Any takers on rationalising the plan to privatise assets?
I'M not the sharpest carrot in the vegie patch, but even a dull-eyed mouth-breather like myself can see through the 10-step plan to privatise publicly owned assets:
Step 1: Opposition criticises sale of government assets.
Step 2: Opposition gets elected then announces findings from private study - ie their own think tank - which reveals there is no alternative but to sell publicly owned assets. Ignores howls of protest from "the rabble", aka the voters who believed their promise about retaining publicly owned assets.
Step 3: Big corp buys asset and rebrands it. Mum and dad investors rush to buy shares. Over-inflated share values halve overnight, leaving mum and dad investors with fistfuls of high-priced stock they can't sell.
Step 4: Massive staff cuts are followed by regional branch closures and tripling of fees and charges in order to "improve customer service".
Step 5: Managers' yearly salary is quadrupled, because "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys". Ground-floor staff ask for a small cost-of-living pay increase and are immediately branded greedy, non-team players.
Step 6: Money earmarked for improvements, or infrastructure maintenance, is diverted to pay shareholder dividends and management bonuses.
Step 7: Wheels fall off. Manager and board take no responsibility but demand financial assistance from government, or from foreign investors, because company is "too big to fail".
Step 8: Manager angrily denies rumours that company is moving offshore. Company moves offshore. Staff numbers take another massive hit up the shorts.
Step 9: Government revenue drops and unemployment soars, so more publicly owned assets are earmarked for privatisation.
Step 10: Opposition criticises sale of government assets.
Meanwhile, I scratch my thick head and wonder, if publicly owned assets are posting profits, why are we getting rid of them, and if they're not profitable, who'd want to buy them?