Because the Future Fund is one of many equity shareholders and has an independent board. It can only buy or sell shares and moan. When the government owned Telstra, it could (and did) direct it.

The good thing about the Future Fund is that it knows what it’s there for – to fund Commonwealth superannuation obligations. No “corporate social responsibility” or “ethical investing” garbage.

The bad thing is that it exists at all. I’d prefer Commonwealth superannuation was entirely privatised. I look forward to the day when the Future Fund is privatised, and I won’t give a fuck whether it’s the Liberals or Labor running the show. And I certainly won’t oppose it just because I think they’ll piss the money away.

Sure the money is used once however it usually ratchets up the recurring cost of government.

Privatization in this country is a dirty word with the public because they see for what it is: a cute way for the government to raise cash and continue along they way it has been.

That’s what i am saying. You can’t just look at the sale without looking at what’s happening to the cash.

Don’t get me wrong as I said earlier if it were up to me I would sell the government toilets.

The bastards should never be allowed to get their hands on the cash.

That’s not true JC. Once the business is in private hands, the government shrinks, the business runs better and the economy benefits.

Even if the proceeds from privatisation were stolen by politicians and public servants to pay for their mistresses and yachts, it would still be worth it. Russian is evidence of that.

Think Qantas, CSL, TAA, Commonwealth Bank, OTC/Optus, Telstra. The proceeds could have been used to buy heroin for all I know or care.

If you don’t believe governments should be running businesses, there is no such thing as the right time. As soon as possible is the only time.

I do agree that gifting shares would probably be more popular and more sound. I understand that when New Zealand privatised the electricity providers this was the approach taken.

Please explain to me one thing. I presume you supported the sale of telstra, right? I did too at the time by the way.

the government sold telstra and socked the cash away in the ” Future Fund”. Now please explain to me how that sale and the subsequent the movement of cash supports libertarian ideals because it doesn’t look that way to me at all.

All i see is the government moving out of one area with a huge fee structure for the investment bankers etc. and the creation of an enormous slush fund they can use in the capital markets to either threaten, cajole the business world or help out their mates (which won’t be blatant).

What have we seen of late supporting my argument?

Rudd recently announced a 20% increase in the salaries of public servants. Now I am not saying the sale of Telstra helped fund that decision in a direct way but it did help seeing that the future fund is supposed assist the government in funding the public servants generous super entitlements. And a large rise like that has a ripple effect on super entitlements. Additionally the large surplus has the effect of making these pricks feel expansive compared to times when they’re struggling for cash.

So I believe the libertarians position should be that privatizations should only be done through gifting and we shouldn’t support them otherwise. We’re better off in the end.

Please don’t give me a lesson on deficit spending. There is nothing inherently good about ANY part of Iemma’s deficits. It’s caused primarily by a huge spending increases in areas that support labor’s own constituencies and it’s recurring as well.

Fuck the railways! Let Costa find another way of finding the money (to fund the trains) by firing large parts of the public service as he has now threatened to do if they can’t get the money from the sale.

There is some good coming out of this. Costa is now threatening to fire staff. Good. Let them reduce the enormous head count they have created and then we talk about privatization.