Privatization of public goods/services

[Symmetry]

The production of bread seems quite benign--although a few producers could be labeled as crony capitalists/rent-seekers.

But according to the logic, there's no evidence of free markets (with the implication that there's no evidence of shifts toward freer markets--which was already provided), so I guess with Symmetrian logic, we must conclude that the production of bread must be nationalized or at least extremely regulated--prices and all, because free markets presumably don't work or are free of crony capitalism.


Anyway, this: "Privatision of public goods/services that can't be accused of crony capitalism...," isn't really the issue.

I'm not sure I understand your thinking on this. I think that your free market ideas are a fantasy, and that there will always be a compromise. This compromise gets called all sorts of names, but regulation will always occur.

I'm not sure what you mean by "extremely regulated". That sort of sounds bad, unless of course the extremes you're talking about are "poisonous" and "inedible", in which case I would advocate regulation far before said extremes.

That would, of course, not be a free market,

[BigBallinStalin]

The production of bread seems quite benign--although a few producers could be labeled as crony capitalists/rent-seekers.

But according to the logic, there's no evidence of free markets (with the implication that there's no evidence of shifts toward freer markets--which was already provided), so I guess with Symmetrian logic, we must conclude that the production of bread must be nationalized or at least extremely regulated--prices and all, because free markets presumably don't work or are free of crony capitalism.


Anyway, this: "Privatision of public goods/services that can't be accused of crony capitalism...," isn't really the issue.

I'm not sure I understand your thinking on this. I think that your free market ideas are a fantasy, and that there will always be a compromise. This compromise gets called all sorts of names, but regulation will always occur.

Sure, but regulation by who/what? Many go for "government," and I'll go for "market," as in competitive regulatory agencies.

The concept of a free market juxtaposed with others concepts. It's a model which other models can deviate from or become more aligned with. Maybe that explanation helps? Lemme know.

To be really clear, why do you think that free market ideas are a fantasy? What do you mean?
(my response below may clear things up)

I'm not sure what you mean by "extremely regulated". That sort of sounds bad, unless of course the extremes you're talking about are "poisonous" and "inedible", in which case I would advocate regulation far before said extremes.

That would, of course, not be a free market,

So, you see, we're acknowledging some spectrum of regulation, as such:

"market rules/regulation" <------------------------------------> "government rules/regulation."


Extreme regulation would be very close to the right side, and the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would be right there (although the spectrum above used alone is not very helpful. I'm using it to be illustrative).

Of course, there is some optimum point on each spectrum for each issue, but this is probably unknowable, and the above is a simplified way for me to explain to you how I conceptualize these issues.

Does that make more sense?

[GreecePwns]

I think, given the premise of the thread, the things we're talking about that could possibly be privatized (Social Security, Medicare/caid) would be on the far right of the spectrum (now I'm assuming that the "government" side includes a situation where there is some collective set of rules agreed upon by society in a non-coercive way).

[Baron Von PWN]

Privatization of public goods can yield positive results. Usually the more open the process of that privatization the more positive the results. An open process open to public inquiry reduces the instances of crony capitalism. look at the privatization of state assets in Poland for a decent example of an open privatization process. Then look at Russia for a very closed one. Poland's results were much more positive, Russia experienced large problems.

Privatization comes with series of costs but it also has it's benefits. In terms of costs it typically means the weakest members of society get the shaft, they no longer have access to formerly public services. It also introduces more insecurity to the lives of private citizens. Public managed services will always be there (unless privatised) and (usually) available regardless of income. Once privatized most people can afford the service but access to the service is dependent on the individuals ability to acquire them.

The benefits of privatisation can mean a lesser burden on the state, the state no longer has to maintain an expensive service (which in turn means a smaller state burden on the public). Access to higher quality services ,for a price, possibly more efficient services. Higher levels of innovation, faster provision of services and increased economic growth.

[GreecePwns]

That is a good general overview of the costs/benefits, but posters be wary of applying all of these in equal weight to all situations.

[Baron Von PWN]

That is a good general overview of the costs/benefits, but posters be wary of applying all of these in equal weight to all situations.

I mostly want to strike a balance of, privatisation can be good, it can also be bad. Public ownership can be good, it can also be bad.

The big question is usually how is the service in question managed. If publicly owned and doing a good job, then let it be. The process of privatisation can cause more problems than the original public ownership was causing.

Looking at the the transition of the former Soviet bloc from their command systems to market systems gives a good variety of good and bad results. Of the right way and the wrong way to go about it.