3 ms·

State monopolies are not that good of an alternative to private monopolies.

baybal2 5y ago
Absolutely, people matter. And in case of USA government taking over the ON Semi through DPA, you will have essentially the same creed of people being appointed to run it. This comes from an obvious fact that the prime majority of public companies in USA have boards stuffed with bankers, and asset managers, because a big portion of there are owned by bankers, and asset managers. Most people in government service administering companies also come from exactly the same banker/asset manager background for simple lack of any others.
lostlogin 5y ago
It depends though doesn’t it? For police, army and things like water supply, they are good. Many (including me) argue that far more services work better when state owned, eg health, education, power, infrastructure (eg roading) and public transport. It becomes a political argument rather fast.
Teever 5y ago
Is that true? I was under the impression that state monopolies are a fundamental part of modern arms procurement in some instances.
sofixa 5y ago
Yes, they are. Are you serious? A state monopoly's problems are complacency and applying government policy ( e.g. in a racist segregated country, they will apply that). A private monopoly will absolutely bleed their customers dry out of any money they can take off them, they'll usually stagnate and become complacent ( just like a state monopoly). Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides. You have to be really careful with this. Most of the natural monopolies are very narrow. You can't just say "infrastructure" or even "telecommunications." The natural monopoly is limited to the physical plant in the last mile. Transit is a competitive market. You don't want to extend the monopoly an inch more than it needs to be. Almost nothing in "healthcare" is a natural monopoly. Maybe emergency services, and even then it's not a "real" natural monopoly (which is characterized by high fixed costs and low variable costs) but rather a market failure as a result of being unable to make a rational choice between providers while you're unconscious. It certainly doesn't apply to, for example, cancer treatment, where there are many providers and people are willing to spend as much time as necessary and travel long distances in order to receive the most competitive care. And there is no sense in which any education is a natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable (per-student) rather than fixed. There is a case to be made for the local government to do the thing which is actually a natural monopoly, but that doesn't mean you can just reclassify a bunch of random stuff you want the government to do as a natural monopoly when it isn't.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > And there is no sense in which any education is a natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable (per-student) rather than fixed. The thing that worries me about this kind of thinking is that, while it's technically correct, privatizing education, or treating it as a competitive market, gives you bad outcomes. The rich can afford to send their kids to the best schools, which keeps the rich families rich. The poor can only afford to send their kids to the worst schools, or the chronically-underfunded public schools, and this keeps the poor families poor. We already see this in some (many?) US school districts with our hybrid public/private system, largely because public education is underfunded and private schools are generally out of financial reach for most folks.
    - AdrianB1 5y ago
      The really rich can do homeschooling and that avoids all problems. What is the problem that you are trying to address, the rich having access to better education than others or the others not having the same education as the rich? There is no solution to that than forcing everyone to go to the same school, but one can also avoid my moving to a different state or country.

Absolutely, people matter. And in case of USA government taking over the ON Semi through DPA, you will have essentially the same creed of people being appointed to run it. This comes from an obvious fact that the prime majority of public companies in USA have boards stuffed with bankers, and asset managers, because a big portion of there are owned by bankers, and asset managers. Most people in government service administering companies also come from exactly the same banker/asset manager background for simple lack of any others.

lostlogin 5y ago

It depends though doesn’t it? For police, army and things like water supply, they are good. Many (including me) argue that far more services work better when state owned, eg health, education, power, infrastructure (eg roading) and public transport. It becomes a political argument rather fast.

Teever 5y ago

Is that true? I was under the impression that state monopolies are a fundamental part of modern arms procurement in some instances.

sofixa 5y ago

Yes, they are. Are you serious? A state monopoly's problems are complacency and applying government policy ( e.g. in a racist segregated country, they will apply that). A private monopoly will absolutely bleed their customers dry out of any money they can take off them, they'll usually stagnate and become complacent ( just like a state monopoly). Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides. You have to be really careful with this. Most of the natural monopolies are very narrow. You can't just say "infrastructure" or even "telecommunications." The natural monopoly is limited to the physical plant in the last mile. Transit is a competitive market. You don't want to extend the monopoly an inch more than it needs to be. Almost nothing in "healthcare" is a natural monopoly. Maybe emergency services, and even then it's not a "real" natural monopoly (which is characterized by high fixed costs and low variable costs) but rather a market failure as a result of being unable to make a rational choice between providers while you're unconscious. It certainly doesn't apply to, for example, cancer treatment, where there are many providers and people are willing to spend as much time as necessary and travel long distances in order to receive the most competitive care. And there is no sense in which any education is a natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable (per-student) rather than fixed. There is a case to be made for the local government to do the thing which is actually a natural monopoly, but that doesn't mean you can just reclassify a bunch of random stuff you want the government to do as a natural monopoly when it isn't.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > And there is no sense in which any education is a natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable (per-student) rather than fixed. The thing that worries me about this kind of thinking is that, while it's technically correct, privatizing education, or treating it as a competitive market, gives you bad outcomes. The rich can afford to send their kids to the best schools, which keeps the rich families rich. The poor can only afford to send their kids to the worst schools, or the chronically-underfunded public schools, and this keeps the poor families poor. We already see this in some (many?) US school districts with our hybrid public/private system, largely because public education is underfunded and private schools are generally out of financial reach for most folks.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    The really rich can do homeschooling and that avoids all problems. What is the problem that you are trying to address, the rich having access to better education than others or the others not having the same education as the rich? There is no solution to that than forcing everyone to go to the same school, but one can also avoid my moving to a different state or country.