UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Lamadia]

Privatisation of rail, around the world, is always going to be difficult & very problematic, namely due to the fact that rail is very hard to privatise. Five (am I correct?) groups run UK rail, which isn't a 'free market' per say. However, the idea that these services would function better in the state sector than in the private sector is quite a naive one. Nationalising the trains would take a lot of power out of the rail services, as well as deflating the stock groups who take a massive profit from industry, and who put it back into the economy.

1) Sorry, this is a circular statement. "Rail is hard to privatise is because rail is hard to privatise." It doesn't make any sense.

2) "Power out of the rail services" is a non-meaningful statement. What does it mean?

3) Yes. Back into the economies of France and Germany. If that's what you're concerned about, we could nationalise the rail and simply cash-transfer them the money. Our Franco-German taxpayer friends would still get their cash, it would still show up as a net transfer on our current account sheet, and everyone would be happy.

But seriously, they're not investing anyway. Investment in Britain fell dramatically since the recession and is still stalling. What you are saying is that dividends will fall. Obviously, I am talking about nationalising something. Trains are a public good. The purpose of public goods is to deliver a service. You are not complaining that our nationalised navy doesn't deliver for investors, are you?

Because it does. It guarantees security for the huge quantity of goods which arrive in British ports every day. If there is any private firm more happy with a state investment than Lloyd's of London is of the Royal Navy then let me know about it.

I toil with the idea that it was wrong to privatise the railways, at least as they were. It was handled badly, not done very well.
Rail is hard to privatise, as each train, generally, has to use the same route. I hate using trains, so I rarely go on them, however I know enough about rail that it isn't like a drinks company, or a phone business. You can chose if you buy an I-Phone or a Samsung, but you have very little choice which brand of train you use, and thus prices are allowed to rise. It isn't a proper free market, rather dominated by some select groups which have very little competition and thus can change the market as they please.
Investment may be shrinking, or at least stalling, as you say, which is why it should be encouraged, and not damaged. That part of your argument is flawed; you do not get rid of something because it currently has slowed down, even though we know how good it can be.

[Republic of Minerva]

<delete>

[Sadist France]

I mean one benefit would be the legalization of prostitution and drugs which you agree should be a thing. Thats not going to come from a Radfem dominated Labour or a Religious dominated Conservative Party

I want that done because it will permit government intervention in them. I don't want the market to run free, I want to seize it and chain it.

Well it won't happen when the left of the UK is dominated by anti sex radfems. Maybe the Liberal Democrat Party at most will allow for it to be legalized with regulation

[Philjia]

I want that done because it will permit government intervention in them. I don't want the market to run free, I want to seize it and chain it.

Well it won't happen when the left of the UK is dominated by anti sex radfems. Maybe the Liberal Democrat Party at most will allow for it to be legalized with regulation

Who, nice christian Tim? Doubt it.

[Questers]

1) Sorry, this is a circular statement. "Rail is hard to privatise is because rail is hard to privatise." It doesn't make any sense.

2) "Power out of the rail services" is a non-meaningful statement. What does it mean?

3) Yes. Back into the economies of France and Germany. If that's what you're concerned about, we could nationalise the rail and simply cash-transfer them the money. Our Franco-German taxpayer friends would still get their cash, it would still show up as a net transfer on our current account sheet, and everyone would be happy.

But seriously, they're not investing anyway. Investment in Britain fell dramatically since the recession and is still stalling. What you are saying is that dividends will fall. Obviously, I am talking about nationalising something. Trains are a public good. The purpose of public goods is to deliver a service. You are not complaining that our nationalised navy doesn't deliver for investors, are you?

Because it does. It guarantees security for the huge quantity of goods which arrive in British ports every day. If there is any private firm more happy with a state investment than Lloyd's of London is of the Royal Navy then let me know about it.

I toil with the idea that it was wrong to privatise the railways, at least as they were. It was handled badly, not done very well.
Rail is hard to privatise, as each train, generally, has to use the same route. I hate using trains, so I rarely go on them, however I know enough about rail that it isn't like a drinks company, or a phone business. You can chose if you buy an I-Phone or a Samsung, but you have very little choice which brand of train you use, and thus prices are allowed to rise. It isn't a proper free market, rather dominated by some select groups which have very little competition and thus can change the market as they please.
Investment may be shrinking, or at least stalling, as you say, which is why it should be encouraged, and not damaged. That part of your argument is flawed; you do not get rid of something because it currently has slowed down, even though we know how good it can be.

