Private vs. Public Sectors

[The Reasonable]

The thing is, what if the government is wasteful and inefficient, but lies about it to the voters, claiming that the waste and inefficiency is because of underfunding? How can anyone remedy that?

It has happened before, gets uncovered by someone, and then there's a scandal. Inevitable that things like this will happen.

So if there is that kind of accountability, then, as Hippostania said sarcastically, why don't we have the government run every industry? It's more equitable to everyone that way.

[Dejanic]

The profit motive is also why the private sector is driven by greed and doesn't offer as much coverage as is needed.

That's why we mix the sectors. Coverage AND quality.

The thing is, what if the government is wasteful and inefficient, but lies about it to the voters, claiming that the waste and inefficiency is because of underfunding? How can anyone remedy that?

Not all governments are the same you know, some are less wasteful and inefficient than others, there isn't a fit all rule in terms of government efficiency. I mean I'm sure Frances national healthcare is less wasteful and more efficient than Cambodias healthcare system under the Khmer Rouge.

[Death Metal]

The thing is, what if the government is wasteful and inefficient, but lies about it to the voters, claiming that the waste and inefficiency is because of underfunding? How can anyone remedy that?

Independent (that is, not part of the government or the private sector of said government, but an entity with origins outside of government jurisdiction) watchdog?

[Souseiseki]

Countries such as South Korea and Singapore spend less than 20% of GDP on government, and produce fast-growing economies.

most of south koreas economic growth was in the 80s back when it was a military dictatorship with series of five year plans and heavy government investment. singapore is place where 85% of the population live in public housing.

i mean, just sayin'

[Divair]

It has happened before, gets uncovered by someone, and then there's a scandal. Inevitable that things like this will happen.

So if there is that kind of accountability, then, as Hippostania said sarcastically, why don't we have the government run every industry? It's more equitable to everyone that way.

Because, as I said, in some industries maximum coverage isn't an issue, and we can sacrifice coverage for quality.

[Neo Art]

[quote
So essentially, you're in favor of a mixed market economy, like I am. But what is the boundary between things that the government shouldn't touch, things that the government should have a stake but not a monopoly in, and things that the government should have a monopoly in? It's a difficult question, I know.

The government should have a monopoly in all things critical for the function of free society, that can not be supplied ot the public at large for profit.

The government should have a stake in critical or quasi critical functions of free society, that may best be handled by private entity, with subsidy. It should also be involved in industry where deregulation could cause a marked harm.

The government shouldn't really get involved in the routine interaction of commerce in things that are not particularly necessary for free society, nor pose a particular harm without regulation

[Saruhan]

Basically, i'm for what Div said, plus Oil and uranium mining

[Neo Art]

It has happened before, gets uncovered by someone, and then there's a scandal. Inevitable that things like this will happen.

So if there is that kind of accountability, then, as Hippostania said sarcastically, why don't we have the government run every industry? It's more equitable to everyone that way.

Because it's the government's role to provide necessary service. Not decide for you that you're getting an xbox 360 instead of a ps3.

[The Reasonable]

So if there is that kind of accountability, then, as Hippostania said sarcastically, why don't we have the government run every industry? It's more equitable to everyone that way.

Because, as I said, in some industries maximum coverage isn't an issue, and we can sacrifice coverage for quality.

Well said- you managed to counter all the reductio ad absurdum I could muster at you, because that's exactly what conservatives will do. And since you identified me as a centrist on multiple threads- I'm pretty comfortable with a mixed economy.

Now, you might have to convince those on your left (people who want to ban private healthcare, private schools, etc as unequal and a "two-tiered system") that there can a private sector in those places.

[Divair]

Because, as I said, in some industries maximum coverage isn't an issue, and we can sacrifice coverage for quality.

Well said- you managed to counter all the reductio ad absurdum I could muster at you, because that's exactly what conservative will do. And since you identified me as a centrist on multiple threads- I'm pretty comfortable with a mixed economy.

Now, you might have to convince those on your left (people who want to ban private healthcare, private schools, etc as unequal and a "two-tiered system" that there can a private sector in those places.

Not many of them.

[Forsher]

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.

My understanding is, "Some things cannot turn a profit, these are for the state. Some things are too important, these are for the state."

State Owned Enterprises cover some aspects of the latter (power being the prime example) and are basically private businesses whose share holders are the government.

That said, the private sector cannot and should not be trusted with trains. They ran it so badly the government had to buy it back.

