privatisation

In my cuntry, iceland nearly 35% of the econamy is goverment owned and some whant to change that. Postal servecis, Energy,Production of energy, licor, Internet(only making the lines) are all goverment owned.
Iceland; energy is the cheapest and most green energy on the planet it cost about 700 dollars heat and electrycity for an avreg house a year.
Some whant privatisation but others fear that industryal giants might build more alminium plants (alredy have 4) if the energy would be given to privet owners.



Bottom line is: is privatasation good or bad , should the goverment controle the econamy completly or should it let it loose?

I think it's good for big cuntry's but not as good for smaller

Quote :

Bottom line is: is privatasation good or bad , should the goverment controle the econamy completly or should it let it loose?

It depends on things witch should be under goverment controle.

mattabesta wrote:

Bottom line is: is privatasation good or bad , should the goverment controle the econamy completly or should it let it loose?

I think it's good for big cuntry's but not as good for smaller

As a communist I think government should own and distribute all means of production and their products by law. In a capitalist framework, there should be some balance. However I think there should be no caitalist framework.

everything has its positive and negative sides.
Privatisation leads in most cases to better quality , while it will also eventually lead to higher prizes and faster product-life-circles

Voice of Reason wrote:

everything has its positive and negative sides.
Privatisation leads in most cases to better quality , while it will also eventually lead to higher prizes and faster product-life-circles

However high quality is not product of privatisation. Quality is product of scientific research and experimentantion.

and who is interested in getting a high quality product?
someone who wants to sell you something
Who is satisfied with the quality of a product?
Someone who knows that he wont have any advantages from increasing quality = a communist

Voice of Reason wrote:

and who is interested in getting a high quality product?
someone who wants to sell you something
Who is satisfied with the quality of a product?
Someone who knows that he wont have any advantages from increasing quality = a communist

False. If you need to sell to survive you produce mid-lived products at best that in some moment will end up failing or just be unable to completely satisfy the need after some time of use. Something that soon or late needs replacement.

Communisms production is not based on selling anything but based on satisfying needs. Therefore communist products are made to satisfy a certain need with maximum effiecience possible.

ZealotKommunizma wrote:

False. If you need to sell to survive you produce mid-lived products at best that in some moment will end up failing or just be unable to completely satisfy the need after some time of use. Something that soon or late needs replacement.

Communisms production is not based on selling anything but based on satisfying needs. Therefore communist products are made to satisfy a certain need with maximum effiecience possible.

No communist staes tell theyr factoryes what to make and how much of it.
Ther for ther will only be one brand for cereal one for coffe one for ect.

this is one of the resons communism faild. Product prize is fixed at a certan level but the cost of making is more thus the workers get less pay becuse ther is no profit from the factory and then ther is less money to buy other products and the factories that make those product sell less and theyer workers have less money and that's how it goes on.

mattabesta wrote:

No communist staes tell theyr factoryes what to make and how much of it.
Ther for ther will only be one brand for cereal one for coffe one for ect.
this is one of the resons communism faild.

Some orthographic and redaction corrections if you allow me:
"No, communist states tell their factories what to...." I don't know what you meant by "ther for ther". "...this is one of the reasons communism failed".

Now, to discussion:
First of all, there has not been any communist state. You're refering to socialist-tending state capitalisms.
Since these economies needed people to buy products made by the state they needed many products to be short lived or mild quality so that they had to e replaced soon. Another reason was that state was investing a lot of money in non-lucrative activities such as weapons production, free education, very cheap infrastructure and so on. So state would invest less on what brought income back and would invest more on what brought no or few income whatsover.

In communism there's no capital and economy is focused on satisfying needs. In communism the State orders how much of what and the specifications of what should be produced so that societal needs are satisfied. No price, no wages, no buy, no sell. Just production and distribution.

mattabesta wrote:

Product prize is fixed at a certan level but the cost of making is more thus the workers get less pay becuse ther is no profit from the factory and then ther is less money to buy other products and the factories that make those product sell less and theyer workers have less money and that's how it goes on.

