The Chris Cook Economics 3.0 column
One of my favourite lines in film is the response to Will Hay in the film “Oh, Mr Porter” when he arrives as the new station master at Buggleskelly station and enquires at the ticket office window...
“The next train’s gone!”
...shouts his new (in) subordinate as he slams shut the window.
The Department for Transport must be feeling as bemused as Will Hay’s character by yet another example of the “privatise profits, socialise losses” syndrome which occurred yesterday when National Express decided to walk away from its franchise to the East Coast London to Edinburgh line. The reason is, apparently, that the economic downturn has blown a hole in their projected income as business travel in particular has collapsed.
So what happens now?
The protagonists line up predictably. Firstly, National Express has the gall to expect that they should be entitled to continue to run other UK franchises or have any other contract with the public sector after walking away from their franchise.
Secondly, the DfT blithely aim to warehouse the franchise until some obliging train operator comes and takes it off their hands at the highest possible price, to be extracted by screwing the long suffering passengers (I refuse to use the term “customer”) on service, price or both.
Thirdly, the RMT look forward to a return to the good old days of beer and sandwiches at Number 10 as their members extract the best possible pay, terms and conditions from the government, who will again screw the long suffering passengers on service, price or both.
As anyone who has read my blogposts will know, I believe that there is in fact another way of structuring utilities which is neither Public, ie owned by the State, nor Private, ie owned by the particularly toxic legal entity known as a Public Limited Company.
Firstly, I would hand over all of the shares in an East Coast Line operating company in trust to Mr Crow’s membership, and to other staff, whether or not unionised. What was good enough for Tyrone O’Sullivan and his fellow firebrand NUM members at Tower Colliery should be good enough for the RMT.
Then, with ownership remaining in the hands of the DfT or a “Custodian” entity on their behalf, the necessary capital for the operation of the railway would come from a “Capital Partner” who would share the gross revenues with the staff cooperative.
Part of the proportional “Units” or “n’ths” in the line’s gross revenues could and should be dedicated to pension obligations, and any balance would be available to be sold to investors interested in the gross revenues of the line.
All of the above is achieved through the use of a UK Limited Liability Partnership as a framework within which the above revenue sharing is carried out.
The outcome of such an East Coast Partnership is an interesting one. We could actually see Labour working with, rather than for Capital, and there is an opportunity for the staff and management to make common cause, share the revenues more equitably, and eliminate fat-cattery once and for all.
Moreover, there is an incentive for the operating member staff co-operative to operate to high standards of efficiency and quality, because the members will make more money if they do so.
Capitalism having failed, perhaps Mr Crow and his colleagues might give Venture Communism a try?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Two quotations spring to mind : (i) ‘The trade of a joint stock company is always managed by a court of directors…..The directors of such companies, however, being the managers of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot be well expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious diligence with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.’
(ii) ‘Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules. To depart on any occasion from those rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal, to the banking company which attempts it.’
These were not written by 'some loony socialist', but by liberal thinker Adam Smith.
J K Galbraith, who you quote in one of your posts above (I think that I have used the same quote myself in a previous contribution), also said, "Nothing lasts forever." The sceptics would do well to remember this.
www.eurotrib.com
and
www.nordicenterprisetrust.wordpress.com
You will find no stronger proponent of the market than me. But I don't see why there is any need for rentiers extracting an unearned income from privilege. Producers and entrepreneurs are another matter.
Where have I said a partnership solution wouldn't work for IPR? Of course it would - I've done it.
You'll have to do better than baseless assertions like that, Mike.
I doubt they are coming to a place near me because I do something very old-fashioned, we actually make something to sell & service & actually export; it contains IPR. A concept even by your own admission (or rather hypothecated waffle) it wouldn't work for. Now if you are running a sandwich shop, retailer or other business in the tertiary sector of the economy - fine.
I'm old enough to remember the last time there was a clamour to declare "Capitalism is dead." The ultimate parody of the time was Citizen Smith.
Spare me the cypto-Marxism from the clapped out Keynesians.
So Wolfie, Capitalism is dead, long live Capitalism.
I have posted many Diaries at European Tribune but not so many these days, although I posted a recent one re Iran where I have a personal interest.
This Labour List blog post is also to be found at my blog Nordic Enterprise Trust
There's nothing remotely opaque about the stuff I'm doing - it could not be more transparent, and indeed everyone involved in a partnership has an interest in it being transparent.
I'm not surprised that people indulge in projection, and try to downplay the "Napsterisation" trend to disintermediation and collaboration because it is totally antithetical to their endangered position defending the indefensible.
I hate to say this Mike, but LLPs and LLCs aren't going away. They're coming soon to a place near you.
Galbraith had it right when he said "Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness".
I am still looking into the LLC ideas you have advocated will give a better response once I am done. So far I am encouraged by what I have read but it is still early days (I work about 65 hours a week and times is pressing). But I will try and give you a response that is worthy of your attention when the time comes.
Or perhaps you might ask the Hilton group why they put >£1bn worth of hotels into such a Capital Partnership LLP and shared the gross revenues with investors of money and "money's worth" of expertise.
Or maybe you could enquire of Islamic investors (only a few trillion dollars there)why it is they prefer to invest in Sharia'h compliant revenue sharing partnerships - of which this happens to be an example.
The fact is that most people would prefer to get their hands on income from productive assets before the management does - and whether or not the assets are in public or private ownership is immaterial.
Most Investors would queue up for units of gross revenues from productive assets - particularly utilities - and this "unitisation" method is a new synthesis between the conflicting claims of conventional toxic (and inaptly named) equity and equally toxic (due to the compounding effect of interest and the limited sharing of risk) secured debt.
You, of course, are not most investors, and presumably a proponent of the unsustainable "greed is good" / shareholder value school of investment that got us where we are. Clearly you do not have a clue about risk management or the design of financial products, because if you did, you would not make such statements.
All the rail lines should be brought back into public ownership as the franchises fall due.
Then as more comments pile in you realise that far from being that, it's all rather opaque and only exists as a favourable tax regime limited in its application and use.
It certainly brightens up one's day to be treated to such economic and commercial silliness. Sadly there is no indication in the piece of how the proposed "capital partner" is identified and persuaded to join the business and stump up the cash.