4 ms·
This is exactly the wrong mentality that leads to exactly the wrong outcomes (e.g. the title of this article). The goal of “basic services” should never be che
by tomp 6y ago
This is exactly the wrong mentality that leads to exactly the wrong outcomes (e.g. the title of this article).
The goal of “basic services” should never be cheap, but good instead (i.e. quality, not price). And that is what should be regulated (e.g. metrics like “health outcomes” in medicine, “number of blackouts” in power distribution, ...).
Then, the market should take over, to optimise for price (== profit), because that also optimises for social well-being (e.g. in medicine, “cheaper” directly leads to “more affordable healthcare” and indirectly to “healthier population”). The idea that “profit” shouldn’t be optimised or that the government should take over is obviously misguided, because there is no guarantee or reason why the government would maintain quality if the free market cannot (instead of “profit” they would optimise for “employment” or “corruption” or “size of bureaucracy”).
- CaptainZapp 6y ago> Then, the market should take over, to optimise for price (== profit) The problem with that is that it's far more attractive for a private entity to book profits, instead of investing into their infrastructure. Thinking about it, the Texas disaster seems to be quite a nice illustration of that.
- tomp 6y agoSo the metrics should measure the quality of the infrastructure and regulation should reflect that. Without the proper metrics, there’s no guarantee that the government will invest in infrastructure either (instead of, say, corruption - paying outrageous amounts of money to friends&family for subpar service).