"price".

An implosive cycle that belongs to an economy that contradicts itself by ecmploying capitalism..

karl marx was born in the firs industrial rvelution a time when children as young as 5 had to work in col mines filled with harmfull gases his idears were to radicly improve on worker conditions.
With todays labour movements his idear are comlplyti unnessasary and most communist states like china and many E-European cuntryes have very low worker security and ar ofthen paid as littel as 20 dollars a week

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Another reason was that state was investing a lot of money in non-lucrative activities such as weapons production, free education, very cheap infrastructure and so on. So state would invest less on what brought income back and would invest more on what brought no or few income whatsover.

In communism there's no capital and economy is focused on satisfying needs. In communism the State orders how much of what and the specifications of what should be produced so that societal needs are satisfied. No price, no wages, no buy, no sell. Just production and distribution.

all cuntreyes need imports to produce thyer goods no cuntry has all metalls or all kinds of food and so communist cuntryes have to pay for
those meterials. if ther are no wages then ther is no tax and then ther is no money to use to buy theas metiryals

Quote :

all cuntreyes need imports to produce thyer goods no cuntry has all metalls or all kinds of food and so communist cuntryes have to pay for
those meterials. if ther are no wages then ther is no tax and then ther is no money to use to buy theas metiryals

Communist should give it only for good will...

Privatisations was a total disaster in whole of East Block!

When companies get privatised it usually leads to people getting fired, rising unemployment, less income, because all profits go to owners, and the services cost more.

Privatisation is especially bad if a monopoly is privatised!

I think only small companies should be private-owned.

Anything beyond 100 employees should be state-owned, or owned by companies which the government controls 51% of shares.

mattabesta wrote:

karl marx was born in the firs industrial rvelution a time when children as young as 5 had to work in col mines filled with harmfull gases his idears were to radicly improve on worker conditions.
With todays labour movements his idear are comlplyti unnessasary

I guess the main intention of that parragraph was to say that "the outdated ideas of Karl Marx have no validity nowadays since workers' conditions have greatly improved". Not only did Marx say his ideas had to be revised, but, it's not matter of just improving workers' conditions but improving the whole society, eliminating class stratification. It goes beyond just making workers' life easier. Plus... guess what? In most of the world workers' conditions are poor.

mattabesta wrote:

and most communist states like china and many E-European cuntryes have very low worker security and ar ofthen paid as littel as 20 dollars a week

Reitarating, China is NOT communist. It's a state capitalism. And yes in China there are low wages because they don't really need much higher wages. Products in China are not as expensive as they are in Europe so if Chinese wage is lower than European it doesn't really mean that Chinese people's wages won't be enough.

mattabesta wrote:

all cuntreyes need imports to produce thyer goods no cuntry has all metalls or all kinds of food and so communist cuntryes have to pay for
those meterials. if ther are no wages then ther is no tax and then ther is no money to use to buy theas metiryals

"All countries". "Their goods".

Again, there has not been any communist nation...

Lets say, a country like Russia or well USSR, with millions of square kilometres of arable lands, with thousands of kilometres of coasts, with some of the largest reserves of Tungsten, Iron, Uranium, Palladium, etc., with some of the largest oil reserves, with high industrial technology, with one of the largest reserves of water, with one of the largest reserves of gas... tell me... what would such a country need to import having established communism?

As for a country like Cuba, yes, it would be highly dependant on other nations. Either in capitalism or communism. Countries like USSR, China, Brazil, India, USA, Canada and Mexico would be able to enjoy from almost or full to relative autharchies. These countries would be able to self-supply and supply comradely smaller nations which, according to their capacity and in case of needed would be able to economically support any of those nations by producing, given the chance, some product needed by the autharcic nations.

