Privatization of public goods/services

[bedub1]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

[crispybits]

Privatisation would work if you could have a truly open free market with perfect competition. The problem is that by the very nature of most "public services" this kind of perfect competition free market is impossible, and human imperfections such as greed mean the flaws in the system will be abused.

It's a bit like communism would work if you had a perfect system to implement it which removed the corruption which creeps in because of human imperfection.

Personally, I would favour government owned corporations running effectively as private businesses, with temporary shareholdings for staff at all levels of the business while they work for the organisation, and a bonus scheme based on not just coming in under budget, but also on service level reviews and similar more qualitative measurements, leading to a profit share between all shareholders in that corporation and the government. That way staff at all levels are committed to both give excellent service and deliver cost-effectiveness, and the government retains control of the service at a higher level. If, say, 3 were created in each state (I'm british but I know most here are Americans so I'll phrase it in US terms), and a further 10 were created at federal level, these corporations could engage in a competitive marketplace so that the ones that are best run and most cost efficient would be the ones that would thrive.

it wouldn't be a perfect system either, I'm well aware of several flaws, not least is the continual balancing processes needed to keep all of the corporations competitive, but we'll never have a perfect system.

[thegreekdog]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

The last sentence apparently presumes that public companies have lower prices, unlimited services, and higher wages for all. I tend to think that's not the case, but perhaps someone can give me an example of a lower price, better service, higher wage public institution. Certainly not Congress!

The last sentence also apparently presumes that one can have lower prices while also having better services and higher wages. That seems counterintuitive as well.

[GreecePwns]

It depends on the situation. Let's use healthcare as an example:

A private health insurance company - takes money from customers, puts some of it in their pockets, spends some of it on overhead, spends some of it on marketing, uses the rest to provide benefits

Collectively provided health insurance (not necessarily government-run) - takes money from members, spends some of it on overhead, uses the rest to provide benefits

Which is more efficient, all things being equal? We can do the same thing for social security, of course, or any service which merely involves the shuffling of money. But not other things, such as manufacturing.

EDIT: Holy greekdog, batman!

[bedub1]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

The last sentence apparently presumes that public companies have lower prices, unlimited services, and higher wages for all. I tend to think that's not the case, but perhaps someone can give me an example of a lower price, better service, higher wage public institution. Certainly not Congress!

The last sentence also apparently presumes that one can have lower prices while also having better services and higher wages. That seems counterintuitive as well.

Public education vs for-profit education?

[thegreekdog]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

The last sentence apparently presumes that public companies have lower prices, unlimited services, and higher wages for all. I tend to think that's not the case, but perhaps someone can give me an example of a lower price, better service, higher wage public institution. Certainly not Congress!

The last sentence also apparently presumes that one can have lower prices while also having better services and higher wages. That seems counterintuitive as well.

Public education vs for-profit education?

Define "for-profit" education. Does that include the commonly-referred-to "non-profit education" (e.g. Harvard) or just those places that teach people "useful" skills like how to be a paralegal?

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

1) It depends on the regulatory institutions which constrain the property rights of the newly purchased government capital and/or land. Usually the nature of this institution and the legal institutions largely determine the necessity of responsiveness of producers' to consumers' preferences. With less regulations and a more robust and private property-enforcing legal system, the consumers tend to win. If those institutions are corrupted (a la crony capitalism), then that's when the consumers get f'ed.

2) Government programs are not "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people." Instead, they are "They the Government, of the government, for the government--and sometimes for the people but only at the government's discretion." Otherwise, you could walk into the Judge's Chambers, sit down, have a cigar, and tell him to shut up while you enjoy the view out his window.

3) Theft? Taxation is a clearer example of theft because it's an involuntary exchange. Any goods derived from involuntary exchange are not the legal property of the thief, so it would be correct to say that the sale of capital purchased through stolen capital goods is wrong--but at least the government is releasing it back to the market, and maybe ending their monopoly on it.

[Lootifer]

I want to participate here but cannot be fucked.

/kittens

[Army of GOD]

It's a lose/lose. Both are subject to tremendous amounts of corruption and greed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Privatisation would work if you could have a truly open free market with perfect competition. The problem is that by the very nature of most "public services" this kind of perfect competition free market is impossible, and human imperfections such as greed mean the flaws in the system will be abused.

