3 ms·

> the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government. So your real problem is that the government offers a service? So we should get rid

• jhugo 5y ago
  Strange that you would twist my words that way. I don't advocate for getting rid of services that the government provides, nor do I have a problem with them offering a service in general. I do think that if you take an existing market with competition, and you nationalise one or more actors in that market, competition becomes very difficult for any remaining private actors in that market or any future entrants. The reason is pretty simple: the rule-setting body is now playing the game against you. The end result of this is that new actors are less likely to enter the market at all, which limits innovation. Because of this (and because of the historical record of failure almost every time this kind of thing is tried) the decision to nationalise should be taken very carefully. You list several things such as fire departments and roads which are arguably best provided by the government, but I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
  • rkk3 5y ago
    > I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list. Neither do I especially, I was only questioning your reasoning for opposing it.