tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post372592649812882394..comments2024-02-07T19:30:21.880+11:00Comments on Left Focus: Privatisation debunked - by John QuigginVaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-17508758337244838732011-08-05T15:17:36.588+10:002011-08-05T15:17:36.588+10:00I haven’t seen the Bligh governments’ arguments, b...I haven’t seen the Bligh governments’ arguments, but there are certainly better arguments than what I just read here.<br /><br />For starters, why do you try to force P3 agreements into this argument? P3s are utilized for a variety of reasons - not just to “provide a bucket of money” – so if said bucket doesn’t materialize, it’s not a proof point for your argument. <br /><br />P3s can shift risk, acquire talent, solve difficult problems, provide guarantees and reduce cost – the magic is in the contract and the incentives. Your arguments against asset sales have little if any relevance to P3s.<br /><br />Second, I won’t deny that privatization’s popularity surged in the 80s. But please note that privatization has been popular since civilization started, not just the 80s. You also omit that the 1980s privatizations were chained to a philosophical gospel, a BIG historical difference. <br /><br />This point is key. Attack the Washington Consensus, but going after privatization is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Washington Consensus may be discredited, but so is its rival; regressing won’t help. <br /><br />Privatization is NOT a philosophy. Privatization is a tool. We commit a grave error when we treat it otherwise. Better to figure out how to make the tool work when it’s needed, and use a government model when that’s the better tool. <br /><br />The last 100 years have proven philosophies for and against privatization to be utter humiliations. The reason is that any appearance of a defining philosophy is illusory. Put simply, it’s really a question of whether to use a Philips screwdriver or a Flathead and anyone arguing for the philosophical superiority of a Flathead would be rightly considered a nut. <br /><br />So your debunking is flawed, unless you limit it to this simple point: “Selling income generating investments [again, not a P3] and using the proceeds to fund investments that return no additional revenue leaves the government with no flow of income” – if you leave it at that, and then of course provide numbers, then what is left is perhaps a useful argument for assessing the merits of ONE specific tool (asset sale) for ONE specific purpose (generate proceeds).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com