3 ms·
The difference is government entities can be made democratically accountable which means effective pressure can be brought to bear on them. It doesn't mean the
by caoilte 7y ago
The difference is government entities can be made democratically accountable which means effective pressure can be brought to bear on them.
It doesn't mean they are setup that way or that they (or the electorate) don't become captured by vested interests but it is the most effective way of keeping natural monopolies in our economy free from corruption (heavy regulation can also work).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>The difference is government entities can be made democratically accountable which means effective pressure can be brought to bear on them. Or they can be shielded from accountability because government bureaucracy. Imagine if the MTA were a private entity. Their contract would not be getting renewed (to put it mildly).
- lotsofpulp 7y agoAssuming there are alternatives. I still see IBM/Oracle/MS/Boeing/Lockheed and tons of others still getting lots of business from customers they have burned.
- kerkeslager 7y agoOn the contrary, MTA would definitely be renewed if they were a private entity--there isn't a competing New York transit company who has built out a complete rail system underneath the streets of New York just waiting to be used.