7 ms·

Can you give me an example for a privatised service that is doing better than the public one? Because I only have negative examples, where after privatization

Can you give me an example for a privatised service that is doing better than the public one? Because I only have negative examples, where after privatization prizes went up and quality went down.

d1zzy 6y ago
I grew up in a communist country, everything was state owned, everything was crappy (I mean quality wise) and generally out of stock but hey, it had amazing price (dictated by the state of course), theoretically anyone could afford it. That resulted in huge lines waiting for small stock drops (not unlike the new PC hardware situation with scalpers these days, which is funny) of chicken, electronics, bananas. Of course, it was even better if you knew someone working at those stores, then you'd get a heads up or they'd "reserve" some for you. So in general I'd say I've seen government fail to run plenty of businesses. A more modern example would be PG&E which is in this weird situation where it's so regulated that it's almost government run but it's technically a private entity. There are also plenty of pure private entities that haven't run well (but at least, such entities end up being bankrupt, a healthy alternative for non-profitable private businesses). So in my experience, seeing both private and publicly run companies fail, I've started to think that this aspect of it (being privately or publicly controlled) is not what makes the company run well but it's one of the many factors that can contribute to it. I think a more important factor are the interests, skills, will and agenda of those that control it, regardless of whom they answer to (voters or board). And let's not discard the particularities of each business. Some enjoy a natural monopoly, others face tough competition. These are more important aspects contributing to efficient use of resources than, again, who the CEO answers to.
germinalphrase 6y ago
It’s an article of economic faith that private parties will always, by definition, provide superior outcomes with reduced costs.
- alentist 6y ago
  It’s an article of economic faith that government parties will always, by definition, provide superior outcomes with reduced costs.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    I have never encountered your position in the wild.
    - alentist 6y ago
      I highly doubt that.
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
        Perhaps my perspective is skewed by living in the Midwest. By virtue of some private interests, I interact with quite a few very conservative people and perhaps the ‘average man on the street’ is already more culturally conservative than on the coasts. I maintain my position though. I really have never come across a person in conversation who would take an absolutist position that government action is always going to be better than private enterprise, but the opposite absolutist position is somewhat common. It say it’s an article of faith because the people I’ve spoken to are not up for discussion about it. They have established their belief and nothing will cast a shadow of doubt upon it.
        alentist 6y ago
        > I interact with quite a few very conservative people and perhaps the ‘average man on the street’ is already more culturally conservative than on the coasts. You’re claiming that all these people you’ve met are anarcho-capitalists? Are you under the impression that cultural conservatism means anarcho-capitalism? > but the opposite absolutist position is somewhat common You’ve provided no evidence that it is more common. In my experience, the opposite is true.
        turbinerneiter 6y ago
alentist 6y ago
Read up on SELTIC (the Service, Efficiency, and Lower Taxes for Indianapolis Commission) and how their privatization initiatives dramatically improved Indianapolis. https://bg.hbr.org/1997/05/can-business-really-do-business-with-government https://bg.hbr.org/1997/05/can-business-really-do-business-w... https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Indianapolis-Mayor-Stephen-Goldsmith.html https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Indianapolis-Mayor-Step... https://fcpp.org/2018/05/04/the-indianapolis-champ/ https://fcpp.org/2018/05/04/the-indianapolis-champ/
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Private health care in Europe. The cost of public health care is staggering and the quality is abysmal. If you can afford it, if you have something serious and you don't want to wait for ages or get poor equipment or lack of testing, you'll go private even in Europe. I'd say private health care in the states is very successful as well (high quality and research) but the prices are ridiculously inflated because of government / insurances.

Can you give me an example for a privatised service that is doing better than the public one? Because I only have negative examples, where after privatization prizes went up and quality went down.

d1zzy 6y ago

I grew up in a communist country, everything was state owned, everything was crappy (I mean quality wise) and generally out of stock but hey, it had amazing price (dictated by the state of course), theoretically anyone could afford it. That resulted in huge lines waiting for small stock drops (not unlike the new PC hardware situation with scalpers these days, which is funny) of chicken, electronics, bananas. Of course, it was even better if you knew someone working at those stores, then you'd get a heads up or they'd "reserve" some for you. So in general I'd say I've seen government fail to run plenty of businesses. A more modern example would be PG&E which is in this weird situation where it's so regulated that it's almost government run but it's technically a private entity. There are also plenty of pure private entities that haven't run well (but at least, such entities end up being bankrupt, a healthy alternative for non-profitable private businesses). So in my experience, seeing both private and publicly run companies fail, I've started to think that this aspect of it (being privately or publicly controlled) is not what makes the company run well but it's one of the many factors that can contribute to it. I think a more important factor are the interests, skills, will and agenda of those that control it, regardless of whom they answer to (voters or board). And let's not discard the particularities of each business. Some enjoy a natural monopoly, others face tough competition. These are more important aspects contributing to efficient use of resources than, again, who the CEO answers to.

germinalphrase 6y ago

It’s an article of economic faith that private parties will always, by definition, provide superior outcomes with reduced costs.

alentist 6y ago
It’s an article of economic faith that government parties will always, by definition, provide superior outcomes with reduced costs.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  I have never encountered your position in the wild.
  - alentist 6y ago
    I highly doubt that.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      Perhaps my perspective is skewed by living in the Midwest. By virtue of some private interests, I interact with quite a few very conservative people and perhaps the ‘average man on the street’ is already more culturally conservative than on the coasts. I maintain my position though. I really have never come across a person in conversation who would take an absolutist position that government action is always going to be better than private enterprise, but the opposite absolutist position is somewhat common. It say it’s an article of faith because the people I’ve spoken to are not up for discussion about it. They have established their belief and nothing will cast a shadow of doubt upon it.
      - alentist 6y ago
        > I interact with quite a few very conservative people and perhaps the ‘average man on the street’ is already more culturally conservative than on the coasts. You’re claiming that all these people you’ve met are anarcho-capitalists? Are you under the impression that cultural conservatism means anarcho-capitalism? > but the opposite absolutist position is somewhat common You’ve provided no evidence that it is more common. In my experience, the opposite is true.
      - turbinerneiter 6y ago

alentist 6y ago

Read up on SELTIC (the Service, Efficiency, and Lower Taxes for Indianapolis Commission) and how their privatization initiatives dramatically improved Indianapolis. https://bg.hbr.org/1997/05/can-business-really-do-business-with-government https://bg.hbr.org/1997/05/can-business-really-do-business-w... https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Indianapolis-Mayor-Stephen-Goldsmith.html https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Indianapolis-Mayor-Step... https://fcpp.org/2018/05/04/the-indianapolis-champ/ https://fcpp.org/2018/05/04/the-indianapolis-champ/

jokethrowaway 6y ago

Private health care in Europe. The cost of public health care is staggering and the quality is abysmal. If you can afford it, if you have something serious and you don't want to wait for ages or get poor equipment or lack of testing, you'll go private even in Europe. I'd say private health care in the states is very successful as well (high quality and research) but the prices are ridiculously inflated because of government / insurances.