Politicians lack the will to push for public utilities. That requires asking voters to go along with the government taking on financing, planning, operations, customer service, and being the bad guys who raise prices. It's easier to point to companies as the bad guys who raised electric rates, likely sparked a wildfire, or are taking so long to fix an outage.
The problem is this is set up as a dichotomy. Either you have privately owned infrastructure (and then a private monopoly), or make the utility company a government entity which then becomes an unaccountable bureaucracy captured by public sector unions etc.
Whereas the better thing to do is have the government own the physical plant (utility poles and conduits etc.) and then hire private contractors -- large numbers of small entities, not small numbers of large entities -- to do all the actual work of operating and maintaining it.
Make each contracted role simple and fungible so that none of them are too big to fail and they're all in competition with each other.
You don't want a public monopoly. You don't want a private monopoly. But who says those are the only options?
In New York, the cheapest utilities by far are public utilities owned by municipal governments. Same in Massachusetts — I saved a fortune dropping some stuff in Holyoke.
Generation is pretty low intensity from an employee standpoint. I know you’re brainwashed to hate unions, but they have little to do with it.
To add an anecdote my city has a publicly owned electric utility. Most of the surrounding metropolitan area is served by an investor owned utility. My city has noticeably fewer outages than nearby areas. Although that might be because this city has buried utilities and was built later but this trend of fewer outages includes the main drag that was built in the 1800s. The private utility has raised bills much faster than the public utility. Both utilities face the same underlying cost push factors of labor costs, materials, and rising wholesale prices. The private utility announced a record quadrupling of quarterly earnings to 1.2B (year over year).
The public utility employs linemen. They don’t contract out operations.
The interstate road system in the US is world class. Airports and ports are publicly owned, and seem to function very well in most cases. Education including the infrastructure and buildings is managed incredibly well in many jurisdictions. There are many, many examples of well run public infrastructure. We only notice the failures because 1. they are an easy punching bag 2. they are noteworthy because we expect them not to fail.
It is hardly a maxim that public operation of infrastructure is incompetent, and I would argue that "often" is not the right word.
Many airports and ports are privately owned in the US. Much more infrastructure is privately owned than you might realize, including water systems, sewage, roads, bridges, ports, railway, pipelines etc.
This feels like Churchill's democracy quote applies:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
It has been said that public operation of infrastructure is the worst form of operation of infrastructure except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
It's gone fine.
It's always fun to hear about the wonders of privatization where everyone conveniently ignores that the vast majority of private businesses fail miserably. Over 50 percent in five years. Mostly due to mismanagement of money, the thing they are supposed to be better at. The rate is even higher (80-90 percent) if we were to look at small businesses.
All over Europe state utilities were privatized over the past 30 years or so. Has it been an improvement? Not really, things just got more complicated and more expensive. Rail especially is a disaster. Upgrading the electric and telecom grid is made more difficult because of all the (supposedly) competing utilities.
Could you list some examples of where public infra hasn't "gone well"? Because from my own view of things it's the exact opposite, whenever anything became privatized that shouldn't have been (rail, water, electricity, public transportation, healthcare) it inevitably follows the same churn as all the other things getting enshittified continuously.
The national railway in the Netherlands is a great example of this. They've privatized but with gov't subsidies, yet there's less trains, less people getting moved by the remaining trains, ticket prices skyrocketing YoY, worse service, rail workers getting shafted and basically being forced to go on strike in order to improve conditions. They're (NS) a monopoly too and handle something like 95% of all rail traffic within the Netherlands.
I believe the UK is going through a similar issue, where their railways are now privatized and in turn it's lead to increasingly worse service despite there being plenty of competition in the market in the form of many rail companies.
This lolbert fantasy of the "free" market being good for literally everything, including critical public infrastructure is a complete farce.
The basic problem with the way you are thinking about it with respect to the national railway is that you don't seem to include cost to the government (ie, the people) to run it. Much infrastructure might appear to be "well run" by the government until you see the massive hole in the their budget. Sometimes the service has to get worse. When the government decides some piece of infrastructure must "pay for itself", they often sell it or hand over management to a private entity as a way to shift blame.
There are many private companies/PE firms etc who are competitively bidding to own these assets. It's not some license to print money, they are low return low risk assets.
The railway system in the Netherlands is not privatized. The structure is publicly owned but operated under a concession model where both state-owned and private companies may run services. There are some regional operators that are private companies, but by far the largest part, NS and Pro-rail, are wholly government owned.
I'm not in favor of privatizing a natural monopoly like railway infrastructure, but in the case of NS I'm not sure privatization would be worse than what we have now: "market friendly" salaries for management, and yearly losses go to the tax payer.
Yup, they are low cost. But not zero. The money is still owed, too. The bondholders are not going to just let the public take the asset back because people have been paying for the service all these years.
Politicians lack the will to push for public utilities. That requires asking voters to go along with the government taking on financing, planning, operations, customer service, and being the bad guys who raise prices. It's easier to point to companies as the bad guys who raised electric rates, likely sparked a wildfire, or are taking so long to fix an outage.
The problem is this is set up as a dichotomy. Either you have privately owned infrastructure (and then a private monopoly), or make the utility company a government entity which then becomes an unaccountable bureaucracy captured by public sector unions etc.
