ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
Roy Mayall's Blog
-
Roy Mayall
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 16:46
- Gender: Male
Roy Mayall's Blog
For all the latest news and opinion about the Royal Mail: http://roymayall.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
borders
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007, 09:10
Re: Roy Mayall's Blog
spot on articles as usual, especially this part,
The cost of water has increased by 245% since privatisation. The argument was that privatisation would lead to investment. In fact it hasn’t. Investment in the maintenance of the water supply has decreased since privatisation, and there is a very strong case for re-nationalisation. It was also argued that privatisation would lead to competition, but in the case of water there can only be one water supply at a time, so there is no competition. It is a natural monopoly, which means we’ve replaced a publicly owned and publicly accountable monopoly, with a private monopoly.
The Royal Mail is also a natural monopoly. What competition there is, is rigged through various regulatory mechanisms. In a truly free market, none of them would survive. The Royal Mail, too, will remain effectively a private monopoly.
Another argument for privatisation is that it saves on public subsidy and is more efficient, but in the case of the rail industry – another botched privatisation exercise – we’ve seen subsidies increase fourfold, while the one publicly owned rail company which still exists – East Coast – is actually the most efficient, and takes the least subsidies.
The term “wealth creator” – which is often applied to the entrepreneurs who will be investing in the company - is a piece of self-generated propaganda. The wealthy grow wealthier, and then say, “look, we’ve created this wealth.” But as they grow wealthier, so we grow poorer. There’s a direct correlation between the two. What is really happening is a form of wealth redistribution: from the public to the private, from the less well off to the wealthy. It’s communism for the rich. One group, the 1% with wealth and power and access to government, enrich themselves at the expense of the majority. They are the new robber barons and what we are watching is the growth of a new feudalism, in which a corporate elite lord it over us using debt as a form of rent.
We have to think more deeply about what creates wealth, and what wealth actually is. Vast sections of the world’s population live in abject poverty, while an elite few can ride around in private jets and own property in several nations. That’s not wealth by my definition. That’s not wealth by any definition. That’s poverty, on a grand scale.
That’s feudalism.
The whole privatisation argument goes back to the eighties, when deregulation, privatisation, supply side economics and the whole neoliberal agenda was first put into practice, first of all by Pinochet in Chile, and then by Thatcher in the UK. It was an experiment back then, but now we can see the results. And the results are economic devastation, impoverishment, economic collapse, indebtedness, austerity and an exponential growth in the wealth of the world’s elites.
Exponential growth is always unsustainable. The collapse of 2008 was only the beginning.
Who knows what the future will bring?
The cost of water has increased by 245% since privatisation. The argument was that privatisation would lead to investment. In fact it hasn’t. Investment in the maintenance of the water supply has decreased since privatisation, and there is a very strong case for re-nationalisation. It was also argued that privatisation would lead to competition, but in the case of water there can only be one water supply at a time, so there is no competition. It is a natural monopoly, which means we’ve replaced a publicly owned and publicly accountable monopoly, with a private monopoly.
The Royal Mail is also a natural monopoly. What competition there is, is rigged through various regulatory mechanisms. In a truly free market, none of them would survive. The Royal Mail, too, will remain effectively a private monopoly.
Another argument for privatisation is that it saves on public subsidy and is more efficient, but in the case of the rail industry – another botched privatisation exercise – we’ve seen subsidies increase fourfold, while the one publicly owned rail company which still exists – East Coast – is actually the most efficient, and takes the least subsidies.
The term “wealth creator” – which is often applied to the entrepreneurs who will be investing in the company - is a piece of self-generated propaganda. The wealthy grow wealthier, and then say, “look, we’ve created this wealth.” But as they grow wealthier, so we grow poorer. There’s a direct correlation between the two. What is really happening is a form of wealth redistribution: from the public to the private, from the less well off to the wealthy. It’s communism for the rich. One group, the 1% with wealth and power and access to government, enrich themselves at the expense of the majority. They are the new robber barons and what we are watching is the growth of a new feudalism, in which a corporate elite lord it over us using debt as a form of rent.
We have to think more deeply about what creates wealth, and what wealth actually is. Vast sections of the world’s population live in abject poverty, while an elite few can ride around in private jets and own property in several nations. That’s not wealth by my definition. That’s not wealth by any definition. That’s poverty, on a grand scale.
That’s feudalism.
The whole privatisation argument goes back to the eighties, when deregulation, privatisation, supply side economics and the whole neoliberal agenda was first put into practice, first of all by Pinochet in Chile, and then by Thatcher in the UK. It was an experiment back then, but now we can see the results. And the results are economic devastation, impoverishment, economic collapse, indebtedness, austerity and an exponential growth in the wealth of the world’s elites.
Exponential growth is always unsustainable. The collapse of 2008 was only the beginning.
Who knows what the future will bring?
"why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things ? we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and times that the likes of Cameron and his Eton buddies take for granted " - the late great Bob Crow RIP.
-
taxi4leighton
- Posts: 343
- Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 14:05
Re: Roy Mayall's Blog
fantastic analysis.no one could put it better
-
DirtyHarry
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 13 May 2007, 23:16
- Gender: Male
- Location: London
Re: Roy Mayall's Blog
That is the truth of it.
-
Roy Mayall
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 16:46
- Gender: Male
Re: Roy Mayall's Blog
Thanks guys. Much appreciated.
-
LinChong
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 27 Sep 2012, 09:07
- Gender: Male
Re: Roy Mayall's Blog
Postal workers are being forced to take a stand to save jobs and dignity for the British public's children and grandchildren.
A job is no longer a way out of poverty because of low wages, increased workload and zero hours contracts.
Corporates are using their politicians to push the brutal ideal that 'meritocracy' is fair and that if you do an honest working job, you are being punished for not trying hard enough to aspire your way out. 'Meritocracy' is not desirable unless you want families to start killing off their disabled children as losing becomes more and more unacceptable in a 'dog eat dog' society. The 'merit' myth is a tool to boost productivity. Graduates, who have taken out loans and believed the 'merit' myth only to realise that getting a good job is now even more about connections and who you know, should volunteer their services to the Trade Union movement. As reps, they won't get rich but they will be able to develop and help the unconnected class earn enough to support a family.
Most British families include postal workers. British families will suffer when the job becomes a minimum wage, zero hours contract.
A job is no longer a way out of poverty because of low wages, increased workload and zero hours contracts.
Corporates are using their politicians to push the brutal ideal that 'meritocracy' is fair and that if you do an honest working job, you are being punished for not trying hard enough to aspire your way out. 'Meritocracy' is not desirable unless you want families to start killing off their disabled children as losing becomes more and more unacceptable in a 'dog eat dog' society. The 'merit' myth is a tool to boost productivity. Graduates, who have taken out loans and believed the 'merit' myth only to realise that getting a good job is now even more about connections and who you know, should volunteer their services to the Trade Union movement. As reps, they won't get rich but they will be able to develop and help the unconnected class earn enough to support a family.
Most British families include postal workers. British families will suffer when the job becomes a minimum wage, zero hours contract.