tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-600802170849928872.post4264826889449761759..comments2023-10-29T15:18:25.355+08:00Comments on de minimis: Malakoff, IPP and Privatisation: Learning from Fannie and Freddiede minimishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06478671079348612565noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-600802170849928872.post-66800363360227135112008-08-02T15:33:00.000+08:002008-08-02T15:33:00.000+08:00ct choo,Have left my 'economics' a long, long time...ct choo,<BR/><BR/>Have left my 'economics' a long, long time ago, so do not have much helpful thoughts to put through.<BR/><BR/>"By its very nature, public goods have inelastic demand meaning that the consumers of public goods have no choice but to continue the usage of privatised roads, electricity, water and so on." - that is basic economics exactly and one thing the government has failed to take note (or perhaps they know it; know it all too well even).<BR/><BR/>Public goods are what make modern life possible. The public has to use those goods irrespective of any upward changes in price. Since demand is inelastic, where even a sharp rise in price will not reduce the quantity of demand (by the public), the public will of course suffer with the increase in price and this would lead to a 'higher costs of living' as mentioned.<BR/><BR/>"The conventional wisdom that evolved in the 1980s was that privateers were able to deliver these public goods more efficiently and, more cost-effectively" is also a fallacy. There are reports that hundreds of schools in rural areas still do not have proper electricity supply. Does any private IPP corporations care about these people? Private corporations only care about the bottom-line.<BR/><BR/>So, the question "Do we want privatised public goods to be public or private?" is a resounding "public goods should and must not be 'privatised'. Public goods should be the obligations of any good government. I believe most people, layman included, would concur. <BR/><BR/>Privatisation of public goods is the call of right-wing politicians, social darwinist, and capitalists. Life is not always fair to everyone, nor is it 'just'.<BR/><BR/>My two-cents on this, and i'm not even an economist to see that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-600802170849928872.post-19583116948568369302008-07-31T21:10:00.000+08:002008-07-31T21:10:00.000+08:00Yes, that is exactly right, lasersharp. Privatisat...Yes, that is exactly right, lasersharp. Privatisation has to be phased out.de minimishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478671079348612565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-600802170849928872.post-50637629819831613432008-07-31T19:05:00.000+08:002008-07-31T19:05:00.000+08:00Malakoff hits the headlines because the company is...Malakoff hits the headlines because the company is a holdco that owns various IPPs. In a normal IPP, the windfall tax will hit shareholders but spare the lenders. <BR/><BR/>Malakoff, due to its high gearing thanks to the debt funded take over by MMC, will be hit especially hard. Leverage works both ways! <BR/><BR/>The personalities (owners) involved will, in this bolehland, lobby hard with the government to ensure that their interests are protected. <BR/><BR/>Like I commented before all these privatisation exercises have not benefited the public 1 bit, but served to enrich a few.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com