Gonna yoink this rq. I've got some worldbuilding to double-check.

Which is why the role of gov't is to negotiate & craft agreements to ensure that any deal restricts corporate profit-at-all-costs behaviour AND delivers tangible benefits to the public.

I'll reserve final judgement on these deals until we get real details. Rn its all talk.

After skimming thru 1998's Bill 70 (Highway 407 Privatization Bill), there is absolutely no provision made to limit profit margins OR enforce fair toll rates. The arbitration process is also woefully lacking.

No wonder people hate the 407 sale, this legislation is ass.
www.ola.org/sites/defaul...

After skimming thru 1998's Bill 70 (Highway 407 Privatization Bill), there is absolutely no provision made to limit profit margins OR enforce fair toll rates. The arbitration process is also woefully lacking.

No wonder people hate the 407 sale, this legislation is ass.
www.ola.org/sites/defaul...

Turns out having strong regulations & enforcement mechanisms that limits corporate/investor management systems is necessary to stop them from fucking people over.

Who would've thought?

I also agree with your 1st point. Yes, corporations work for the interests of the investment-class; which will exploit regular people for profit if given the chance.

Which is why I'm advocating for strong, effective, resilient legislation & regulatory oversight to limit their power in these deals.

I do read, quite a lot in fact.

Just because I don't 100% agree with you doesn't mean my conclusions are irrational, nor that I'm not open to discussion or having my mind changed.

Lumping me in with 'all men' instead of engaging with the details of my argument isn't the way to change my mind tho.

I don't disagree with you on this, quite the opposite. Nor am I asking you to blindly trust Carney & the investment-class.

What I am advocating for is strong, effective regulation & oversight if this is the path we're going to go down (which it seems we are, whether we like it or not).

No, absolutely not.

Strict regulation, hard caps on profit margins, and effective oversight & enforcement of regulations are absolutely mandatory for these types of deals to work.

Blindly trusting politicians OR capitalists at their word is foolish.

Highly regulated, monitored, and limited privatization can be a potential solution to the stagnancy problem.

The regulatory regime implemented in these deals matters; re: hard caps on profit margins, competition rules, and strict oversight are necessary.

The devil is in the details.

Our public institutional cultures have become stagnant, ossified, and unwilling to sacrifice job security for the sake of improving the effectiveness of the organization.

However blind, unregulated privatization is not an effective solution, nor am I advocating for it.

Privatization isn't some magical solution to the problem, but it does address the problem of perverse organizational incentives that prevent these same institutions - be it healthcare, airports, or otherwise - from meeting the needs of the public.

I work for Alberta Health Services. I am entirely in favour of a public healthcare system & openly oppose Danielle Smith's attempts to privatize it.

My ideal end goals for public institutions are organizations capable of doing its job effectively & efficiently.

Quote:

...[P]oorly handled privatisations, where governments seek to maximise the sale price by allowing monopolies to operate without regulatory oversight, are a key factor behind community opposition to public asset sales.

"They privatised them and simultaneously took the regulations off."

I'm not asking you to take Carney at his word, nor am I dismissing the very real downsides of unregulated privatization.

But to outright dismiss public-private partnership/asset recycling wholesale is putting the cart before the horse.

The details of these agreements are what ultimately matter.

The management companies are also incentivized NOT to piss off their customers, because the gov't maintains to power to terminate their lease if they fuck up.

This is has the possibility to be the best of both worlds IF IT IS DONE COMPETENTLY; execution matters!

However, this obviously isn't selling airports off to private investors, it's replacing ineffective, unprofitable management systems with more effective ones. There's a BIG difference between that and full privatization.

TL;DW: Carney's plan is to lease airport management services out to private investors while RETAINING OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND & AIRPORTS and MAINTAINING REGULATORY OVERSIGHT. The stated plan is to use the profits from these deals to invest in regional airports to improve air-travel costs & logistics.