3 ms·

I can understand the privatization maximalists and - though it's harder - the minimalists. What's harder for me to get a hold on is the people who say some thi

I can understand the privatization maximalists and - though it's harder - the minimalists. What's harder for me to get a hold on is the people who say some things - transportation, education, healthcare, housing - should be public and everything else should be private. I'd like an argument for why those things and not everything. Why buses and taxis? Why trains but not planes? What about boats? Why people but not goods? I guess I can take "politics" as an answer but that is a bit disappointing.

JacobJans 5y ago
The nature of some things require a monopoly or quasi-monopoly. In those cases, there is an argument for public ownership.
barry-cotter 5y ago
Things have different properties so they can (and should be) treated differently. What things should be nationalised and what privatised has been extensively argued. We also have a lot of real world examples of what happens when you nationalise companies. The UK nationalised all its heavy industry and most of its light industry after WW2. It didn't go well. French nationalisation of its finance sector in the 70s didn't work great either. The things that are commonly nationalised are those that aren't huge, enormous, obvious, fast fuckups. Some countries do this better, some worse. But mostly it's kludges based on experience, not principles.
scaramanga 5y ago
Some things only make sense as a unified system, like, there can't easily be as many train lines and stations as there are potential competitors, because the value of the good is greatly increased if all the stations and lines link up together and aren't redundant. Profit has to come from somewhere. In some cases, it can come from neglecting to maintain the infrastructure that the investors (usually the taxpayers) paid for to put you in business. Once the system collapses under the neglect, everyone is held hostage because the system is vital and then taxpayers are forced again at gunpoint to bail out the system. In the mean time, the profits of the mismanagement have been taken and are effectively unrecoverable. The "politics" that comes in here is when people refuse to be robbed in this way and, instead, insist in a return on their investment (in the form of a functioning public utility). This is a consequence of democracy (fortunate or unfortunate, depending on your perspective).

JacobJans 5y ago

The nature of some things require a monopoly or quasi-monopoly. In those cases, there is an argument for public ownership.

barry-cotter 5y ago

Things have different properties so they can (and should be) treated differently. What things should be nationalised and what privatised has been extensively argued. We also have a lot of real world examples of what happens when you nationalise companies. The UK nationalised all its heavy industry and most of its light industry after WW2. It didn't go well. French nationalisation of its finance sector in the 70s didn't work great either. The things that are commonly nationalised are those that aren't huge, enormous, obvious, fast fuckups. Some countries do this better, some worse. But mostly it's kludges based on experience, not principles.

scaramanga 5y ago

Some things only make sense as a unified system, like, there can't easily be as many train lines and stations as there are potential competitors, because the value of the good is greatly increased if all the stations and lines link up together and aren't redundant. Profit has to come from somewhere. In some cases, it can come from neglecting to maintain the infrastructure that the investors (usually the taxpayers) paid for to put you in business. Once the system collapses under the neglect, everyone is held hostage because the system is vital and then taxpayers are forced again at gunpoint to bail out the system. In the mean time, the profits of the mismanagement have been taken and are effectively unrecoverable. The "politics" that comes in here is when people refuse to be robbed in this way and, instead, insist in a return on their investment (in the form of a functioning public utility). This is a consequence of democracy (fortunate or unfortunate, depending on your perspective).