Off-topic but regarding the privatisation of Telstra - I recall the debate on the sale of the first tranche where the Government said something to the effect that "The Government recognises that Private Enterprise is always more efficient that Public Enterprise".
The rebuttal was that "the Government is actually legislating that it illegal for Public Enterprise to be more efficient than Private Enterprise".

The key work here is effective - not efficient. To date, no privatised corporation has been able to provide the same level of service to the public at the same price, not to mention the river of money that now flows out of the country as dividends to overseas owners. These are public profits lost forever. It's just public asset-stripping and selling people what they already own and have paid for over generations.

I think IamJoseph completely misses the point on nationalised Iraqi Oil. Overseas Corporations weren't paying the Iraqis a fair amount for their oil so they took control of it back and used the money for the public good. That's why they brought in Saddam - to guarantee their supply and one of the reasons they got rid of him was because in retaliation for the sanctions, he tied his oil prices to the Euro and not the US dollar.
It was also the Dutch and British as well as the Americans who have been there from the beginning, not just the Americans and they have all been maneuvering over it ever since.

Oil is bad for the Middle East?

This is victory?

Rache,

In the 1970's Telstra had plans to give everyone in the country fibre-optic cable before the turn of the century. This is one of a number of examples of how Telstra was a world leader in telecommunications. That fantastic edge was lost thanks to the corporatisation of Telstra by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments, which was the first step along the path to privatisation.

One of many examples of how money obtained from us over many years through charges and taxes was squandered in the process of privatisation can be found in the story "How Telstra Jetsetters blew millions" of 25 June 2008 at
http://business.smh.com.au/how-telstra-jetsetters-blew-millions-20080624-2w7i.html

THE national auditor has lifted the lid on the cost
of the Government's third sale of Telstra shares,
revealing uncompetitive tenders, inflated hotel
bills and shoddy account keeping.

Investment banks, stockbrokers and corporate advisers
were the main beneficiaries of a $204 million windfall
from the $15.4 billion T3 sale.

But Telstra executives - led by the chief executive
officer, Sol Trujillo, and his chief financial officer,
John Stanhope - also benefited from a lavish trail of
expenses on an overseas tour to tout Telstra shares,
a report by the Australian National Audit Office shows.

Telstra management on the tour demanded to stay at
exclusive hotels - in New York, the St Regis; in
London, the Berkeley - at a cost of more than $1300
a night per person.

The taxpayer footed the bill for Telstra management,
representatives from investment banks, and officials
from the Department of Finance.
...

Could any third world dictatorship have managed the privatisation as badly as this?

---

I would less charitable in regard to Saddam Hussein. The people who deserve credit for lifting Iraq out of Third world poverty were Hussein's predecessors. Nevertheless, in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" John Perkins shows that it appears likely that the U.S. moved on Hussein in the first Gulf War because he had shown himself not to be as compliant as other middle east dictators, in particular, the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

daggett,

I agree with your post, except that I don't think rache was being any more charitable to Saddam Hussein than you were. I think you need to read what rache wrote again more carefully:

"That's why they brought in Saddam - to guarantee their supply and one of the reasons they got rid of him was because in retaliation for the sanctions, he tied his oil prices to the Euro and not the US dollar."

""That's why they brought in Saddam - to guarantee their supply and one of the reasons they got rid of him was because in retaliation for the sanctions, he tied his oil prices to the Euro and not the US dollar."

This appears bad, but second thoughts are in order. It is not possible to deal coherently with savage dictators - one ends up dealing in their own language with no options. America must thus be judged how she deals with other states which operate normally.

The fault lies in the tolerating of Regimes acscended via the cloak and dagger mode, and have assumed control of humanity's assets to exploit their own illegal thrones. Its not how Amerrica deals with these regimes, but how is one supposed to?

This situation is inflamed by two other factors: EU/UN fostering of these regimes - even ignoring mass murders under their noses; and the absolute vacuum of the so-called juhadists and freedom fighters - which should start at home. Australia can be applauded for rejecting the abuse of democrasy in Fiji recently - while the EU & UN must be accused of fostering terrorism: Italy recently acknowledged it had made deals with terror cells, allowing them safe cells in Europe, conditional to not being targeted themselves.

