tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post3114327398834979919..comments2024-02-09T18:16:45.614+00:00Comments on The Psy-Fi Blog: Ideology, Paving the Road to Financial Ruintimarrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254802085744425067noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-77390081013954051422011-11-26T13:51:24.637+00:002011-11-26T13:51:24.637+00:00Hi Lemondy
I agree that this is simplistic: how c...Hi Lemondy<br /><br />I agree that this is simplistic: how could it not be, really: a snapshot of a complex adaptive system distilled into a few hundred words? However, I stand by the principle.<br /><br />To take your examples: pre-privatisation government owned British Rail also had a poor safety record, because it was too closely coupled to its regulators who were, ultimately, also controlled by the government. Post-privatisation Railtrack was conflicted by having profit and safety objectives. Both systems were poorly designed.<br /><br />The NHS is another example where self-regulation generally doesn’t work: the scandal of children’s needless deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary is probably the paramount example of that. Personally I’d prefer to see more privatisation of services, but failing that, some proper independent oversight.<br /><br />The privatised airline industry, on the other hand, is regulated by various nationalised bodies. The design of the balance between profit and safety delivers safer travel, in general, but the industry is notoriously unprofitable (although there are multiple reasons for this, I’m not suggesting this is due to safety considerations).<br /><br />Clearly nationalising safety and privatising services is not a simple panacea; but the evidence suggests that where these are separated and the regulators and the regulated are incentivised separately you get a better result. You will never get 100% safety, however: give people seat belts and they’ll drive less safely. It’s a reflexive, adaptive world.timarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06254802085744425067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-38527011449096502042011-11-26T12:57:48.050+00:002011-11-26T12:57:48.050+00:00"but only up to the point at which you compro..."but only up to the point at which you compromise safety"<br /><br />This is simplistic. Safety is always and everywhere a trade-off between costs and benefits. The question is really how much (and whether) the state decides to intervene and attempt to "nudge" the choice of trade-off.<br /><br />The state does not, for example, mandate that gas central heating boilers are checked every month. Doing so could save a few lives from CO poisoning. But it would be expensive.<br /><br />I think it's naive to say Hatfield was symbolic of anything. There were train crashes before and after privatisation. The (entirely privatised) airline industry provides one of the safest means of transport per passenger mile. <br /><br />The NHS kills lots of people through systemic failures; e.g. Mid-Staffs; why does nobody decry the failure of nationalised healthcare as a result?Lemondynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-60333944383532723412011-11-24T09:13:35.571+00:002011-11-24T09:13:35.571+00:00Taking railway maintenance into public ownership d...Taking railway maintenance into public ownership did not stop rail crashes. As Virgin discovered at Cumbria two years ago. <br />What is important is the seperation of supervision from ownership. <br />My uncle, a civil service test pilot, forced Boeing to redesign the tail fin of the 707 to make it safer on takeoff if an engine failed. Boeing did not like it but it ultimately makde all aircraft safer. And most people now fly on airlines that exist to make a profit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com