It's a bit like communism would work if you had a perfect system to implement it which removed the corruption which creeps in because of human imperfection.

Personally, I would favour government owned corporations running effectively as private businesses, with temporary shareholdings for staff at all levels of the business while they work for the organisation, and a bonus scheme based on not just coming in under budget, but also on service level reviews and similar more qualitative measurements, leading to a profit share between all shareholders in that corporation and the government. That way staff at all levels are committed to both give excellent service and deliver cost-effectiveness, and the government retains control of the service at a higher level. If, say, 3 were created in each state (I'm british but I know most here are Americans so I'll phrase it in US terms), and a further 10 were created at federal level, these corporations could engage in a competitive marketplace so that the ones that are best run and most cost efficient would be the ones that would thrive.

it wouldn't be a perfect system either, I'm well aware of several flaws, not least is the continual balancing processes needed to keep all of the corporations competitive, but we'll never have a perfect system.

That's a great alternative, but Public Choice reminds us that politicians and bureaucrats don't give a shit unless your plan offers something of interest to them (e.g. votes and a bigger budget, usually). That profit-share might compound the principal-agent problem, and the bureaucratic competitive model forces them to actually do their jobs--effectively, which would require them to act efficiently. With bureaucratic incentives, efficiency leads to a reduction in their budget, thus reducing their perceived value of this competitive bureaucratic model. Besides, no bureaucracy is willing to relinquish its hold (or monopoly) on some scope of public policy with other bureaucracies.

A free market does not require perfect competition--only the neoclassical economists require that absurd, impractical notion. A free market rests on Free Entry into any enterprise (e.g. "Free" as in "legally free to compete") and a legal system which respects property rights and negative rights (e.g. the right not to be killed, the right not to have anyone initiate violence against you, the right not be deceived through fraud, etc.). A free market requires a limited government, for a powerful government is the only means through which crony capitalists thrive.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a lose/lose. Both are subject to tremendous amounts of corruption and greed.

Which system would correct it more efficiently?

I'd argue that freer markets would yield more efficient correction mechanisms. It's been taking the government a decade to correct their ever-increasing deficit spending. If it took a business that long to do so, that business would have been bankrupt 9.8 years ago.

It's profit and loss incentives v. political and bureaucratic incentives compounded by the knowledge problem--not as problematic for markets, but much more so for government.

[Lootifer]

It's a lose/lose. Both are subject to tremendous amounts of corruption and greed.

Which system would correct it more efficiently?

I'd argue that freer markets would yield more efficient correction mechanisms. It's been taking the government a decade to correct their ever-increasing deficit spending. If it took a business that long to do so, that business would have been bankrupt 9.8 years ago.

It's profit and loss incentives v. political and bureaucratic incentives compounded by the knowledge problem--not as problematic for markets, but much more so for government.

WHAT THE HELLS WRONG WITH YOU MAN?!?!

Its like you're almost being open to the suggestion of state control. I DEMAND A MORE ASSERTIVE ARGUMENT!

(just kidding, all good points).

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a lose/lose. Both are subject to tremendous amounts of corruption and greed.

Which system would correct it more efficiently?

I'd argue that freer markets would yield more efficient correction mechanisms. It's been taking the government a decade to correct their ever-increasing deficit spending. If it took a business that long to do so, that business would have been bankrupt 9.8 years ago.

It's profit and loss incentives v. political and bureaucratic incentives compounded by the knowledge problem--not as problematic for markets, but much more so for government.

WHAT THE HELLS WRONG WITH YOU MAN?!?!

Its like you're almost being open to the suggestion of state control. I DEMAND A MORE ASSERTIVE ARGUMENT!

(just kidding, all good points).

IF YOU DON"T SHUT IT, I WILL BE FORCED TO (1) BREAK YOU UP, (2) REGULATE YOU, or (3) NATIONALIZE YOU.

[Lootifer]

I have far too much calcium in my diet for that kinda sheet.

[Woodruff]

I have far too much calcium in my diet for that kinda sheet.

That's good...it'll help you avoid kidney stones (I just had another one start to try to pass last night...<sigh>).

