The Instigator
Daghini
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dvg111591
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Nationalisation of industry

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dvg111591
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 845 times Debate No: 54895
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Daghini

Pro

I will let my opponent go first
dvg111591

Con

First we must look at what nationalization of an industry is in the plain sense of the term. It's a state owned and state ran industry that is used to promote societal goals. I oppose this on a couple of points.

1) Restricted in price setting: Many nationalized industries can not behave properly to market forces. The government sometimes meddles in price setting, so the industry can't respond properly to shortages for instance. In a shortage you would have to raise prices, because a good is scarce. Nationalized industries really restrict the ability of that industry to set prices. Because price signals aren't being made, there's a huge inefficiency to state run industries.

2) Lack of Capital: Many times, these industries have restricted borrowing, and can't expand and use capital funds to maybe buy new tools for the business. Because they don't have a profit motive, it's really hard to let capital move around. It's much easier to do so if there's less restrictions.

3) Government is politics: Many of these "Social Goals" that industries may pursue, will be controlled by different political parties and ideologies, that people may not agree with. It's best if we have a businesses set their own goals. We could have parties that exploit these industries for political gain, and capital.

4)Poor leadership of these organizations: When you nationalize an industry the idea of merit is downgraded, because decision making is handicapped, and the appointments may be politically motivated or some other means other than the person's actual skill set.

One of my favorite real world examples to show these points was the privatization of the Royal Mail, in the United Kingdom recently. We see the issue with limited capital, and that's why the UK privatized them. The nationalized industry of the Royal Mail wasn't responding well to market forces of parcel delivery increased by the internet. The government has trouble with modern things, but I digress. The government invested itself 3 billion dollars, and yet we still saw issues with the royal mail. That money was just to upgrade current facilities, and it wasn't enough. In order for a company or an industry to grow, it needs capital. The only way that the Royal mail could survive was to be publicly traded on the stock market. The economist also notes that Belgium introduced privatization and profit margins were up to 17%. Compare it to DHL who has double the productivity and profits of the Royal Mail. I actually think the U.S postal service would be better off if it was not eliminated, but totally privatized. I'm also aware that USPS is revenue neutral, however congress still retains control over them.

We've seen this over and over again as nationalized industries, become private, and they become more sustainable, more efficient, and can expand. They also react to market forces and price signals. If the government is meddling in price signals than it's not going to produce appropriately. Can markets fail? Yes it's possible, a market can collapse, but its not the end of the world.

http://www.economist.com...

We can look at a ton of things. USPS vs. UPS, British Leyland Cars vs. American Cars of the 1970s, NHS vs. Private Healthcare providers. The market produces things and allocates much better than a nationalized industry.
Debate Round No. 1
Daghini

Pro

Daghini forfeited this round.
dvg111591

Con

Why have you forfeited this round? My opponent has no counter arguments to make or even some evidence to make.
Debate Round No. 2
Daghini

Pro

Daghini forfeited this round.
dvg111591

Con

Why have a debate if you don't intend to argue.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MilesandMilesofMiles 3 years ago
MilesandMilesofMiles
Why are we even having this debate?
http://analepsis.files.wordpress.com...
Posted by MilesandMilesofMiles 3 years ago
MilesandMilesofMiles
Finally a serious debate on economic policy on this site!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
Daghinidvg111591Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know why people have voted for pro. Pro did absolutely nothing. On the other hand, Con actually provided an argument. Until these votes are correctly changed, I find myself obliged to give a 7 point vote because Con deserves to win. Con has provided a very interesting argument to read in which he also covered a range of topics involving the industry etc. This is why I am awarding Con points for a more convincing argument. I see that Con has provided a source and despite there only being one source, The Economist is a very good source (hence, I am awarding the point for sources). Pro has forfeited on basically every round except for the first round. Ergo, I am awarding points to Con for better conduct. Fyi, Pro did not use a full stop at the end of the first round. I would have liked it if this was a full debate. I truly hope that Con will win this debate because he does deserve it. Anyone who thinks otherwise *cough cough MilesandMilesofMiles* is just stupid.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Daghinidvg111591Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically, a full forfeit from Pro. Conduct for those forfeits, and Arguments for the fact that Pro didn't even show up for the debate he instigated. I'm quite tempted to award S&G and Sources as well--since Pro's ONLY sentence doesn't even have a period, while Con's was serviceable enough in terms of S&G, and Con actually sourced the argument that he made, while Pro didn't make an argument, let alone source it. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.