Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnhg | Hacker News Reader

Short answer is that the UK gave private companies to extract as much wealth as possible with minimal re-investment in infrastructure. The nation has since seen water rationing and raw sewage being pumped into rivers and beaches, but at least some shareholders have benefited, right?

View on HN

Well tbf, there is a regulator and there are price controls. They've been given license to extract wealth, but not as much as possible.

I do share your bitterness. Free-market fundamentalists have flogged assets for years, and the cost to the citizens is some future government's problem.

A regulator so weak that they have not been able to enforce pretty much anything, and are about to be systematically decontructed and replaced

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofwat-to-be-abolished-in-...

> there is a regulator and there are price controls

> Free-market fundamentalists have flogged assets for years

Maybe the problem isn't the free market (since one does not in any way exist in this case) but government interventionism.

There are a few services best left in the public sector - e.g. defence, water, mail delivery.

When one government, for its own reasons, sells a service, intervention is required to return it to public hands. The cost of that intervention was created by the government that sold the service.

The intervention could be more or less problematic, but it isn't the problem.

Yes! Same with trains.

Water meters work better than rationing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com