by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .3,5513,5523,5533,5543,5553,5563,557. . .3,6073,608»

http://i.imgur.com/rRRvv9s.jpg

Reagan the great

Hi

Reagan the great wrote:Hi

Hi

Reagan the great

What do we actually do in this?

Lincoln sydney

Reagan the great wrote:What do we actually do in this?

You can answer issues, to change your nation.

Participate in the forums, for role play, talking about nations, or whatever else, including serious topics.

Participate in discussions on the RMB.

Participate in NS Sports tournaments.

Participate in the rare LF sports tournaments.

Talk to people from all over the world.

London’s business leaders are calling for the “rationalisation” of mainline rail services after a poll revealed widespread concern that poor performance by train operators is harming the capital’s success.

In a poll carried out by ComRes for the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 40% of firms named poor reliability and punctuality of rail services as one of the top three issues affecting their business.

58% of the 500 business leaders polled said a member of staff had been late to work due to train delays or cancellations at least once in the past year.

In addition, 48% said they’d had members of staff unable to get into to work due to poor performing trains.

The LCCI says the “ongoing issue of poor commuter rail services” is now having a tangible impact on businesses and is calling for the “rationalisation of the management and operation of rail services into the capital”.

The organisation also wants ministers to consider handing responsibility for services to Transport for London when each franchise comes up for renewal.

TfL already operates the DLR, Tube and popular London Overground service which regularly outperforms other train firms operating in the capital.

Next month it is due to take over routes running from Liverpool Street station to Enfield Town, Cheshunt (via Seven Sisters) and Chingford.

Colin Stanbridge, LCCI Chief Executive said: “It is simply intolerable that poor quality train services into and out of London are having such a significant impact on the capital’s businesses.

“Small businesses and traders in particular will be severely impacted if staff are unable to make it into work – with fewer staff in a small business, each one counts.

“The time has now come to stop moaning about the problems and start to look for solutions. We urge the new government to look to devolve responsibility for commuter train services into the capital to Transport for London.

“It makes total sense to join up our transport network under an integrated management body and would help to overcome some of the issues that have been experienced over the past six months.”

Alyakia wrote: London’s business leaders are calling for the “rationalisation” of mainline rail services after a poll revealed widespread concern that poor performance by train operators is harming the capital’s success.
...

“The time has now come to stop moaning about the problems and start to look for solutions. We urge the new government to look to devolve responsibility for commuter train services into the capital to Transport for London.

“It makes total sense to join up our transport network under an integrated management body and would help to overcome some of the issues that have been experienced over the past six months.”

Yes, rail service in the US has become much more timely under Amtrak...NOT!

Minarchist states

Minarchist states

78 minutes ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney ejected and banned The 3rd Republic of Evil the Great from the region.
79 minutes ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney agreed to construct embassies with Coalition of Pussys.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/242/631/382.gif

ive been looking for a printer lately. i noticed that all the ink/toner cartridges are ridiculously overpriced. there are the cheap knock offs as one would expect, but the official ones are all the same range. it's strange. capitalists keep telling me a system like this would never work and that someone would undercut everyone else to make more money despite this obviously being against their long-term interests, but that hasn't happened yet and it's been, like, decades, and it's still going strong. it's kinda weird. makes me think you guys might actually be really wrong about cartels and monopolies.

Elwher wrote:Yes, rail service in the US has become much more timely under Amtrak...NOT!

america is not everywhere. the best run service in the UK was the one that fell back into pubic ownership... until they privatized it again. woo.

Alyakia wrote:america is not everywhere. the best run service in the UK was the one that fell back into pubic ownership... until they privatized it again. woo.

lol, pubic ownership?

the joke is that most of our services are actually owned by the greman/french governments

but yes east coast main line was effectively re-nationalized after national express got told that the "private companies run it and get all the profit buuuuuuuut they still get taxpayer subsidy anyway because it wouldn't work otherwise (makes you think)" system wasn't working. it was one of the few rail services that actually made a profit, and was one of the best re: service and delays. then they decided they wanted to privatize it again, because herpteyderp.

Here's something I don't get; if you're going to nationalize an industry, why don't you just offer to hire the most talented individuals from the corporations? It seems these government bureaucrats don't know how to properly run anything, but there are hundreds of people that do who already work in corporations. If the government could just drop the people that didn't do their job effectively in the national corporation and picked up the people that could, I think you could get the best of both worlds, in that you'd have the nationalized industry which tends to be cheaper and profit the government more, thus opening the possibility of lowering taxes, and at the same time it could run as efficiently as it did under the best corporations.

Minarchist states wrote:78 minutes ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney ejected and banned The 3rd Republic of Evil the Great from the region.
79 minutes ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney agreed to construct embassies with Coalition of Pussys.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/242/631/382.gif

Evil was banned because he blocked me. He blocked me because I defended a girl that would not add him on Facebook.

He then wished the girl would die.

Quayle wrote:Here's something I don't get; if you're going to nationalize an industry, why don't you just offer to hire the most talented individuals from the corporations? It seems these government bureaucrats don't know how to properly run anything, but there are hundreds of people that do who already work in corporations. If the government could just drop the people that didn't do their job effectively in the national corporation and picked up the people that could, I think you could get the best of both worlds, in that you'd have the nationalized industry which tends to be cheaper and profit the government more, thus opening the possibility of lowering taxes, and at the same time it could run as efficiently as it did under the best corporations.

