Whilst in Australia the neo-liberals have been able to achieve many of their anti-democratic and sociopathic goals behind a fig leaf of Parliamentary process, in many other countries they dispensed with it altogether. As described by Klein, this began in 1973, when acolytes of neo-liberal Godfather Milton Friedman advised Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet of how to implement their program of stealing public wealth and impoverishing the poor whilst opponents of the program were killed, jailed or tortured.

This pattern has since been repeated in many other countries across the globe including Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Russia, China and Iraq. In a good many others such as South Africa, Poland, Britain, Bolivia, South East Asia, the United States, Thailand, Sri Lanka and New Zealand and, of course, Australia, it has been accomplished behind the barest facade of Parliamentary process.

Neo-liberals, including even Friedman himself, have even stooped to exploiting natural disaster and human tragedy to achieve their ends as they did after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and after the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami in Sri Lanka, Thailand and the Maldives.

So, as I wrote above, the reality of neo-liberalism is worse than any caricature that Tristan or anyone else could conjure up.

Bravo Daggett! Well said.
the Neo-Lib method has actually been tried for most of Human history:
Law of the jungle.
Wealth is built by the intelligent/hardworking, controlled by the manipulative, and destroyed by the combative.
Neo-Libs are just the combatants dressed up as management. "Contractors" that are really "mercenaries".

Only a violent fool calls an efficient community a Bad Thing.

Dagget,
I'm on your side. My remark about the debate being over meant that it's too late for many industries and they can never go back into Public hands.
I recommend the book "Privatisation -Sell off or Sell Out?" by Bob and Betty Walker for an excellent perspective on the Australian experience.

"Australia is a world leader in the privatisation of government assets and services. It is second only to the UK in dollar terms, and second only to New Zealand as a percentage of GDP. Australia has gone further than other countries in financing infrastructure development through off-budget financing deals and is steadily contracting out service delivery in many traditional areas of government activity."
"... privatisation in its various forms, is leading to an erosion of public accountability and, by default, a radical change in the role of government in Australia. The authors believe that there is merit in privatising certain government activities. But they have severe reservations about how privatisation has proceeded without detailed and critical analysis of:

• Financial implications of selling off government enterprises
• Deals worth billions of dollars without parliamentary scrutiny
• Economic "thinktanks" using flawed assessments of the performance of government enterprises because of unusual accounting methods
• New financing schemes which obscure the financial exposure of governments
• Impact on the quality of services provided to the community

Rather, the debates about privatisation have been based on rhetoric, sloganeering and flawed financial analysis. Misleading descriptions of benefits, like preservation of credit ratings and reduction of debt and interest costs, have been repeated uncritically by consultants, public servants, politicians and the financial press."

I also agree with the slogan "Private ownership = Public squalor" when it comes to essential utilities.

Water - as well as electricity - will be the next big one to watch out for.

I'm glad to see that I've managed to spur debate - and at least that there is a body of opinion which supports my arguments...

Most notable, I think, was the question of the debate being 'resolved' in favour of privatisation '20 years ago'.
(see Wobble's earlier post)

Always - all the way through the 80s; on through the Keating years - and under Howard - most Australians never supported 'selling the family silver'.

This was reflected in successive polls through this period. Ordinary people took the mixed economy as being 'natural', and both progressives and instinctive conservatives felt uncomfortable with the agenda of privatisation.

For a more recent example see:

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html

(scroll through for the power privatisation poll)

The privatisers always were motivated either by an ideological agenda - or otherwise by even more cynical and potenitally compromising goals. (for example - PPPs)

The 'mixed democratic economy' appeals both to conservative instincts for strategic natural monopoly - and other progressive or radical projects for industrial democracy - eg: tax breaks and low interest loans for co-operative entreprise and mutual societies...

More of that later, though...Running out of space here

There is am essential role for competitive private markets-to the extent to which those markets drive innovation and response to market signals...So the role of markets is always core for social democrats such as myself...

But even then-there are cases where services and infrastructure comprise'natural monopoly'.For instance-the National Broadband Network ought be a publc monopoly-as the savings from reduced cost structures are passed on to the entire economy...

Other cases include public transport,roads,energy,water,education, health...(with exceptions-see below)

Competition is anti-intuitive for many people here...It need not apply EVERYWHERE - eg: roads... Private monopoly, here, can be abused-and consumers are made to pay...

Support for 'home-grown' defence industries might also be considered a matter of 'national security'...

Take the example of the Desal plant in Victoria...Ken Davidson has shown that a pipeline form Tasmania would be far more effecient... Why is the Vic govt ignoring some options? All the while prices were set to rise by over 200%...PPPS are inherently open to abuse...

In other areas Government Business Enterprises can ENHANCE competition - negating collusion thorugh oligopoly...(eg: banking, insurance, lotteries)

And if national export industries-eg:mining/minerals - operate in INTERNATIONALLY COMPETITIVE markets - why not socialise?(as the benenfits of competititon remain in the dynamics of the world market - but dividends could be a massive boon to the social wage for all Australians)

Finally - Education, Health, Aged care - Government ought provide directly or subsidise these areas - so that all have access to the services they need...

Sometimes private charities may have a 'culture of care' that warrants state subsidy... But no vulnerable Australian should be denied the best quality services simply because they are poor...

While there are arguments for (reasonable) subsidy of private (faith-based) schools, hospitials,etc-it should not be in the spirit of 'private affluence, public squalor'...A strong social wage is core - going beyond essential liberal rights - to provide for social rights for all...) Again-dividends from GBEs also - have a core role is sustaining the social wage-without in such cases depending only on taxation...)

Hi Daggett,

Privatisation is often unpopular when it’s proposed (though seldom afterwards – there’s no public clamour to buy back once-public assets). But sometimes governments have to make decisions that are unpopular. Your argument that privatisation without majority support is never legitimate is interesting (I disagree, but I can see where you’re coming from). But it has little to do with the case for and against privatisation on its economic and social merits, which is what the article argues.

This article by Ross Gittens spelled out the mainstream economic case for the proposed NSW electricity privatisation. He doesn’t seem like a sociopath to me:

http://business.smh.com.au/business/iemmas-reasons-for-privatising-electricity-20080316-1zsa.html?page=2

I agree that genuine natural monopolies need to controlled by government, whether directly owned or private but regulated doesn't much matter. But parts of the market that can support sustainable competition should be open to competition. And, as Gittens says, government stewardship of public funds should include regard for opportunity cost – what could the money be spent on if it wasn’t tied up in public utilities.