3 ms·

The privatization of infrastructure is basically theft. Take from the public, and gift to private corporations that the public has no power over. The privatizat

The privatization of infrastructure is basically theft. Take from the public, and gift to private corporations that the public has no power over. The privatization of the public's air or water supply should be criminal.

gloryjulio 3y ago
Yep. Not saying public service is efficient, the privatisation of certain sectors like water and is much worse. The environment cost is just ignored and the public still get to foot the bill
willmadden 3y ago
Too broad... I would say monopolies are the problem, both public and private.
- KPGv2 3y ago
  You don't think "governments are a problem" is too broad?
- autoexec 3y ago
  Monopolies are desirable (unavoidable?) in some cases. I don't want 35 competing toll roads running past my house. Natural monopolies, goods and services that will never be profitable (or would just never be as profitable as refusing to provide them would), and essential services are ideal for public monopolies. I'm not sure there's ever a situation where a private monopoly is the ideal though.
  - rdedev 3y ago
    The best way to evaluate it would be as a function of the elasticity of the service provided. I can avoid eating a pizza but not avoid taking a specific road. Besides it seems like any domain where the initial investment is large seems to be places where one monopoly eventually emerge. At least in my opinion healthcare (hospitals and such not including drug development) should not be private or of there is there should be a strong public hospital network for providing care
candiddevmike 3y ago
> The privatization of the public's air or water supply should be criminal. Internet, cellphone, electricity, trash, healthcare, insurance... if the vast majority needs the same thing, the local, state, or federal government should provide it. We need to put an end to all the rent seeking behavior, it's parasitic and slowly destroying our economy.
- gary_0 3y ago
  Don't forget roads and mail delivery. And there are people who look at that public infrastructure that basically allowed civilization to develop, and they go "what a shame, someone could be collecting rent on that". > if the vast majority needs the same thing It's more that if you privatize certain necessary infrastructure, the owners either end up as monopolies and/or require heavy regulation, which means the customer can't just buy from someone else and/or new companies can't unseat dysfunctional incumbents.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  The government doesn’t need to provide it. There should be type of company for utilities that are basically non-profits for providing the service. Government owned makes sense for most. But could also have co-op where the customers own the company, or charity. Also, the utility doesn’t have to provide everything. MVNO, which are cellular providers on top of other provider, could work with mobile provider utility. Internet is the other ones where in some countries multiple providers sit on top of phone company.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Isn't that a public company / crown corporation? (Not to be confused with a publicly-traded company)
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      In the US, public companies are traded on stock exchange. There are state-owned corporations. The federally owned ones are a mix of semi-independent like Amtrak and USPS, and ones that should be governement agencies. Municpally owned corporations tend to be independent but are owned by states or cities. Municipal utilities are pretty common but work best for small ones like water. The US has whole categories of 503c non-profit organizations, with 503c3 tax-exempt charities the most well known. I can't tell if there category for non-profit utilities. I think there should be room for companies between government-owned and for-profit, companies that do a service without making money.

gloryjulio 3y ago

Yep. Not saying public service is efficient, the privatisation of certain sectors like water and is much worse. The environment cost is just ignored and the public still get to foot the bill

willmadden 3y ago

Too broad... I would say monopolies are the problem, both public and private.

KPGv2 3y ago
You don't think "governments are a problem" is too broad?
autoexec 3y ago
Monopolies are desirable (unavoidable?) in some cases. I don't want 35 competing toll roads running past my house. Natural monopolies, goods and services that will never be profitable (or would just never be as profitable as refusing to provide them would), and essential services are ideal for public monopolies. I'm not sure there's ever a situation where a private monopoly is the ideal though.
- rdedev 3y ago
  The best way to evaluate it would be as a function of the elasticity of the service provided. I can avoid eating a pizza but not avoid taking a specific road. Besides it seems like any domain where the initial investment is large seems to be places where one monopoly eventually emerge. At least in my opinion healthcare (hospitals and such not including drug development) should not be private or of there is there should be a strong public hospital network for providing care

candiddevmike 3y ago

> The privatization of the public's air or water supply should be criminal. Internet, cellphone, electricity, trash, healthcare, insurance... if the vast majority needs the same thing, the local, state, or federal government should provide it. We need to put an end to all the rent seeking behavior, it's parasitic and slowly destroying our economy.

gary_0 3y ago
Don't forget roads and mail delivery. And there are people who look at that public infrastructure that basically allowed civilization to develop, and they go "what a shame, someone could be collecting rent on that". > if the vast majority needs the same thing It's more that if you privatize certain necessary infrastructure, the owners either end up as monopolies and/or require heavy regulation, which means the customer can't just buy from someone else and/or new companies can't unseat dysfunctional incumbents.
ianburrell 3y ago
The government doesn’t need to provide it. There should be type of company for utilities that are basically non-profits for providing the service. Government owned makes sense for most. But could also have co-op where the customers own the company, or charity. Also, the utility doesn’t have to provide everything. MVNO, which are cellular providers on top of other provider, could work with mobile provider utility. Internet is the other ones where in some countries multiple providers sit on top of phone company.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Isn't that a public company / crown corporation? (Not to be confused with a publicly-traded company)
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    In the US, public companies are traded on stock exchange. There are state-owned corporations. The federally owned ones are a mix of semi-independent like Amtrak and USPS, and ones that should be governement agencies. Municpally owned corporations tend to be independent but are owned by states or cities. Municipal utilities are pretty common but work best for small ones like water. The US has whole categories of 503c non-profit organizations, with 503c3 tax-exempt charities the most well known. I can't tell if there category for non-profit utilities. I think there should be room for companies between government-owned and for-profit, companies that do a service without making money.