business and leave you without essential supplies.

Past that, utilities need to be regulated, but may be privatized. Regulations should include fair access and high availability, as well as a protection against monopoly positions.

[Costa Fierro]

Well, the government in New Zealand basically owns at least four or five "independent" electricity retail and generation companies and recently reduced it's share of ownership in a couple to the mandated 51% ownership of a state owned company by law, so I really couldn't give two shits. It's the government's property, it can do what it wants with it.

And as the French government is a bit short of cash at the moment (you should see how much they want to cut out of the social welfare system), it's understandable they want to get money where possible. As for ownership, it really doesn't matter who owns it, as long as the company provides you with good service, good products at reasonable prices.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Anything necessary to a nation's basic infrastructure should not be left solely in private hands.

[The Flood]

The fewer things that are privately owned, the better.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I have never seen the sense in supplying water being privatised.

Everybody needs water to live, and personally I don't want to live in a society that would cut people's water supply off because they cannot afford to pay for it.

[Chestaan]

The inherent problem with privatisation is that only the profitable enterprises get sold off, leaving the government with only the unprofitable (but often necessary)operations. The people lose out because of this.

[Martean]

My country started to privatize the economy during the late 80's, and this is the 'great' outcome.

Energy

In 2004, the privatization of the energetic sector finalized, but it started in 1996, since them, prices have more than DOUBLED, and, ironically, the companies have broken, (when they were nationalized, they had billions of € of benefits)

Telecomunications

The privatization here started very early, in the late 80's, now Spain has the honor of having the most expensive internet & phone calls of Europe, and has lost millions of euros (as this companies gave billions to the state budget)

Others

Spain has also privatized trains, water, schools, etc.

And the outcome it's similar to the one in telecommunications and energy.

[Digital Planets]

I have never seen the sense in supplying water being privatised.

Everybody needs water to live, and personally I don't want to live in a society that would cut people's water supply off because they cannot afford to pay for it.

Sure, everyone needs water to live, but those who can afford it should be able to live.

[Risottia]

... would support re-nationalization. That is of course not possible due to EU laws, ...

EU directives can be changed. All it takes is QUIT VOTING FOR THE EPP AND THE ALDE, EUROPE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

[Immoren]

... would support re-nationalization. That is of course not possible due to EU laws, ...

EU directives can be changed. All it takes is QUIT VOTING FOR THE EPP AND THE ALDE, EUROPE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

And weren't directives "merely" guidelines and not binding?