THer are tonns more of metals that russia lacks such as alaminim and coal and other less used but eqally important metals + russa has only ONE ice free all year port-st petersburgh and russa has very littel arabel land that can be used to grow crops in comparison to it's size.

mattabesta wrote:

THer are tonns more of metals that russia lacks such as alaminim and coal and other less used but eqally important metals

"Aluminium"
Russia produces 4% of the total world production of Bauxite which is the essential mineral to get aluminium. Talking about a possible USSR, Kazakhstan has got 3.2% of the world Bauxite prodcution which means a USSR would get 7.2% of the total world production of Bauxite. Having so much Bauxite... how could Russia or USSR lack aluminium?

Ah, but lets say it's not enough. Some great producers of Bauxite are China, India, Brazil, Guinea, the Guyanas, Greece and Serbia. The Guinea, the Guyanas, Greece and Serbia are small nations which could use Soviet or lets say Russian excedents which they would exchange for Bauxite, for example.

Ah and we're talking about its ore only, as a matter of fact, Russia is world's second largest producer, after China which is 1st.

Coal

Russia produces 3.8% of world's total coal production. Together with Ukraine and Kazakhstan they would produce 6.4% of world's total production.... on such a basis how can Russia lack coal?

Lack means "to have none" or "not to have".

mattabesta wrote:

+ russa has only ONE ice free all year port-st petersburgh

St. Petersburg

Russia also has Vladivostok, in case of Needed Sochi and Severomorsk.
And if talking about a possible USSR: Odessa and Sevastopol are other two good enough ports.

mattabesta wrote:

and russa has very littel arabel land that can be used to grow crops in comparison to it's size.

To its size, probably, but not in general. It is a great ammount of arable land. Plus with proper agronomic investigation and production can be increased. And to satisfy Russia's alimentary needs, it also would be from enough to more than enough.

4% is hiddeusley low plus it would never supply a 200 million man nation

200 million man

when ever you state a fact about a cuntry pleas tell us were you got the info or else you might be leing

mattabesta wrote:

4% is hiddeusley low plus it would never supply a 200 man nation

1. 4% of world's total is not hideously low for a nation since most nations of the world produce no bauxite.
2. Since in communist framework just the necesary is produced, sustentability is increased and not only that recycling of materials is put into action by government increasing reserves.

mattabesta wrote:

when ever you state a fact about a cuntry pleas tell us were you got the info or else you might be leing

This is a source. Anyway the fidelity of any source can be questioned, this is merely a parameter.

mattabesta wrote:

when ever you state a fact about a cuntry pleas tell us were you got the info or else you might be leing

*country
*lying

You should do the same. You didn't state where you took from that Russia lacked Aluminium and coal for example.

And, another observation. You can use the "edit" button, no need to double post

ty for telling me about the edit button.
but russia only has 4 alumina refineries so they only have 4 major mines
wich is not sufficient for the them.
they do have 13 smelters wich 3,8 miliont tonns of alaminium pa.
wich is 26 kg per citysen not enuf.
for a comparison iceland makes 2,5 tonns per citysen

mattabesta wrote:

ty for telling me about the edit button.

You're welcome

mattabesta wrote:

but russia only has 4 alumina refineries so they only have 4 major mines
wich is not sufficient for the them.
they do have 13 smelters wich 3,8 miliont tonns of alaminium pa.
wich is 26 kg per citysen not enuf.
for a comparison iceland makes 2,5 tonns per citysen

*citizen, enough, million.

1. Production can always be optimized.
2. 26kg per citizen per year, mean a bit more than 2.1 kg per month. I don't see why citizens would spend more than that daily.
3. As I told you recycling would be implemented as a way to increase sustentability, and believe me it would help a lot to increase reserves.

As for Iceland's production, well, you produce a lot of aluminium, much more than what you need, however, you need to import construction materials, machinery and food (although you're a great fish producer). Else you have one advantage over many nations: you got great ammounts of renewable energy sources having 99% of your energy based on hydroelectric and geothermic plants. That diminishes a lot your dependance on things such as oil or coal.

Anyway, either in capitalism or communism, Iceland is a country with high dependance on exporting its excedents and importing necesary resources.