Private vs. Public Sectors

[The Reasonable]

With the realization that the public sector can be just as efficient if not more efficient in areas such as healthcare, education, energy, defense, and utilities, why not nationalize all businesses and run them for the public good? Is the market economy no longer feasible? Is the private sector overrated? Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to make a public sector industry work more efficiently than private sector industry, but what determines what works best?

If you think this is a good idea, then explain the following:
Countries such as South Korea and Singapore spend less than 20% of GDP on government, and produce fast-growing economies.
Social democracies such as the Scandinavian countries promote free trade and private enterprise.
There has never been a truly communist or socialist country, just as how there has never been a true laissez-faire capitalist country. All attempts at creating these have failed.

I'm simply curious as to what determines what businesses should be state-run and what should be in private hands to create an optimal economy.

[Divair]

I'll start.


State-run:
Healthcare (with supplemental)
Education (private too)
Justice system
Military
Public transport (private too)
Energy (private too)
Fire departments (private too)



Will edit as people post stuff I forgot.

[The Reasonable]

I'll start.


State-run:
Healthcare (with supplemental)
Education (private schools available)
Justice system
Military
Public transport (private also available)
Energy (private also)



Will edit as people post stuff I forgot.

True enough, but take it to its extremes- that public sector works better than private sector- and you have a completely nationalized economy.

Would that work better? If not, then why some industries but not others?

[Divair]

I'll start.


State-run:
Healthcare (with supplemental)
Education (private schools available)
Justice system
Military
Public transport (private also available)
Energy (private also)



Will edit as people post stuff I forgot.

True enough, but take it to its extremes- that public sector works better than private sector- and you have a completely nationalized economy.

Would that work better? If not, then why some industries but not others?

It's not a matter of the public sector operating better, it's a matter of providing equal coverage to the entire citizen base, that's why I support the private sector being able to compete despite the public companies.

[Death Metal]

I'll start.


State-run:
Healthcare (with supplemental)
Education (private schools available)
Justice system
Military
Public transport (private also available)
Energy (private also)



Will edit as people post stuff I forgot.

Private energy, ewwwwww. Only as a supplemental backup and that's it. Keep the private sector well the fuck out of infrastructure.

Also, add non-military defense (IE law enforcement) in the public section. And only in the public section, no Blackwater Cops plz kthnx.

[Divair]

Private energy, ewwwwww. Only as a supplemental backup and that's it. Keep the private sector well the fuck out of infrastructure.

Supplemental

Coming from experience, I find a strictly public energy sector to be crap.

Also, add non-military defense (IE law enforcement) in the public section. And only in the public section, no Blackwater Cops plz kthnx.

I consider law enforcement part of "justice".

[The Reasonable]

True enough, but take it to its extremes- that public sector works better than private sector- and you have a completely nationalized economy.

Would that work better? If not, then why some industries but not others?

It's not a matter of the public sector operating better, it's a matter of providing equal coverage to the entire citizen base, that's why I support the private sector being able to compete despite the public companies.

That's a rather moderate view, no matter what Hippo or others say. However, I want to know:

1. Why does the government provide services better than the private sector in these industries that you listed, and
2. Whether or not all industries should be state-run, and why or why not.

Really, I want to know why does the government work better in some areas, and whether that can be transferred to all sectors of the economy.

[Divair]

It's not a matter of the public sector operating better, it's a matter of providing equal coverage to the entire citizen base, that's why I support the private sector being able to compete despite the public companies.

That's a rather moderate view, no matter what Hippo or others say. However, I want to know:

1. Why does the government provide services better than the private sector in these industries that you listed, and
2. Whether or not all industries should be state-run, and why or why not.

1. It doesn't necessarily. It might operate more efficiently because of the people in power at any given time, but it's a matter of coverage, not quality.
2. I think the state should be able to compete in all industries, but I letting in competition always helps.

[The Reasonable]

That's a rather moderate view, no matter what Hippo or others say. However, I want to know:

1. Why does the government provide services better than the private sector in these industries that you listed, and
2. Whether or not all industries should be state-run, and why or why not.

