I’m just curious for the new or existing people? Lemmy.ml has taken a hard turn to the right since the reddit exodus. There’s been a lot of pro-imperialist propaganda being posted on world news, and a lot less diversity of opinion. It feels more neoliberal and neo-con to me.

Does anyone want to share what their political leanings are?

I’ll start; I’m anti-imperialist pro-state regulated capitalism. I believe we should have usage based taxes (toll roads, carbon tax) and luxury taxes, and I disagree with wealth taxes for people with less than $250 million. The state should spend more money on consumer protection in all industries (environment, health, finance, etc.) I believe in multipolarity vs. US hegemony.

  • LibertyLizard
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Markets work best when there are a number of firms that must compete with one another. For some goods and services, that level of competition is impractical or impossible because of the high amount of infrastructure required. It wouldn’t make much sense for each company to build a completely separate set of water purification and distribution systems—it would be very expensive and take up a lot of space.

    In many areas of the US we have a bizarre setup where there is a government enforced monopoly where a single company can reap all of the profits. This often leads to poor service because the company has very little incentive to provide value to its customers. Government owned services can be flawed as well but at least they are directly accountable to their citizens instead of a board or shareholders.

    • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As I said in reply to other person, in my country there’s private businesses providing those services for cheaper price than the government alternative. Infrastructure for the most part is provided by 3rd party.

      Also I keep hearing this talk about “government accountability”, but what mechanism of accountability does government have? Private firms at least can go out of business or sued. Government in worst case will just pay you some of its “tax money”

      • LibertyLizard
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What specific services are you referring to? If there are multiple firms and the government competing then that really doesn’t sound like the situation I was describing.

        Governments can also be sued though they sometimes grant themselves immunity. But utilities really can’t go out of business, can they? Generally they are providing what are considered essential services, so if they fail, the government will generally bail them out because they are the only provider and the loss of those services would be catastrophic. So there really is very little accountability. Just ask PG&E customers how much say they have in that company’s practices.

        As far as government accountability, that’s what elections are for. Do you not have those in your country?

        • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Governments can also be sued

          My point is they don’t lose hard earned money, they just pay you money they collect forcefully from people. Basically it’s not a deterrent, but simple restitution

          As far as government accountability, that’s what elections are for.

          It’s quite rare for any candidate to talk about utilities in their campaign at all.

          People here tend to not associate govt owned corporations with the government itself. And when someone brings it up, they just make some kind of excuse about what terrible person you are for accusing such a benevolent government of incompetence when they don’t fix their stuff, and increase price 2

          And besides, chances of reelection are so slim I doubt any politician actually going for it. It’s much more profitable to simply lie about your promises

          But utilities really can’t go out of business

          They should declare bankruptcy and be sold to someone

          loss of those services would be catastrophic

          Government failed to consistently provide power — no catastrophe. Government failed to provide any water at all — no catastrophe (some people just started to pump and sell underground water)

          So why private buisness not providing just one of those services for the period before it’s bought, must result in catastrophe? (Just for time reference, the absence of water I described earlier already lasts longer than a year)

        • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Governments can also be sued

          My point is they don’t lose hard earned money, they just pay you money they collect forcefully from people. Basically it’s not a deterrent, but simple restitution

          As far as government accountability, that’s what elections are for.

          It’s quite rare for any candidate to talk about utilities in their campaign at all.

          People here tend to not associate govt owned corporations with the government itself. And when someone brings it up, they just make some kind of excuse about what terrible person you are for accusing such a benevolent government of incompetence when they don’t fix their stuff, and increase price 2

          And besides, chances of reelection are so slim I doubt any politician actually going for it. It’s much more profitable to simply lie about your promises

          But utilities really can’t go out of business

          They should declare bankruptcy and be sold to someone

          loss of those services would be catastrophic

          Government failed to consistently provide power — no catastrophe. Government failed to provide any water at all — no catastrophe (some people just started to pump and sell underground water)

          So why private buisness not providing just one of those services for the period before it’s bought, must result in catastrophe? (Just for time reference, the absence of water I described earlier already lasts longer than a year)

          • LibertyLizard
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That sounds like a pretty insane situation that would not be tolerated in most developed countries. Generally lapse of service for essential utilities is considered a major problem that would absolutely be relevant to local elections in my area. It sounds like your government is very poorly run and needs dramatic changes—such changes could be implemented through elections. In the meantime it’s good that private entities are filling the gap but I doubt they are able to provide the same level of service as most people expect from utilities.

            • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              [govt] changes could be implemented through elections

              We have elections. I’m not sure how it should correct the govt. They’ll just go fo the problems mostpeoples know/talk about to boost their approval rate. (Democracy is about support of the majority after all)

              In my example they basically promised that as soon as Kherson is liberated they’ll start fixing their infrastructure. Fast forward many months after liberation, nothing is done, but they give huge amounts of money to repair infrastructuree damaged after dam was destroyed. (Most probably) because people actually know and talk about it, so it’s “cheap public support points”