Whereas the better thing to do is have the government own the physical plant (utility poles and conduits etc.) and then hire private contractors -- large numbers of small entities, not small numbers of large entities -- to do all the actual work of operating and maintaining it.
Make each contracted role simple and fungible so that none of them are too big to fail and they're all in competition with each other.
You don't want a public monopoly. You don't want a private monopoly. But who says those are the only options?
In New York, the cheapest utilities by far are public utilities owned by municipal governments. Same in Massachusetts — I saved a fortune dropping some stuff in Holyoke.
Generation is pretty low intensity from an employee standpoint. I know you’re brainwashed to hate unions, but they have little to do with it.
3 replies →
To add an anecdote my city has a publicly owned electric utility. Most of the surrounding metropolitan area is served by an investor owned utility. My city has noticeably fewer outages than nearby areas. Although that might be because this city has buried utilities and was built later but this trend of fewer outages includes the main drag that was built in the 1800s. The private utility has raised bills much faster than the public utility. Both utilities face the same underlying cost push factors of labor costs, materials, and rising wholesale prices. The private utility announced a record quadrupling of quarterly earnings to 1.2B (year over year).
The public utility employs linemen. They don’t contract out operations.
It's either owned by a private company, or public (owned by municipality or similar).
Government bureaucrats are among the hardest to fire, because they rate their own excellence.
Knowing this, there is probably a way to make things better…
Because our political system is rigged to allow the wealthy to make the rules.
Because public operation of infrastructure has often not gone well. And no matter who owns it, there is a cost of capital.
The interstate road system in the US is world class. Airports and ports are publicly owned, and seem to function very well in most cases. Education including the infrastructure and buildings is managed incredibly well in many jurisdictions. There are many, many examples of well run public infrastructure. We only notice the failures because 1. they are an easy punching bag 2. they are noteworthy because we expect them not to fail.
It is hardly a maxim that public operation of infrastructure is incompetent, and I would argue that "often" is not the right word.
Many airports and ports are privately owned in the US. Much more infrastructure is privately owned than you might realize, including water systems, sewage, roads, bridges, ports, railway, pipelines etc.
2 replies →
US education has been in decline since the 1970s.
1 reply →
This feels like Churchill's democracy quote applies:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
It has been said that public operation of infrastructure is the worst form of operation of infrastructure except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
It's gone fine. It's always fun to hear about the wonders of privatization where everyone conveniently ignores that the vast majority of private businesses fail miserably. Over 50 percent in five years. Mostly due to mismanagement of money, the thing they are supposed to be better at. The rate is even higher (80-90 percent) if we were to look at small businesses.
They do have better PR though.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a37b87-6c30-8002-8a9a-76915e2e48...
3 replies →
> Because public operation of infrastructure has often not gone well.
Kindly define "not well" compared to privately owned infrastructure.
All over Europe state utilities were privatized over the past 30 years or so. Has it been an improvement? Not really, things just got more complicated and more expensive. Rail especially is a disaster. Upgrading the electric and telecom grid is made more difficult because of all the (supposedly) competing utilities.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a37b87-6c30-8002-8a9a-76915e2e48...
2 replies →
You can have competing operators bid for the contract to operate without owning.
Yup, there is a publicly listed company called "American Water Works" which has many such agreements with local governments for water/sewage infra.
Could you list some examples of where public infra hasn't "gone well"? Because from my own view of things it's the exact opposite, whenever anything became privatized that shouldn't have been (rail, water, electricity, public transportation, healthcare) it inevitably follows the same churn as all the other things getting enshittified continuously.
The national railway in the Netherlands is a great example of this. They've privatized but with gov't subsidies, yet there's less trains, less people getting moved by the remaining trains, ticket prices skyrocketing YoY, worse service, rail workers getting shafted and basically being forced to go on strike in order to improve conditions. They're (NS) a monopoly too and handle something like 95% of all rail traffic within the Netherlands.
I believe the UK is going through a similar issue, where their railways are now privatized and in turn it's lead to increasingly worse service despite there being plenty of competition in the market in the form of many rail companies.
This lolbert fantasy of the "free" market being good for literally everything, including critical public infrastructure is a complete farce.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a37b87-6c30-8002-8a9a-76915e2e48...
The basic problem with the way you are thinking about it with respect to the national railway is that you don't seem to include cost to the government (ie, the people) to run it. Much infrastructure might appear to be "well run" by the government until you see the massive hole in the their budget. Sometimes the service has to get worse. When the government decides some piece of infrastructure must "pay for itself", they often sell it or hand over management to a private entity as a way to shift blame.
There are many private companies/PE firms etc who are competitively bidding to own these assets. It's not some license to print money, they are low return low risk assets.
2 replies →
The railway system in the Netherlands is not privatized. The structure is publicly owned but operated under a concession model where both state-owned and private companies may run services. There are some regional operators that are private companies, but by far the largest part, NS and Pro-rail, are wholly government owned.
I'm not in favor of privatizing a natural monopoly like railway infrastructure, but in the case of NS I'm not sure privatization would be worse than what we have now: "market friendly" salaries for management, and yearly losses go to the tax payer.
1 reply →
Private vs public is just one factor. The UK's rail services improved hugely post-privatisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of...
1 reply →
Municipal bonds are the cheapest capital available anywhere.
Yup, they are low cost. But not zero. The money is still owed, too. The bondholders are not going to just let the public take the asset back because people have been paying for the service all these years.