Are there too many commoners on trains for you?

I already talked to you about the consumer theory behind trains on the previous page. Presumably you did not read it.

The state should invest in trains. If the state takes over the railways and investment in the railways falls, this is obviously a government failure. If the state sells the railways and investment in the railways falls, this is a market failure, but we can't do anything about it because that would be discouraging investment. Please do not repeat circular points.

[The Nihilistic view]

Privatisation of rail, around the world, is always going to be difficult & very problematic, namely due to the fact that rail is very hard to privatise. Five (am I correct?) groups run UK rail, which isn't a 'free market' per say. However, the idea that these services would function better in the state sector than in the private sector is quite a naive one. Nationalising the trains would take a lot of power out of the rail services, as well as deflating the stock groups who take a massive profit from industry, and who put it back into the economy.

1) Sorry, this is a circular statement. "Rail is hard to privatise is because rail is hard to privatise." It doesn't make any sense.

2) "Power out of the rail services" is a non-meaningful statement. What does it mean?

3) Yes. Back into the economies of France and Germany. If that's what you're concerned about, we could nationalise the rail and simply cash-transfer them the money. Our Franco-German taxpayer friends would still get their cash, it would still show up as a net transfer on our current account sheet, and everyone would be happy.

But seriously, they're not investing anyway. Investment in Britain has fallen dramatically since the recession and is still stalling. What you are saying is that dividends will fall. Obviously, they will: I am talking about nationalising something. Trains are a public good. The purpose of public goods is to deliver a service. You are not complaining that our nationalised navy doesn't deliver for investors, are you?

Because it does. It guarantees security for the huge quantity of goods which arrive in British ports every day. If there is any private body more happy with a state investment than Lloyd's of London is of the Royal Navy then let me know about it.

Trains are a private good. If I buy a train it is mine and you can't also buy it and use it. It is rivalrous and excludable.

[Questers]

1) Sorry, this is a circular statement. "Rail is hard to privatise is because rail is hard to privatise." It doesn't make any sense.

2) "Power out of the rail services" is a non-meaningful statement. What does it mean?

3) Yes. Back into the economies of France and Germany. If that's what you're concerned about, we could nationalise the rail and simply cash-transfer them the money. Our Franco-German taxpayer friends would still get their cash, it would still show up as a net transfer on our current account sheet, and everyone would be happy.

But seriously, they're not investing anyway. Investment in Britain has fallen dramatically since the recession and is still stalling. What you are saying is that dividends will fall. Obviously, they will: I am talking about nationalising something. Trains are a public good. The purpose of public goods is to deliver a service. You are not complaining that our nationalised navy doesn't deliver for investors, are you?

Because it does. It guarantees security for the huge quantity of goods which arrive in British ports every day. If there is any private body more happy with a state investment than Lloyd's of London is of the Royal Navy then let me know about it.

Trains are a private good. If I buy a train it is mine and you can't also buy it and use it. It is rivalrous and excludable.

I am in Serious Mode (it will wear off soon), so:

In a sense, buying a train ticket is rivalrous because there is limited space on the train, so in that sense it is a private good. But at the same time, the police and the armed forces are also rivalrous goods because although we pay for them, there are not enough of them to protect all of us at the same time. For example there are only two jets on Quick Reaction Alert. One Tupolev goes to London, one goes to Edinburgh, and one goes to Liverpool. They take a circuitous route and so cannot all be intercepted at the same time.

Or there are three police officers in a town and four crimes happening simultaneously. Etc.

A road can only handle so many cars, etc. So yes, I accept the implicit suggestion that it isn't completely a public good, but there is really a strong case to be made that trains are public goods.

[Lamadia]

I toil with the idea that it was wrong to privatise the railways, at least as they were. It was handled badly, not done very well.
Rail is hard to privatise, as each train, generally, has to use the same route. I hate using trains, so I rarely go on them, however I know enough about rail that it isn't like a drinks company, or a phone business. You can chose if you buy an I-Phone or a Samsung, but you have very little choice which brand of train you use, and thus prices are allowed to rise. It isn't a proper free market, rather dominated by some select groups which have very little competition and thus can change the market as they please.
Investment may be shrinking, or at least stalling, as you say, which is why it should be encouraged, and not damaged. That part of your argument is flawed; you do not get rid of something because it currently has slowed down, even though we know how good it can be.