[The New Sea Territory]

I believe in privatilization of most things, such as education. Simply set market standards, then let businesses run education.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Things that are necessary for the safety, security, and well being of a populace should not be subject to the whims of the free market.

Indeed, the free market does gravitate towards the most profitable solution. And sometimes the most profitable solution is "scrap it all". Sometimes, when profit motive is concerned, the only winning move is not to play.

For example, the MBTA. Massachusetts public transit system. It's old. It's run down. It's expensive, and it loses billions. A few years ago, during the Romney administration (surprise surprise) when "let's run government LIKE A BUSINESS" was all the rage (this was the man who wanted to be president, by the way), he ordered a study to determine to what extent the MBTA, if operated LIKE A BUSINESS, could be made profitable. The study concluded...it can't.

Simply put, the public transit system in Massachusetts is too big, too sprawling, and serves too many poor communities to be profitable. If you raise prices, you'll just price out the people who need it the most. The cost, per person, of running the system does not, and can not be made to, exceed the fair revenue per person. Shut down lines, lose fairs, raise prices, lose customers. And if you tried to run it "like a business" then the first thing a business would do is shut it down, and sell off the parts. It is a money pit, and it will never be anything but. It can not be made profitable, at any price.

And the people of massachusetts have realized that they have two options, subsidize a money pit of the MBTA, or don't have public transit. We've opted for the former.

When dealing with public versus private, we have to accept one fact, no matter how critical a service is to the public good, if it can not be provided at a profit, the private sector will not provide it. Critical public services MUST be provided, regardless of whether they be provided at a profit or not.

To believe in the free market solutions, you must accept, as a premise, that sometimes the free market solution is to not provide the service at all, if that's the most economically viable choice. To believe in the free market is to accept that not EVERYTHING can be provided at a profit. And any person who bangs the drum of privitization has to ask themselves, is are we willing not live without it all?

Because if you privitize something, that may be exactly what happens. The private entity decides it's not worth the effort, and shutters the whole thing. The libertarian paradise always envisions private police, private firefighters, private roads, private courts, a paradise of efficient services. None of them ever stop to wonder what happens if those private entities determine "you know what? a private police force in your area just isn't profitable enough. Best of luck to you". They never quite seem to wonder, what happens when you're not worth it.

Damn. You just said what I said, but made it seem clever.

[Death Metal]

Basically, i'm for what Div said, plus Oil and uranium mining fuel collection.

Fixed because we as a global society need to start moving away from crude oil and into more viable long-term sources of energy like corn ethanol.

[The Reasonable]

Well said- you managed to counter all the reductio ad absurdum I could muster at you, because that's exactly what conservative will do. And since you identified me as a centrist on multiple threads- I'm pretty comfortable with a mixed economy.

Now, you might have to convince those on your left (people who want to ban private healthcare, private schools, etc as unequal and a "two-tiered system" that there can a private sector in those places.

Not many of them.

Banning private schools:
http://gawker.com/5943005/theres-a-simple-solution-to-the-public-schools-crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/warren-buffett-is-right-ban-private-schools_b_1857287.html

Banning private healthcare:
Canada used to do it, until the courts struck it down.

How do you convince those to our left that private sector does have a place in essential services?
The left wing often cries "two-tiered system" and "inequality" whenever we allow the private sector in.

[Divair]

Things that are necessary for the safety, security, and well being of a populace should not be subject to the whims of the free market.

Indeed, the free market does gravitate towards the most profitable solution. And sometimes the most profitable solution is "scrap it all". Sometimes, when profit motive is concerned, the only winning move is not to play.

For example, the MBTA. Massachusetts public transit system. It's old. It's run down. It's expensive, and it loses billions. A few years ago, during the Romney administration (surprise surprise) when "let's run government LIKE A BUSINESS" was all the rage (this was the man who wanted to be president, by the way), he ordered a study to determine to what extent the MBTA, if operated LIKE A BUSINESS, could be made profitable. The study concluded...it can't.

Simply put, the public transit system in Massachusetts is too big, too sprawling, and serves too many poor communities to be profitable. If you raise prices, you'll just price out the people who need it the most. The cost, per person, of running the system does not, and can not be made to, exceed the fair revenue per person. Shut down lines, lose fairs, raise prices, lose customers. And if you tried to run it "like a business" then the first thing a business would do is shut it down, and sell off the parts. It is a money pit, and it will never be anything but. It can not be made profitable, at any price.

And the people of massachusetts have realized that they have two options, subsidize a money pit of the MBTA, or don't have public transit. We've opted for the former.