1. It doesn't necessarily. It might operate more efficiently because of the people in power at any given time, but it's a matter of coverage, not quality.
2. I think the state should be able to compete in all industries, but I letting in competition always helps.

1. The US is infamous for its wasteful healthcare system while the British NHS is one of the most cost-effective despite lack of a profit motive. It's counterintuitive, but I'd like to know the reasons.
2. The social democracies are like that, but it's also an argument used by laissez-faire people to show that privatization works because of competition. If competition is always better, then just privatize everything and you'll have plenty of competition in a market.

[Death Metal]

Private energy, ewwwwww. Only as a supplemental backup and that's it. Keep the private sector well the fuck out of infrastructure.

Supplemental

Coming from experience, I find a strictly public energy sector to be crap.

Better than strictly private.

[Divair]

1. The US is infamous for its wasteful healthcare system while the British NHS is one of the most cost-effective despite lack of a profit motive. It's counterintuitive, but I'd like to know the reasons.

The US healthcare system is a clusterfuck. It's a mix of government inefficiency (partially caused by the GOP's inability to compromise and actually pass bills) and private sector greed. A single payer system would save the USA so much money isn't not even funny.

2. The social democracies are like that, but it's also an argument used by laissez-faire people to show that privatization works because of competition.

Aye, but laissez-faire ignores coverage of citizens in favour of private sector greed. People who actually think for a second and give a damn realize that quality isn't everything.

[Divair]

Supplemental

Coming from experience, I find a strictly public energy sector to be crap.

Better than strictly private.

Of course. A combination is best, in the end.

[Dejanic]

Though it sure beats the private sector, the public sector is no bastion of workerism, it's just state run capitalism, I mean I don't see how state bureaucrats running the means of production is in anyway fair or "public", more human than being run by corporations perhaps, but thats about it. I'd rather have actual cooperative worker controlled production, from the bottom up, than either of these "sectors".

[The Reasonable]

1. The US is infamous for its wasteful healthcare system while the British NHS is one of the most cost-effective despite lack of a profit motive. It's counterintuitive, but I'd like to know the reasons.

The US healthcare system is a clusterfuck. It's a mix of government inefficiency (partially caused by the GOP's inability to compromise and actually pass bills) and private sector greed. A single payer system would save the USA so much money isn't not even funny.

2. The social democracies are like that, but it's also an argument used by laissez-faire people to show that privatization works because of competition.

Aye, but laissez-faire ignores coverage of citizens in favour of private sector greed. People who actually think for a second and give a damn realize that quality isn't everything.

If coverage is the main goal...then why don't we nationalize grocery stores/food? All housing (and not just low-income housing projects)? I'm not trying to poke at strawmen here...but I'm trying to draw the argument to its full conclusion. I know Hippo tried this when arguing against universal healthcare, but I'm being serious here.

[Priory Academy USSR]

The one that springs to mind for me, personally, is trains. Now, British Rail was privatised in the 90's, but really it's decline as a 'public sector' entity began with the Beeching Cuts. The way I see it, public sector entities shouldn't be out to turn a profit; losses should be kept to a minimum, yes, but not at the expense of the service. You see, despite running at a loss, BR provided a service to residents of rural areas, which is what the public sector should be about; running itself for the benefit of the country's residents, not for the pure sake of turning a profit, which is what the private sector does well. I doubt many private companies would be willing to reopen the unprofitable routes.

[Death Metal]

1. The US is infamous for its wasteful healthcare system while the British NHS is one of the most cost-effective despite lack of a profit motive. It's counterintuitive, but I'd like to know the reasons.

The US healthcare system is a clusterfuck. It's a mix of government inefficiency (partially caused by the GOP's inability to compromise and actually pass bills) and private sector greed. A single payer system would save the USA so much money isn't not even funny.

I'll add one better: Japanese healthcare. Mixed system without the clusterfuck, and works well enough that the WHO considers it the best healthcare in the world.

[Divair]

The US healthcare system is a clusterfuck. It's a mix of government inefficiency (partially caused by the GOP's inability to compromise and actually pass bills) and private sector greed. A single payer system would save the USA so much money isn't not even funny.