Such deeds are causes for terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the Bali bombings - while America's only crime was securing her commercial and sustainence interests - possibly the reason Saudi Arabia & Egypt were not confronted with 9/11, while Europe is responsble for making terror as a legit art form. Terrorism does not happen of itself - it is a result of abstainence and spins. The UN must be taken to task - and another body must be made transcendent of it - no one should be above the law.

Daggett,

We live in a representative democracy where we elect politicians to make day to day decisions for us. That’s the way it works. We don’t do a referendum every time a difficult or contentious decision needs to be made. So to even suggest THEFT is a complete and utter nonsense. If the majority of people are opposed to a decision they can let their anger be known at the ballot box the next time an election is due. That’s the nature of representative democracy. I only know of only one wing nut who favours full participatory democracy (ie direct democracy) on every decision of consequence made by the gov’t. Surely you are not suggesting that??

There is a whole school of economics called economic liberalism which believes in the privatization of State Owned Enterprises. There is much evidence to back up their claims that such privatization almost always benefits the consumer.

Th[is] paper reviews recent evidence on the impact of privatization. It focuses on traditional privatization efforts involving firms in competitive markets. It shows that privatization improves firms' financial and operating performance, yields positive fiscal and macroeconomic benefits (proceeds are saved rather than spent, transfers decline, and governments start collecting taxes from privatized firms), and improves overall welfare. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=636224

Research now supports the proposition that privately owned firms are more efficient and more profitable than otherwise-comparable state-owned firms
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/M/William.L.Megginson-1/prvsvpapJLE.pdf

Where is it that you have shown the public rejection of the sale of state owned enterprises? What do you base it on? Opinion polls? Poll figures change every day and to make policy based upon such a method would be insane.

Gov’t are elected to represent but also to LEAD. This requires that occasionally the gov’t will make unpopular decisions for the overall benefit of the electorate. Our system is set up in such a way that if the electorate isn’t satisfied with the gov’t it can boot them out.

It is a shallow analysis indeed to suggest that privatization equals theft. This is why Naomi Klein is NOT considered worthy of rebuttal. The whole proposition is just ridiculous.

Daggett,

You post >> “Nevertheless, in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" John Perkins shows that it appears likely that the U.S. moved on Hussein in the first Gulf War because he had shown himself not to be as compliant as other middle east dictators, in particular, the rulers of Saudi Arabia.”

WTF??

The coalition (of thirty odd nations) moved on Iraq when it refused to leave Kuwait (in spite of direct instructions from the UN) and made threatening gestures towards Saudi Arabia. To suggest that the invasion of Kuwait and defence of Saudi were not the main motivating factors for the First Gulf War is not only simply wrong, it is a perfect example of molding the facts to meet your theory. You really need to learn to be a bit more discerning in the material you chose to believe. Just because Alternet or some other “Alternative media” site loudly proclaims something as true doesn’t make it so.

Whilst I would agree that the same is true of the mainstream media, there is far more attention paid to them and their reputations are on the line. This has the effect of ensuring far more accountability than the equivalent “alternative media”.

Discussion of Telstra executive’s hotel bills is CHURLISH in the extreme. This type of corporate excess is hardly limited to Telstra.

Rache,

I think you miss the point over nationalized oil. After seeing its oil revenues quadruple in the period 1970/71 the Arab socialist gov’t decided to nationalize the Iraqi Petroleum Company. At that stage the Iraqi regime was receiving a 50% tax on oil profits. Funnily enough Iraq signed a 15 year treaty with the Soviet Union that same year. What a coincidence. The full nationalization of Iraq’s oil in 1973/4/5 was motivated by a desire to not sell oil to countries which supported Israel. Finally, AlBakr might have been the man credited with the nationalization, but even in 1972-3 Saddam was the man behind the scenes.