3 ms·

Im very into the idea of the state competing to create accessible affordable baselines, and letting everyone else compete openly in trying to make money. If go

Im very into the idea of the state competing to create accessible affordable baselines, and letting everyone else compete openly in trying to make money. If government wants to do that by contacting out a bunch of the effort, ok! Government trying to insure good baselines, not just regulatorily, but actually doing the work & owning the system (again even if contacted) feels like it's ever more necessary step to keep a healthy society.

dilawar 4y ago
India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government. Private players are free to use the service and build products around it. It worked really well. Though I am more inclined to give more credit to people who built and maintaining it rather than to some model. Like ISRO and Delhi Metro, its a miracle since India's stultifying beurocracy has a well deserved reputation.
- unmole 4y ago
  > India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government No it isn't. NPCI is owned by a consortium of banks.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
The question is, where does the government get the capital? If it's from taxpayers, their service has an asymmetric advantage and can drive out private competitors even if it's poorly managed, which is highly inefficient and results in a de facto government monopoly. But it could work pretty well if it's funded by bonds it has to pay back out of subscription fees and a default causes everyone involved to be fired.
- notdonspaulding 4y ago
  Your first thought is completely right. Your second thought sounds like a good idea. Let's have another competitor (government) funded by private entities via debt equity (bonds) which is paid back by customer receipts (profits) where failure equals unemployment. Actually, this is starting to sound like a business, but with more steps and the power to pass laws affecting its own operating environment. What's the advantage to having the government be the competitor?
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > What's the advantage to having the government be the competitor? Voters choose management instead of shareholders. Maybe they'd make different choices. Diversity is good.
- rektide 4y ago
  It is an asymmetric advantage, but they're different games. The governent should be competing to help people, not make money. Yes in many place that would drive out current businesses. If we are worried about inefficiency, maybe we make government compete with itself. Have it's initiatives be charters, and issue new overlapping charters over time. Governmemt is not required to have a stasist implememtation; dynamic behavior can be part of the system.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > It is an asymmetric advantage, but they're different games. The governent should be competing to help people, not make money. They're two independent things. If a different management style would produce a public benefit then do it without access to the taxing power. If using tax money to subsidize some service is in the public interest (spoiler alert: it rarely is) then the subsidy should go to anyone providing that service. > Yes in many place that would drive out current businesses. Which is the problem -- because then they're no longer competing, and it's the competition on equal terms that keeps them honest. If they're actually helping people then people should have no trouble voluntarily choosing their unsubsidized offering. Without that they're just an unregulated monopoly susceptible to inefficiency and corruption. > If we are worried about inefficiency, maybe we make government compete with itself. Have it's initiatives be charters, and issue new overlapping charters over time. Governmemt is not required to have a stasist implememtation; dynamic behavior can be part of the system. Charters where funding only goes to the politically connected are effectively corruption, and whoever is getting fat off the cash will exert their influence to make sure no one capable of doing it more efficiently can get access to the funding. Charters where funding goes to anyone who signs up to provide the service are effectively tax credits.

dilawar 4y ago

India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government. Private players are free to use the service and build products around it. It worked really well. Though I am more inclined to give more credit to people who built and maintaining it rather than to some model. Like ISRO and Delhi Metro, its a miracle since India's stultifying beurocracy has a well deserved reputation.

unmole 4y ago
> India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government No it isn't. NPCI is owned by a consortium of banks.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

The question is, where does the government get the capital? If it's from taxpayers, their service has an asymmetric advantage and can drive out private competitors even if it's poorly managed, which is highly inefficient and results in a de facto government monopoly. But it could work pretty well if it's funded by bonds it has to pay back out of subscription fees and a default causes everyone involved to be fired.

notdonspaulding 4y ago
Your first thought is completely right. Your second thought sounds like a good idea. Let's have another competitor (government) funded by private entities via debt equity (bonds) which is paid back by customer receipts (profits) where failure equals unemployment. Actually, this is starting to sound like a business, but with more steps and the power to pass laws affecting its own operating environment. What's the advantage to having the government be the competitor?
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > What's the advantage to having the government be the competitor? Voters choose management instead of shareholders. Maybe they'd make different choices. Diversity is good.
rektide 4y ago
It is an asymmetric advantage, but they're different games. The governent should be competing to help people, not make money. Yes in many place that would drive out current businesses. If we are worried about inefficiency, maybe we make government compete with itself. Have it's initiatives be charters, and issue new overlapping charters over time. Governmemt is not required to have a stasist implememtation; dynamic behavior can be part of the system.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > It is an asymmetric advantage, but they're different games. The governent should be competing to help people, not make money. They're two independent things. If a different management style would produce a public benefit then do it without access to the taxing power. If using tax money to subsidize some service is in the public interest (spoiler alert: it rarely is) then the subsidy should go to anyone providing that service. > Yes in many place that would drive out current businesses. Which is the problem -- because then they're no longer competing, and it's the competition on equal terms that keeps them honest. If they're actually helping people then people should have no trouble voluntarily choosing their unsubsidized offering. Without that they're just an unregulated monopoly susceptible to inefficiency and corruption. > If we are worried about inefficiency, maybe we make government compete with itself. Have it's initiatives be charters, and issue new overlapping charters over time. Governmemt is not required to have a stasist implememtation; dynamic behavior can be part of the system. Charters where funding only goes to the politically connected are effectively corruption, and whoever is getting fat off the cash will exert their influence to make sure no one capable of doing it more efficiently can get access to the funding. Charters where funding goes to anyone who signs up to provide the service are effectively tax credits.