Incentives and risk are the problem for GOEs far more than employees.

Quayle wrote:Here's something I don't get; if you're going to nationalize an industry, why don't you just offer to hire the most talented individuals from the corporations? It seems these government bureaucrats don't know how to properly run anything, but there are hundreds of people that do who already work in corporations. If the government could just drop the people that didn't do their job effectively in the national corporation and picked up the people that could, I think you could get the best of both worlds, in that you'd have the nationalized industry which tends to be cheaper and profit the government more, thus opening the possibility of lowering taxes, and at the same time it could run as efficiently as it did under the best corporations.

who said they wouldn't? the better question is why doesn't the private sector do the same instead of pretending a manager that may very well know shít all about the field in reality is best?

Minarchist states

Sibirsky wrote:Evil was banned because he blocked me. He blocked me because I defended a girl that would not add him on Facebook.

He then wished the girl would die.

I see.

Minarchist states

Curious: would consensus decision-making be a preferable alternative to representative democracy in a theoretical libertarian state?

Thoughts?

Alyakia wrote:who said they wouldn't? the better question is why doesn't the private sector do the same instead of pretending a manager that may very well know shít all about the field in reality is best?

Exactly, I'm all for making new jobs by coming up with simple labour positions, but if you're going to put someone in the managerial position, at least make sure they can do the job they're ordering other people to do in the first place.

Minarchist states wrote:Curious: would consensus decision-making be a preferable alternative to representative democracy in a theoretical libertarian state?

Thoughts?

I've personally been a bigger fan of direct democracy over representative, but I'd probably go with representative because consensus decision making might mean a lot of people, even the majority of people, may not get a say in politics unless they are a part of some council which is making the decision in the first place.

Living freedom land

Minarchist states wrote:Curious: would consensus decision-making be a preferable alternative to representative democracy in a theoretical libertarian state?

Thoughts?

>libertarian
>state
u wot m8?

Minarchist states

Living freedom land wrote:>libertarian
>state
u wot m8?

u wot u wot u wot

VOTE ON MY POLL!!!!

Quayle - big shots from the business world often hired to run government owned enterprises.

The honest ones either turn down the job (no matter how much money they are offered) or soon resign in disgust. The crooks take the money - and hold the jobs for years. It makes no difference - the problem with a state owned enterprise is it basic nature (for example that it does not go bankrupt if makes losses over years) not who runs it.

And formal private ownership is not always free enterprise either.

Let us say you have an industry where the big enterprises do not go bankrupt (really bankrupt - close their door) because they are bailed out, and where basic business practices are actually (behind closed doors) set by the government - "we want you to lend more money in inner city areas - and we will punish you if you do not".

There is such as industry - it is called "banking".

If these principles (no real bankruptcy and political direction of the enterprise) is made general then you have the "German form of socialism" (as Ludwig Von Mises called it) where the companies are formally privately owned, but they are not really privately owned - the "owners" are really just (highly paid) "shop managers".

This was done in the First World War ("War Socialism") in Germany and in the 1930s.

In theory companies remained privately owned - even the managers were often the same people who had been managers before.

But everything was politically directed.

After World War II the new (free market) economy minister was approached by various "businessmen".

"What is the government policy in this industry?"

We have no policy in any industry - make your own decisions.

"But what will happen if we make the wrong decisions?"

Then you will go bankrupt - your business will not longer exist and you will have to find a job.

This is what a real free market is about.

I see what you are saying, but my concern is for the consumer and employee. Without some government policy, businesses tend to abuse their employees by giving them sub-par wages and choosing efficiency over safety, as seen in the Early Industrial period, and meanwhile they themselves take large amounts of money without the slightest bit of effort. And then, in the event that such a business were to fail, hundreds of people lose out because of a single person's greed or stupidity. Then larger businesses come in and take the profits, and the process repeats itself until a single massive business has a monopoly over whatever it is they're marketing, and they could in essence pay workers nothing and charge outrageous prices because without some level of government control, there'd be no one to stop them until the people decided to up and kill them, and then you'd have total chaos.

Now, if there were just one national company for everything, which paid an okay wage, made okay products, and charged an okay price, these sorts of things couldn't happen because when the private companies decided to go overboard with low wages and high prices, people could always turn to the government company for what they needed and the big companies would be forced to adapt. With just a single government corporation under these circumstances, it ensures that corporations have to actually work hard so that they can get business. In essence, under Capitalism, the theory that people must work hard to live a good life, some government regulation actually helps to do this by keeping a balance of powers in business.

Your first paragraph may be true if there are significant barriers to entry for new companies, although even there the possibility for new companies entering the market exists if the government does not intervene. If by effort you mean physical labor, that also may be true, but starting and running a company is not just sitting back and letting things go.

If a given company is paying low wages and charging excessive prices, new entries will come in and produce the product cheaper and/or pay the workers more, thereby getting the better workers and producing a product which is either better or produced more efficiently. This is what would stop them, not the people rising up and killing them. You do not need the single government company, other businesses will perform the same function.

«12. . .3,5513,5523,5533,5543,5553,5563,557. . .3,6073,608»

Advertisement