5 ms·

If the state and local governments gave sufficient notice, private businesses would snap up the new market opportunities. Everything worthwhile would continue a

by hellcow 13y ago

If the state and local governments gave sufficient notice, private businesses would snap up the new market opportunities. Everything worthwhile would continue as usual, albeit with less waste.

jbooth 13y ago
That's gotta be about the least justifiable statement in political-economic commentating history.
- hellcow 13y ago
  1. Government is less efficient than a privately owned, profit-seeking company--at least in most cases. If a business is inefficient, an efficient competitor will wipe them out. The same cause and effect doesn't exist for governments, except in the most extreme cases (revolution). 2. Markets that state and local governments dominate are large. Do you really think Waste Management would hesitate to take new markets that were previously controlled via government contract? Or that private prisons wouldn't purchase and run ones that were previously state-controlled? Or that power and water companies wouldn't realize the incredible opportunity to expand into new areas that were previously monopolized through government interference?
  - jahmed 13y ago
    Your first point is true in idealized situations. There are many circumstances which contribute to the benefit of incumbents. Regulatory capture, first-mover advantage, cartels, price collusion, asymmetric information are just a few tools inefficient incumbents use against new efficient competitors. Your example of waste, power, and water are a few cases where people, I think, support the government granted monopoly status. These industries have huge fixed costs and generate large externalities. Reliable waste management is a communal concern with clear risks to public health. I'd rather not have the trash company decide my neighborhood is too far to service weekly and switches to monthly pickup. Government exists as a function of the people to balance externalities. Does it go to far sometimes? Sure. But when people are actively engaged though government can be a force for good.
  - mehwoot 13y ago
    Do you really think a private police force paid for by a particular group of individuals would be a fair and neutral enforcer of laws?
mehwoot 13y ago
Yeah I'm sure private policing would work great.
- jMyles 13y ago
  Are you suggesting the state policing is working well?
asabjorn 13y ago
This needs serious backing as evidence seems to show the opposite. For instance, if we pick firefighting as an example what is there evidence that private firefighting is a good idea? In recent history this kind of thinking have led to disasters like in Tennessee: - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.UkpUgGSidTp and during the 1800s private firefighting was a true disaster for homeowners: - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tina-dupuy/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_247936.html Private companies are great for a lot of things, but I am not sure that I would trust someone that might decide to prioritize a quick short-term profit over a long-term maintenance goal to provide all essential city services (fire, police, sewer, roads, etc).
- hellcow 13y ago
  By "disasters like in Tennessee," you're referring to a family that lost their home in a fire due to not paying a business for their fire-fighting services. It's not as if they paid the firefighters, but the firefighters refused to act--if that were the case, there would be a serious civil lawsuit to recoup the cost of the lost home, its sentimental value, and punitive damages. He didn't pay for fire-fighting. He didn't have enough insurance. And somehow, this is someone else's fault.
  - asabjorn 13y ago
    Yes, the family had not paid the insurance. But why does that matter in the context of the blanket claim that private companies can always do at least as good of a job as a government organization with less waste? A city firefighting crew would not refuse to put out this fire so it is an example of a service that was provided at a lower quality in the private market due to market incentives.
    - tzs 13y ago
      The firefighters in the Tennessee case you cited were city firefighters. There were no private firefighters or private firefighting companies involved.
- 13y ago
zalzane 13y ago
Yes, because privatization worked so well for the prison system.
- drill_sarge 13y ago
  I also recall something about private tax debt collectors who basically took peoples homes. Some things should not be privatized or "optimized" for maximum efficiency.

by hellcow 13y ago

If the state and local governments gave sufficient notice, private businesses would snap up the new market opportunities. Everything worthwhile would continue as usual, albeit with less waste.

jbooth 13y ago

That's gotta be about the least justifiable statement in political-economic commentating history.

hellcow 13y ago
1. Government is less efficient than a privately owned, profit-seeking company--at least in most cases. If a business is inefficient, an efficient competitor will wipe them out. The same cause and effect doesn't exist for governments, except in the most extreme cases (revolution). 2. Markets that state and local governments dominate are large. Do you really think Waste Management would hesitate to take new markets that were previously controlled via government contract? Or that private prisons wouldn't purchase and run ones that were previously state-controlled? Or that power and water companies wouldn't realize the incredible opportunity to expand into new areas that were previously monopolized through government interference?
- jahmed 13y ago
  Your first point is true in idealized situations. There are many circumstances which contribute to the benefit of incumbents. Regulatory capture, first-mover advantage, cartels, price collusion, asymmetric information are just a few tools inefficient incumbents use against new efficient competitors. Your example of waste, power, and water are a few cases where people, I think, support the government granted monopoly status. These industries have huge fixed costs and generate large externalities. Reliable waste management is a communal concern with clear risks to public health. I'd rather not have the trash company decide my neighborhood is too far to service weekly and switches to monthly pickup. Government exists as a function of the people to balance externalities. Does it go to far sometimes? Sure. But when people are actively engaged though government can be a force for good.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  Do you really think a private police force paid for by a particular group of individuals would be a fair and neutral enforcer of laws?

mehwoot 13y ago

Yeah I'm sure private policing would work great.

jMyles 13y ago
Are you suggesting the state policing is working well?

asabjorn 13y ago

This needs serious backing as evidence seems to show the opposite. For instance, if we pick firefighting as an example what is there evidence that private firefighting is a good idea? In recent history this kind of thinking have led to disasters like in Tennessee: - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.UkpUgGSidTp and during the 1800s private firefighting was a true disaster for homeowners: - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tina-dupuy/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_247936.html Private companies are great for a lot of things, but I am not sure that I would trust someone that might decide to prioritize a quick short-term profit over a long-term maintenance goal to provide all essential city services (fire, police, sewer, roads, etc).

hellcow 13y ago
By "disasters like in Tennessee," you're referring to a family that lost their home in a fire due to not paying a business for their fire-fighting services. It's not as if they paid the firefighters, but the firefighters refused to act--if that were the case, there would be a serious civil lawsuit to recoup the cost of the lost home, its sentimental value, and punitive damages. He didn't pay for fire-fighting. He didn't have enough insurance. And somehow, this is someone else's fault.
- asabjorn 13y ago
  Yes, the family had not paid the insurance. But why does that matter in the context of the blanket claim that private companies can always do at least as good of a job as a government organization with less waste? A city firefighting crew would not refuse to put out this fire so it is an example of a service that was provided at a lower quality in the private market due to market incentives.
  - tzs 13y ago
    The firefighters in the Tennessee case you cited were city firefighters. There were no private firefighters or private firefighting companies involved.
13y ago

zalzane 13y ago

Yes, because privatization worked so well for the prison system.

drill_sarge 13y ago
I also recall something about private tax debt collectors who basically took peoples homes. Some things should not be privatized or "optimized" for maximum efficiency.