TR Economy & Updates

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
6,067
Reactions
15,419
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Why do you call it treason?
So,you find it ok to sell vital infrastructure like bridges to private companies?
This is not a bad idea if the price is ok. We need money now for our defence projects. This will be paid by people using those roads and bridges. As long as we dont sell critical firms and factories, no problem.
So,a bridge is nothing critical or important?


There is something significantly wrong with your way of thinking,both of you.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,688
Reactions
114 16,843
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
So,you find it ok to sell a vital infrastructure like bridges to private companies?

So,a bridge is nothing critical or important?


There is something significantly wrong with your way of thinking,both of you.
To be frank, I don't think this is about selling the bridge but privatizing its operation.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
6,067
Reactions
15,419
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
To be frank, I don't think this is about selling the bridge but privatizing its operation.
What is privatizing?
A private company takes over everything so prices will go up to make it profitable for the company.
The only difference is on paper then.
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
5,232
Reactions
14 8,083
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
So,you find it ok to sell vital infrastructure like bridges to private companies?

So,a bridge is nothing critical or important?


There is something significantly wrong with your way of thinking,both of you.

Are you aware that we have already done this in the 1990's, it is naive to oppose such a move, if you can find a buyer that is.

Also note that all our new bridges are operated by consortiums which mean the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
4,870
Reactions
19 4,999
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
„Selling“ a bridge doesn’t mean the customer will take it away. The customer will operate it for years, depend on contract, he will maintain and repair it if necessary and of course take a fee. These contracts are time limited, in general.

In Germany we don’t have such things, because the infrastructure is owned by the public (taxpayers).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
6,067
Reactions
15,419
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Are you aware that we have already done this in the 1990's, it is naive to oppose such a move, if you can find a buyer that is.

Also note that all our new bridges are operated by consortiums which mean the same thing.
Which deal was that in the 1990"s?
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
6,067
Reactions
15,419
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
„Selling“ a bridge doesn’t mean the customer will take it away. The customer will operate it for years, depend on contract, he will maintain and repair it if necessary and of course take a fee. This contracts are time limited, in general.

In Germany we don’t have such things, because the infrastructure is owned by the public (taxpayers).
The problem is the fee,it already is expensive for the common folk using the bridges every day.
Privatization will make it more expensive,always does.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,875
Reactions
231 20,137
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
As @ Sanchez has already pointed out, both Bosporus Bridge and FSM bridge had generated billions of dollars and paid themselves off years ago.
They are still generating huge amounts of cash for the Turkish State Treasury.

To sell the operation rights to a foreign entity now means, quick cash injection in to state coffers and possibility of creating the likely opportunity for cream-skimming for some elite bureaucrats. An unnecessary and a damaging move for the taxpayers.

Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge) since it’s opening in 2016, has not paid for itself. The bridge has consistently failed to meet its daily traffic volume guarantees, resulting in substantial, ongoing payments from the Turkish Treasury to the operating company, rather than generating enough revenue to pay for it’s own construction costs.

Also the Osman Gazi Bridge opened in 2016 too, has not paid for itself through user tolls either; instead, it remains a significant financial liability for the Turkish Treasury. Despite high usage, the government's guaranteed payments for low traffic volume to the operating consortium continue to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

These two will turn in to another Yavuz Sultan Selim and Osmangazi Bridge case.
.
 
Last edited:

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
5,232
Reactions
14 8,083
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Bridges have indirect benefits to the economy other than the direct revenue shares. Leasing the operation of the bridges is a finance model to allocate money for investment in other fields. Türkiye has a budget deficit of under 3% so it is actually not an urgent need but when you want to invest in new opportunities you want to resort to the best finance model which is like renting an asset you already have and getting the revenue money now instead of later.
opportunity for cream-skimming for some elite bureaucrats
Very unlikely.
 
Top Bottom