Are there too many commoners on trains for you?

I already talked to you about the consumer theory behind trains on the previous page. Presumably you did not read it.

The state should invest in trains. If the state takes over the railways and investment in the railways falls, this is obviously a government failure. If the state sells the railways and investment in the railways falls, this is a market failure, but we can't do anything about it because that would be discouraging investment. Please do not repeat circular points.

1) I don't like trains because I hate being on a shared carriage, it can get very hot even with air conditioning, and can be very stressful, with tickets & so on.
2) From what I read, I am agreeing with you? The privatisation of rail failed, badly, and is being exploited by foreign governments. What we do disagree on is our method of fixing this problem- nationalising the rail services will not work. We cannot turn back time. What will work, is making rail an attractive investment, to not just foreign rail owners, but to investors big & small. When Telecom etc, etc were privatised, shares were sold to the general public. This did not happen with rail. Encouraging the public to buy shares in the tracks, in the rail companies, will not only allow standards to increase, but will mean prices can fall. It is basic free market economics, and is the cure to the rail problem in this country.

[Souseiseki]

http://i.imgur.com/8ZToPLl.png

sweet jesus holy shit lel look at this beauty

[Questers]

Are there too many commoners on trains for you?

I already talked to you about the consumer theory behind trains on the previous page. Presumably you did not read it.

The state should invest in trains. If the state takes over the railways and investment in the railways falls, this is obviously a government failure. If the state sells the railways and investment in the railways falls, this is a market failure, but we can't do anything about it because that would be discouraging investment. Please do not repeat circular points.

1) I don't like trains because I hate being on a shared carriage, it can get very hot even with air conditioning, and can be very stressful, with tickets & so on.
2) From what I read, I am agreeing with you? The privatisation of rail failed, badly, and is being exploited by foreign governments. What we do disagree on is our method of fixing this problem- nationalising the rail services will not work. We cannot turn back time. What will work, is making rail an attractive investment, to not just foreign rail owners, but to investors big & small. When Telecom etc, etc were privatised, shares were sold to the general public. This did not happen with rail. Encouraging the public to buy shares in the tracks, in the rail companies, will not only allow standards to increase, but will mean prices can fall. It is basic free market economics, and is the cure to the rail problem in this country.

If you think a carriage in the UK is hot you would die in Singapore. Don't worry though, I would carry a parasol for you

Encouraging people to buy shares in something does not make prices fall. That's not some kind of rule. Martin Shkreli bought the HIV/AIDS treatment drug Daraprim and increased its price from $13.50 to $750. There are reasons he did it, and he is not the Sheriff of Nottingham character people portray him as, but the point does stand. What is basic economics, free market or not, is this:

Rational actors, faced by imperfect information make rational decisions based on what they know.

Accordingly, we would not necessarily see prices fall. We might see investment rise -- or fall. The rational actors in the economic scene would act accordingly to the situation.

Economics is a fascinating subject. You should study it, even if not formally then in your own time. Not only would it make your arguments more cogent (regardless of political perspective), you can find that since economics is the study of rational agents, it's actually very useful on a personal level too.

[Questers]

Happily, LSE has an introduction to economics online in pdf form.

[Lamadia]

Happily, LSE has an introduction to economics online in pdf form.

I suggest you look a little into capitalism. It is an interesting theory, and certainly has worked in the US. The system allows economic growth- it stops the government from interfering, allows companies to come up with new, innovative ideas, lowers taxation (ideally) to encourage investment, which in turn makes existing services better.
Efficiency must be at the forefront of this country's economy, alongside wealth creation.
I think if you look close at economics, certainly capitalism, then you will see how it will work, or would have worked, if introduced to the rail industry. Currently, it is not run by a free market. However, with investment, quality does improve, as there is more money to work so. Rather basic, but very effective.