[notyou2]

On a lighter note....HEY YOU GREEKS GET OUT OF THE DEBATE ON HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT!


On topic, I think some industries lend themselves better to being publicly owned than others.

[thegreekdog]

On a lighter note....HEY YOU GREEKS GET OUT OF THE DEBATE ON HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT!


On topic, I think some industries lend themselves better to being publicly owned than others.

I thought the discussion of kidney stones WAS the lighter note.

[PLAYER57832]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

ERrgg..

A favorite of the Repubs is to claim that privatizing the government, reducing its size will somehow benefit society. It benefits, instead, a few private contractors.

The plain fact is that most of what government does is not directly tied to making and selling a tangible good or even a marketable service.

The absolute worst abuses are government services gone to private contracts. Ironically, the Repubs will crow about "reducing government", but also decry the cost overruns.. and ignore the fact that the overruns are partially the result of the government reduction.

(the reductions also result in failures to enforce laws, which often also cause us to pay more -- to do things like bailing out banks, etc.)

[Woodruff]

On a lighter note....HEY YOU GREEKS GET OUT OF THE DEBATE ON HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT!


On topic, I think some industries lend themselves better to being publicly owned than others.

I thought the discussion of kidney stones WAS the lighter note.

Not if you've ever fuckin' passed one...

[Lootifer]

I understand the object:hole ratio to be similar to giving birth no?

[Woodruff]

I understand the object:hole ratio to be similar to giving birth no?

Here's how I always put it. Take a golf ball and a garden hose. Except, the golf ball has all kinds of nasty spikes on it's surface and the garden hose is chock full of nerve endings. Now, shove that golf ball through the garden hose and pray it don't get stuck.

(I've heard tell that the pain is worse than giving birth, but I've never given birth so I can't confirm that. It is easily the worst pain I have ever felt. Easily.)

[Symmetry]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

ERrgg..

A favorite of the Repubs is to claim that privatizing the government, reducing its size will somehow benefit society. It benefits, instead, a few private contractors.

The plain fact is that most of what government does is not directly tied to making and selling a tangible good or even a marketable service.

The absolute worst abuses are government services gone to private contracts. Ironically, the Repubs will crow about "reducing government", but also decry the cost overruns.. and ignore the fact that the overruns are partially the result of the government reduction.

(the reductions also result in failures to enforce laws, which often also cause us to pay more -- to do things like bailing out banks, etc.)

I kind of did this debate a while ago with the proponents of free markets on CC. Pretty much every example of privatization of public assets was a disaster, but got dismissed as crony-capitalism.

Nobody could provide an example of privatisation that could not be labelled crony-capitalism, or provide an free market example that worked.

They still had faith that it would work next time though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you think Privatization is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you know what it is?

Government programs that are "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people".
Privatized programs are "we the owners, of the owners, by the owners, for the owners, f*ck the people".
When a public good/service is privatized, it is stolen from all citizens, and given to a few owners. It is theft on a colossal scale.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1

A grand delusion has been planted in the minds of Americans, that privately run systems are more efficient and less costly than those in the public sector. Most of the evidence points the other way. Private initiatives generally produce mediocre or substandard results while experiencing the usual travails of unregulated capitalism -- higher prices, limited services, and lower wages for all but a few 'entrepreneurs.

ERrgg..

A favorite of the Repubs is to claim that privatizing the government, reducing its size will somehow benefit society. It benefits, instead, a few private contractors.

The plain fact is that most of what government does is not directly tied to making and selling a tangible good or even a marketable service.

The absolute worst abuses are government services gone to private contracts. Ironically, the Repubs will crow about "reducing government", but also decry the cost overruns.. and ignore the fact that the overruns are partially the result of the government reduction.

(the reductions also result in failures to enforce laws, which often also cause us to pay more -- to do things like bailing out banks, etc.)

I kind of did this debate a while ago with the proponents of free markets on CC. Pretty much every example of privatization of public assets was a disaster, but got dismissed as crony-capitalism.

Nobody could provide an example of privatisation that could not be labelled crony-capitalism, or provide an free market example that worked.

They still had faith that it would work next time though.

Your selective perception is outstanding.

[Symmetry]

You're welcome to give it another try. Privatision of public goods/services that can't be accused of crony capitalism...

Go!

[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.