When dealing with public versus private, we have to accept one fact, no matter how critical a service is to the public good, if it can not be provided at a profit, the private sector will not provide it. Critical public services MUST be provided, regardless of whether they be provided at a profit or not.

To believe in the free market solutions, you must accept, as a premise, that sometimes the free market solution is to not provide the service at all, if that's the most economically viable choice. To believe in the free market is to accept that not EVERYTHING can be provided at a profit. And any person who bangs the drum of privitization has to ask themselves, is are we willing not live without it all?

Because if you privitize something, that may be exactly what happens. The private entity decides it's not worth the effort, and shutters the whole thing. The libertarian paradise always envisions private police, private firefighters, private roads, private courts, a paradise of efficient services. None of them ever stop to wonder what happens if those private entities determine "you know what? a private police force in your area just isn't profitable enough. Best of luck to you". They never quite seem to wonder, what happens when you're not worth it.

Damn. You just said what I said, but made it seem clever.

Neo Art tends to do that.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Basically, i'm for what Div said, plus Oil and uranium mining fuel collection.

Fixed because we as a global society need to start moving away from crude oil and into more viable long-term sources of energy like corn ethanol.

Meh. Biofuels seem too inefficient, at least for the space they take up.

Although I've heard they're moving towards food/bio fuel crop hybrids, which I would support.

[Death Metal]

I believe in privatilization of most things, such as education.

Over my dead body.

Limiting who can be educated is the bread and butter of an oppressive society.

[Saruhan]

Basically, i'm for what Div said, plus Oil and uranium mining fuel collection.

Fixed because we as a global society need to start moving away from crude oil and into more viable long-term sources of energy like corn ethanol.

Corn ethanol is extremely inefficient, plus while we switch to renewables we can just sell it to the rest of the world

[Divair]

Not many of them.

Banning private schools:
http://gawker.com/5943005/theres-a-simple-solution-to-the-public-schools-crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/warren-buffett-is-right-ban-private-schools_b_1857287.html

Banning private healthcare:
Canada used to do it, until the courts struck it down.

How do you convince those to our left that private sector does have a place in essential services?

Depends on the person. These people tend to forget that even if it causes a bit of a social divide (more of a problem in our culture, really, and using fiscal solutions to attempt to fix our culture is pathetic), private healthcare and education contribute to the nation's progress as a whole despite only limited use. Healthier, better educated people only helps, not hampers.

[The Reasonable]

Damn. You just said what I said, but made it seem clever.

Neo Art tends to do that.

It's the first thread where Neo Art hasn't insulted me in some way- and it's fine because it is cleverly worded to prevent flaming accusations.

Depends on the person. These people tend to forget that even if it causes a bit of a social divide (more of a problem in our culture, really, and using fiscal solutions to attempt to fix our culture is pathetic), private healthcare and education contribute to the nation's progress as a whole despite only limited use. Healthier, better educated people only helps, not hampers.

Basically, overall quality and coverage matters more than equality of coverage. That's a fair argument, even it might piss the left wing off for its inequality and "contribution to social degradation because private schools teach elites how to be snobs".

[Death Metal]

Corn ethanol is extremely inefficient

Not really. It's only inefficient if you try to use it to power engines designed to function on gasoline.

[Souseiseki]

That said, the private sector cannot and should not be trusted with trains. They ran it so badly the government had to buy it back.

we're still trying to get our trains back. it's probably illegal under EU law. the government and tits keep trying to pretend that the problem is that it just wasn't privatized hard enough and maybe it should be privatized more and needs just a bit more competition. (note: competition with trains ahahaha). it's quite a pain in the arse.

it's also annoying that we have to fucking buy it back because they can't run it properly after some idiots sold it with the false promise it'd be be run better. if i was leader i'd just say they've failed to meet contract obligations and take it all back and tell them they're lucky for any pittance i give them, but maybe i'm a bit loopy.

at least they're not killing people with "competition will reduce energy prices" *all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time*. or like infection rates rose significantly after NHS cleaning was outsourced to the point we've now banned it in scotland.

sorry this is basically a rant my eyes just fill blood and a large british flag starts waving in my head and is slowly replaced by a scottish/red one as i start banging the keyboard as soon as i see someone mention trains

[Divair]

Basically, overall quality and coverage matters more than equality of coverage. That's a fair argument, even it might piss the left wing off for its inequality and "contribution to social degradation because private schools teach elites how to be snobs".

An issue with culture more than fiscal policy, but apparently blaming everything on the private sector is easier for some people. Thankfully haven't encountered many of them.

[Sibirsky]

Comment.