[Questers]

I call myself a "communist" mainly for a joke and I will vote labour in 2020 (although I didn't in 2010 or 2015) and even though I label myself as a democratic socialist I am actually pretty moderate although most people would call the following platform marxist extremism:

Public goods:
Some goods provide tangible value to the economy and should be in public hands so they can be planned and receive enough investment for long-term plans, with oversight from democratically elected bodies:

• Utilities, including energy (which should be majority nuclear) and water
• The armed forces (including self-developed nuclear arms), border forces, the police, search and rescue services, emergency rescue services and the fire brigade and parademics (most people would be surprised to find out that SAR is entirely private in the UK)
• Transport, including the railways.
• Green energy investment consortiums.

These all deserve sufficient investment in order to both fulfill long-term policy objectives, rejuvenate UK R&D, and provide second-order benefits to society and the private sector.

Industry:
Industries in which Britain has, or can expect to have, comparative advantage should be nationalised. Firms that support these industries can be encouraged by indicative planning.

• Defence and Aerospace
• High-tech manufacturing
• Pharmaceuticals
• Engineering and allied industries, including car manufacturers

[Questers]

Happily, LSE has an introduction to economics online in pdf form.

I suggest you look a little into capitalism. It is an interesting theory, and certainly has worked in the US. The system allows economic growth- it stops the government from interfering, allows companies to come up with new, innovative ideas, lowers taxation (ideally) to encourage investment, which in turn makes existing services better.
Efficiency must be at the forefront of this country's economy, alongside wealth creation.
I think if you look close at economics, certainly capitalism, then you will see how it will work, or would have worked, if introduced to the rail industry. Currently, it is not run by a free market. However, with investment, quality does improve, as there is more money to work so. Rather basic, but very effective.

lol

I was interested in free market economics many years ago. I have read all of its primers — probably ones you haven't — and voted for free marketeers in general and european elections (oops). I understand it quite well.

But in fact, free market capitalism never works as free marketeers say it will or would. That isn't to say it is a total failure, but the examples of enterprise working without government interference, or attempting to get government to interfere in other industries, are rare.

You are telling me how something would work a priori. But you have not presented any a posteriori evidence of private rail, how it was privatised and the manner and economic environment in which it today functions.

[The Nihilistic view]

Trains are a private good. If I buy a train it is mine and you can't also buy it and use it. It is rivalrous and excludable.

I am in Serious Mode (it will wear off soon), so:

In a sense, buying a train ticket is rivalrous because there is limited space on the train, so in that sense it is a private good. But at the same time, the police and the armed forces are also rivalrous goods because although we pay for them, there are not enough of them to protect all of us at the same time. For example there are only two jets on Quick Reaction Alert. One Tupolev goes to London, one goes to Edinburgh, and one goes to Liverpool. They take a circuitous route and so cannot all be intercepted at the same time.

Or there are three police officers in a town and four crimes happening simultaneously. Etc.

A road can only handle so many cars, etc. So yes, I accept the implicit suggestion that it isn't completely a public good, but there is really a strong case to be made that trains are public goods.

I know what you were getting at. I was being silly suggesring I buy a train. But they are still not close to being public goods when talking about railway services. You can't free ride a train service legally, it is excludable. It is also rivalrous as each train has a maximum capacity. It is however something that can lend itself to becoming a monopoly. That is where the case for government intervention is not in it being a public good. It just isn't.

Roads are not inherently public goods they can be and they can't be. Police are public goods because you can't exclude people from using them they can be free ridden. They are not rivalrous because they will investigate any crime. Them helping to find the guy that mugged you does not stop them from helping to find the guy that mugged me. Your consumption does not affect my consumption, doing all this is all at the same time is not nessasery for it to be a public good. Defence is similar, protecting everybody with a fast jet at the same time is not nessasery to make it a public good. It can be free ridden, and is not rivalrous. My defence consumption is the same as yours as a UK citizen living in the UK. Everyday we consume defence.

[Lamadia]

Defence and Aerospace
High-tech manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals
Engineering and allied industries, including car manufacturers

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The global pharmaceutical industry is worth $300 billion per year, and has a £1.1 billion trade surplus in the UK alone. Car manufacturing, which is almost entirely foreign owned and thus cannot be nationalised plausibly, is one of the world's biggest, and is worth £12.0 billion to the UK economy alone.
Why would you want to break that?

[Questers]

Not on the rail topic, if you want a posteriori examples of how state intervention has engineered rapid, sustained and successful economic growth then you just need to google The Miracle on the Han River or MITI.

