Britain's Trillion Pound Horror

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

In what way will balancing the books wreck inflation? Unbalanced books means debt is being incurred, that debt is going somewhere, it's inflating the money supply artificially, more money means less value for each unit of it and in turn means inflation.

on that point you misunderstood me, I said they need balancing to reduce inflation.

Also BT I think is a bad example. Their fault rate figures are to be frank a joke.

When I first used BT (90s) yes post privitasion but a better service then, I could report faults directly to them and they had a better attitude. Then in the 2000s openreach and BT wholesale got introduced, this led to some fault reports not been reported due to isp's not doing it or BTw rejecting them. Now we near the end game where BTw charge very high fees for visits by default unless proven not to be a fault in end user equipment. The whole new procedure is designed to deter people from reporting faults, to make profit from faults, and to delay fixing of faults. This gives the false impression faults are reduced, because a unlogged fault is not a fault. So BT may be now more efficient at making money for its owners and shareholders but its questionable if the service is better, of course this thread isnt about its service it is about wealth and the state debt. So i guess my question is if BT are paying out more in wages (taking inflation into account) than before they were privatised.

On the other side of the coin we look at british gas and the now been private who are now abusing their position maximising profits, this eats into consumer wealth.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

BT are a great example. Most of the deployment of System X, etc, used private money and in turn the deployment of 21CN and the cross over to all IP network has used private money.

Private companies invest in technology to drive efficiency. The public sector pontificate for a few years, eventually put out tenders, get ripped off wholesale by suppliers or have suppliers bid themselves into bankruptcy and finally deliver projects which fail to reach the original criteria, are late and are over budget at which point they just dip into the tax payer's pocket some more and the people whose project failed to deliver are congratulated and sent off to their next failure or take the job they were promised in return for favouring a supplier.

The private sector doesn't have politicians' whims to win elections to satisfy and doesn't have to deal with a self-serving civil service bureaucracy trying to justify their existence meddling in things. BT's efficiency cost jobs, jobs which may have caused a government a lot of issues had they been perceived as shedding them. Not to mention the horrific state of government procurement.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

The points you make are somewhat after the fact and you are applying conjecture to what may have happened if no privatisation had taken place.

BT was privatised in 1984 and went absolutely nowhere until the early 90s when System X became viable. The manner in which it took advantage of the new technology is as any private company should but without System X it would have stayed stuck in the mud until something appeared. The older but more modern of the older systems had a projected lifespan that for many would still have been in force had System X not appeared.

Although in development for years it was 1992 before there was enough of the system operational to start the mass savings and that was prompted in part by the post mini recession (89\92) savaging of profitability. It was a case of needs must, rather than brilliant strategy which in retrospect it was.

To further your line of debate you would have to show a business that ignored technological advances and has done so on the back of government constraint.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Traduk

The points you make are somewhat after the fact and you are applying conjecture to what may have happened if no privatisation had taken place.

BT was privatised in 1984 and went absolutely nowhere until the early 90s when System X became viable. The manner in which it took advantage of the new technology is as any private company should but without System X it would have stayed stuck in the mud until something appeared. The older but more modern of the older systems had a projected lifespan that for many would still have been in force had System X not appeared.

Although in development for years it was 1992 before there was enough of the system operational to start the mass savings and that was prompted in part by the post mini recession (89\92) savaging of profitability. It was a case of needs must, rather than brilliant strategy which in retrospect it was.

To further your line of debate you would have to show a business that ignored technological advances and has done so on the back of government constraint.

BT have also made mistakes such as the billions they wasted on licenses. What saved them was their monopoly in half the country on land lines which they wouldnt have had if it wasnt for the investment made whilst owned by the state. If BT was started as a private company it would never have the coverage it has now, many people forget this.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

BT have also made mistakes such as the billions they wasted on licenses. What saved them was their monopoly in half the country on land lines which they wouldnt have had if it wasnt for the investment made whilst owned by the state. If BT was started as a private company it would never have the coverage it has now, many people forget this.

No indeed not it would have just stuck to more profitable areas.

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

To further your line of debate you would have to show a business that ignored technological advances and has done so on the back of government constraint.

Royal Mail, though with privatisation looming they are getting there.

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

BT was privatised in 1984 and went absolutely nowhere until the early 90s when System X became viable. The manner in which it took advantage of the new technology is as any private company should but without System X it would have stayed stuck in the mud until something appeared. The older but more modern of the older systems had a projected lifespan that for many would still have been in force had System X not appeared.

Although in development for years it was 1992 before there was enough of the system operational to start the mass savings and that was prompted in part by the post mini recession (89\92) savaging of profitability. It was a case of needs must, rather than brilliant strategy which in retrospect it was.

You appear to have first hand knowledge of this, I am happy to accept your first hand knowledge over my second hand knowledge, I was playing with marbles and conkers when BT were privatised and enjoying puberty during the mini-recession of 89-92.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You appear to have first hand knowledge of this, I am happy to accept your first hand knowledge over my second hand knowledge, I was playing with marbles and conkers when BT were privatised and enjoying puberty during the mini-recession of 89-92.

Your punctuation inspector will, no doubt, be surprised to hear that marbles and conkers are your foremost recollection of a time when BT were being privatised and enjoying puberty.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Your punctuation inspector will, no doubt, be surprised to hear that marbles and conkers are your foremost recollection of a time when BT were being privatised and enjoying puberty.

well some people enjoy puberty & others have it thrust upon them