Aye, but laissez-faire ignores coverage of citizens in favour of private sector greed. People who actually think for a second and give a damn realize that quality isn't everything.

If coverage is the main goal...then why don't we nationalize grocery stores/food? All housing (and not just low-income housing projects)? I'm not trying to poke at strawmen here...but I'm trying to draw the argument to its full conclusion.

We have food stamp programs and public housing programs, you know?

[Divair]

The US healthcare system is a clusterfuck. It's a mix of government inefficiency (partially caused by the GOP's inability to compromise and actually pass bills) and private sector greed. A single payer system would save the USA so much money isn't not even funny.

I'll add one better: Japanese healthcare. Mixed system without the clusterfuck, and works well enough that the WHO considers it the best healthcare in the world.

Wasn't it France?

[The Reasonable]

If coverage is the main goal...then why don't we nationalize grocery stores/food? All housing (and not just low-income housing projects)? I'm not trying to poke at strawmen here...but I'm trying to draw the argument to its full conclusion.

We have food stamp programs and public housing programs, you know?

That's not full nationalization- that's welfare. It's still mostly private sector forces at work there. I'm talking about making grocery stores and the majority of housing public.

[Dejanic]

Yeah it is France.

[Death Metal]

Though it sure beats the private sector, the public sector is no bastion of workerism, it's just state run capitalism, I mean I don't see how state beurocrats running the means of production is in anyway fair or "public", more human than being run by corporations perhaps, but thats about it. I'd rather have actual cooperative worker controlled production, from the bottom up, than either of these "sectors".

You are of course, assuming that there has to be one or the other, when a mix of both can be utilized in nearly every nonessential aspect, and a couple of the essential ones too.

In other words, it's not Private vs Public. It's Public PLUS Private.

[Divair]

We have food stamp programs and public housing programs, you know?

That's not full nationalization- that's welfare. It's still mostly private sector forces at work there. I'm talking about making grocery stores and the majority of housing public.

There's no need. Food stamps and public housing are enough. There's no full nationalization of healthcare required either. Supplemental healthcare can and does exist in many countries.

[Tubbsalot]

With the realization that the public sector can be just as efficient if not more efficient in areas such as healthcare, education, energy, defense, and utilities, why not nationalize all businesses and run them for the public good?

Er, because it's difficult to make up for the fact that government services face little or no competition?

I'm simply curious as to what determines what businesses should be state-run and what should be in private hands to create an optimal economy.

Well, that's pretty simple. Any entity with authority (e.g. military, police) needs to be publicly-controlled to avoid a sort of mafia state which would seriously hurt the economy. Healthcare, infrastructure and fire services need to be publicly-controlled as the scale of economy and large-scale jurisdiction allow for much more efficient provision of services. Financial services need some state-owned presence to allow for directed support to smooth out the boom/bust cycle. Everything else, as far as I can think of, would be a private affair. (Edit: ah yes, public transport is also quite important.)

That said, since (apparently) you've recently graduated to accepting the idea of government efficiency, perhaps I might suggest judging by other metrics than "how it benefits the economy"? The economy only exists to support the happiness of humanity, after all.

[Nidaria]

Public Sector should include:
Healthcare
Government
Emergency services
Law enforcement
Military
Justice system

Private Sector should include:
All industries
Other businesses
Military (mercenary bands, as well as private armies)
Anything that I forgot to mention

[Dejanic]

Though it sure beats the private sector, the public sector is no bastion of workerism, it's just state run capitalism, I mean I don't see how state beurocrats running the means of production is in anyway fair or "public", more human than being run by corporations perhaps, but thats about it. I'd rather have actual cooperative worker controlled production, from the bottom up, than either of these "sectors".

You are of course, assuming that there has to be one or the other, when a mix of both can be utilized in nearly every nonessential aspect, and a couple of the essential ones too.

In other words, it's not Private vs Public. It's Public PLUS Private.

I think pure private, pure public, and a mix are all terrible, you're talking to someone who believes in the abolition of class, state, and money. However, I think a full public sector, aka state capitalism, is more humane than a mixed or private system, perhaps not more eficient in terms of gaining wealth, but more humane.