[The Nihilistic view]

I call myself a "communist" mainly for a joke and I will vote labour in 2020 (although I didn't in 2010 or 2015) and even though I label myself as a democratic socialist I am actually pretty moderate although most people would call the following platform marxist extremism:

Public goods:
Some goods provide tangible value to the economy and should be in public hands so they can be planned and receive enough investment for long-term plans, with oversight from democratically elected bodies:

• Utilities, including energy (which should be majority nuclear) and water
• The armed forces (including self-developed nuclear arms), border forces, the police, search and rescue services, emergency rescue services and the fire brigade and parademics (most people would be surprised to find out that SAR is entirely private in the UK)
• Transport, including the railways.
• Green energy investment consortiums.

These all deserve sufficient investment in order to both fulfill long-term policy objectives, rejuvenate UK R&D, and provide second-order benefits to society and the private sector.

Industry:
Industries in which Britain has, or can expect to have, comparative advantage should be nationalised. Firms that support these industries can be encouraged by indicative planning.

• Defence and Aerospace
• High-tech manufacturing
• Pharmaceuticals
• Engineering and allied industries, including car manufacturers

A lot of this is confusing public goods with natural monopolies.

[Questers]

Defence and Aerospace
High-tech manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals
Engineering and allied industries, including car manufacturers

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The global pharmaceutical industry is worth $300 billion per year, and has a £1.1 billion trade surplus in the UK alone. Car manufacturing, which is almost entirely foreign owned and thus cannot be nationalised plausibly, is one of the world's biggest, and is worth £12.0 billion to the UK economy alone.
Why would you want to break that?

Implying it would break.

[Lamadia]

I suggest you look a little into capitalism. It is an interesting theory, and certainly has worked in the US. The system allows economic growth- it stops the government from interfering, allows companies to come up with new, innovative ideas, lowers taxation (ideally) to encourage investment, which in turn makes existing services better.
Efficiency must be at the forefront of this country's economy, alongside wealth creation.
I think if you look close at economics, certainly capitalism, then you will see how it will work, or would have worked, if introduced to the rail industry. Currently, it is not run by a free market. However, with investment, quality does improve, as there is more money to work so. Rather basic, but very effective.

lol

I was interested in free market economics many years ago. I have read all of its primers — probably ones you haven't — and voted for free marketeers in general and european elections (oops). I understand it quite well.

But in fact, free market capitalism never works as free marketeers say it will or would. That isn't to say it is a total failure, but the examples of enterprise working without government interference, or attempting to get government to interfere in other industries, are rare.

You are telling me how something would work a priori. But you have not presented any a posteriori evidence of private rail, how it was privatised and the manner and economic environment in which it today functions.

Gosh! Read my post, honey; I have already said that private rail in the UK has failed, largely! You have said that yourself! But it is not the privatisation which has failed it, rather how it was done. Nationalising it will not work- it will be an extra burden on the taxpayer, who would agree to such a thing because, instantly, it would seem to lessen the ticket prices. Increasing investment (a scary word to the left-wing, who hate the idea of a successful market,) would increase standards. Should I give examples? Look at every major industry in the Western World.

[Questers]

I am in Serious Mode (it will wear off soon), so:

In a sense, buying a train ticket is rivalrous because there is limited space on the train, so in that sense it is a private good. But at the same time, the police and the armed forces are also rivalrous goods because although we pay for them, there are not enough of them to protect all of us at the same time. For example there are only two jets on Quick Reaction Alert. One Tupolev goes to London, one goes to Edinburgh, and one goes to Liverpool. They take a circuitous route and so cannot all be intercepted at the same time.

Or there are three police officers in a town and four crimes happening simultaneously. Etc.

A road can only handle so many cars, etc. So yes, I accept the implicit suggestion that it isn't completely a public good, but there is really a strong case to be made that trains are public goods.

I know what you were getting at. I was being silly suggesring I buy a train. But they are still not close to being public goods when talking about railway services. You can't free ride a train service legally, it is excludable. It is also rivalrous as each train has a maximum capacity. It is however something that can lend itself to becoming a monopoly. That is where the case for government intervention is not in it being a public good. It just isn't.

Roads are not inherently public goods they can be and they can't be. Police are public goods because you can't exclude people from using them they can be free ridden. They are not rivalrous because they will investigate any crime. Them helping to find the guy that mugged you does not stop them from helping to find the guy that mugged me. Your consumption does not affect my consumption, doing all this is all at the same time is not nessasery for it to be a public good. Defence is similar, protecting everybody with a fast jet at the same time is not nessasery to make it a public good. It can be free ridden, and is not rivalrous. My defence consumption is the same as yours as a UK citizen living in the UK. Everyday we consume defence.

Some state agencies are rivalrous because they have limited resources to deal with the objectives assigned to them. Security is still a scarce resource.

Identifying pure public goods, (i.e. those which are 100% non-rivalrous and non-excludable), as the only public goods is a little bit silly in my opinion and I am supported by (some sections) of heterodox economics. The term public enterprise goods can be used to refer to goods which are basically like natural monopolies. Other examples include the Royal Mail, water, etc. So while it does not fall neatly into traditional understandings of private/public goods I think this is not the most useful dichotomy.

[Lamadia]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The global pharmaceutical industry is worth $300 billion per year, and has a £1.1 billion trade surplus in the UK alone. Car manufacturing, which is almost entirely foreign owned and thus cannot be nationalised plausibly, is one of the world's biggest, and is worth £12.0 billion to the UK economy alone.
Why would you want to break that?

Implying it would break.

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

[Questers]

lol

I was interested in free market economics many years ago. I have read all of its primers — probably ones you haven't — and voted for free marketeers in general and european elections (oops). I understand it quite well.

But in fact, free market capitalism never works as free marketeers say it will or would. That isn't to say it is a total failure, but the examples of enterprise working without government interference, or attempting to get government to interfere in other industries, are rare.

You are telling me how something would work a priori. But you have not presented any a posteriori evidence of private rail, how it was privatised and the manner and economic environment in which it today functions.

Gosh! Read my post, honey; I have already said that private rail in the UK has failed, largely! You have said that yourself! But it is not the privatisation which has failed it, rather how it was done. Nationalising it will not work- it will be an extra burden on the taxpayer, who would agree to such a thing because, instantly, it would seem to lessen the ticket prices. Increasing investment (a scary word to the left-wing, who hate the idea of a successful market,) would increase standards. Should I give examples? Look at every major industry in the Western World.

It's kind of interesting that in almost every post I have made I have said that investment needs to increase and then suggest investment is a scary word to the left wing. If you were to ctrl+f the last few pages, I would have said it probably more than everyone else put together. Investment-led growth is a major policy platform for all leftwingers, everywhere. Investment means spending money for a future return instead of an immediate return. Perhaps you are associating it with "investors", who are usually people who invest and are usually rich in the common understanding, although if you put money into a bank you are also an investor, in a sense.

I know that you think the method was a failure. But you have not made any comparisons. This is why you can't just say "free market" to everything. In a complete free market, the market for chocolate bars is pretty much perfectly inelastic.

Trains are not the same as chocolate bars. They are not even the same as Veblen goods like Chanel bags

[Philjia]

Happily, LSE has an introduction to economics online in pdf form.

I suggest you look a little into capitalism. It is an interesting theory, and certainly has worked in the US. The system allows economic growth- it stops the government from interfering, allows companies to come up with new, innovative ideas, lowers taxation (ideally) to encourage investment, which in turn makes existing services better.
Efficiency must be at the forefront of this country's economy, alongside wealth creation.
I think if you look close at economics, certainly capitalism, then you will see how it will work, or would have worked, if introduced to the rail industry. Currently, it is not run by a free market. However, with investment, quality does improve, as there is more money to work so. Rather basic, but very effective.

Except that Keynes pointed out the macroeconomic inefficiencies of capitalism way back in 1936. Just because some of Friedman's observations were correct, it doesn't mean that any of his responses to it were, particularly given that his ideas essentially require, rather than merely benefit from, a total absence of corruption, which is ludicrous given how easy corruption is under his ideas.

[Questers]

Implying it would break.

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

I hate to break it to you darling, but Hayek was wrong.

Unless you think Britain in 1946 was a totalitarian country when it passed this type of law.

Property is already subject to compulsory purchase in the United Kingdom. With due compensation the Crown may take anyone's land if it wishes.