Ya know what was a foundational part of the American dream? Pensions. Ya know which employers still offer them? Counties, states and the federal government.
Private companies exist solely to make the people at the top very rich based on the stolen value of employee labor while dumping catastrophic losses in the public sphere. That's capitalism in a nutshell.
You'd have to be unbelievably gullible, naive, traumatized AND brainwashed to be a diehard for a system like that. But, somehow they've managed it. A deluded nation of Amway top performers just one move away from making their own imaginary millions. All simping for the system.
You wanna know something else? The majority of the world economy is already centrally planned. Not on the national level, on the corporate level. Business is dominated by a relatively few giant corporations with internal economies the size of some nations. None of them run free markets internally. Sears experimented with it, to their demise. Central planning is already the primary way that our economic lives are driven. It's just we let unaccountable billionaires do the planning instead of an elected body.
My government is mostly privatized. We even hired a consulting firm to figure out how the government could lower consulting fees. The consultants found that if we consult less, we will have lower consulting fees. We paid over half a million for that single report:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-government-kpmg-consulting/
Australia is a live example of the fact that they're not. The state and federal governments have privatised a crap load of services and all they do is continue to hike our bills while providing less and less service. Electricity, water supply, employment services and more are now an absolute joke here.
I remember in college we took a course on economic efficiency and the short takeaway is "the free market is extremely efficient, but only when the competing parties start with equal resources. the more inequal the starting position, the less efficient the market becomes." and to my mind that suggests that we should enforce some sort of "rubber-banding" effect so that a company needs to keep competing or else it will "drift" back to the mean over time. Something like aggressive taxes on the uber-rich and comprehensive welfare for the poor, y'know? Capitalism but with safety guards would be pretty cool.
Anyone who worked in both private and public would know both are not more efficient than the other.
Public services are chronically underfunded because of corruption. Private companies perform rabbit in a hat trick by making you guess what undisclosed ingredients they put in your food if they're not regulated, just so to save cost and make money for themselves!
Private companies are why Flint still has lead water pipes, and why Texas doesn't have a working power grid, and why you and I are facing a 30%-50% increase in our cost of living.
There needs to be MORE regulation. Not less.
Having worked for both, I would say that most government offices are eternal, whereas private companies can vanish quickly. Sometimes without warning. Its really hard to kill a government office.
Makes me wonder, how did a necessary office survive during a junta or an overthrow? For example, how did the office of a postal clerk change from 1925 to 1955 in, say, Berlin? How does the average Salvadoran DMV worker view the changes in El Salvador since 1980?
How was a tax office run in ancient Babylon versus a modern one today?
I bet there's some weird insights into human civilization to be found in those stories.
They're efficient at maximizing profits for shareholders, usually at the dire expense of literally everyone else.
I think a big issue is that the government takes a decades long view. This is great because they can plan how to effectively manage our water and other large scale projects with longevity in mind.
Meanwhile, our corporate CEOs take a quarter of a year view. They'd burn the company to the ground as long as it happens after they are stepping down and makes them look good beforehand.
One point here: the government doesn't pay out a large chunk of it's earnings to people who did nothing to ensure that the product or service was delivered.
They got paid a large percentage of revenue because they're shareholders.
Tell me again why taking a big pile of money from customers, who are very likely not wealthy (at least for the majority), and giving it to wealthy people, is "more efficient" than the government doing the same job and just, not doing that?
If you cut out the profit, the "business" runs more lean, no matter which way you arrange the numbers. I would argue that a more lean business model is simply more efficient. The dollars going in simply result in more output per dollar. IMO, that's efficient.
Am I taking crazy pills here?
Ignorant AF.
They are better at maximizing profits at the expense of the employees, benefits, wages, local taxes and infrastructure. They work for the shareholders. They shovel money to the top few percent of the company. That’s what we call “efficiency”.
The government does not profit. They government pays standard government wages along with union wages and benefits. They maintain infrastructure. They are only as efficient as contracts allow.
Corporations do not have the same goals as government. One seeks to extract maximum profits for the few at the expense of the many, the other seeks to return to the many as much as is feasible in societal good - schools, roads, power, water, etc. at no profit.
If I had my way I'd make as many services public as possible. I cant stand tge fact that I pay taxes and the "public" transportation (train/bus/subway) isn't free. Imagine how much pocket change you would have if energy companies, telecoms (cell/wifi), and transportation were all gov-run? All that said I have no idea how that would translate in practice, its a nice little daydream I had.
Possibly, but they have different incentives.
I'm a private sector worker slacking off and shitposting on reddit/lemmy all day....
We are DEFINITELY NOT more efficient than the public sector
In Germany we are in the process of privatizing hospitals. This will surely go over great in case of you know another pandemic. You can bet your butt that a private company will cut staff numbers, they will reduce the number of hospital beds and they will do the least amount of work they can get away with.
I can't easily go to a competitor, now can I? We only have that one hospital in the city.But surely you must admit that they do extract more wealth from the working classes for people who just move money around. Let's see your profit-less crown corporation do that. Checkmate /s
Famously, the blue guys in Australia, defund our public infrastructure, go 'oh no, broken now, have to sell, only private peeps can run this / it will run better / for everyone's best interests' (simultaneously pats themselves on the back for bringing money in, even though that thing they broke, brought money in, until they broke it) also, spoiler, they sell the things to thier mates.
Depends on the situation I'd say.
Private companies are efficient at making oligarchs richer and everybody else poorer.
Neither is obviously more efficient than the other overall, it depends on the structure and the incentives. People worry about private prisons for example. If you make it so the government sends people to prisons and you pay the prison a fixed rate per prisoner, of course you're gonna get skimping on services by the prisons. If you instead give the prisoner a voucher for a prison and make them pick where they go and prisons get money per voucher they get from prisoners, you're gonna get competition on quality so you'll get high quality prisons. Opposite outcomes with just a change to incentives.
This is something you really can't say one way or the other.
I could cite examples of sick, failing government owned companies that did better under privatization, or simply shouldn't have been governments owned in the first place. On the other hand, I could cite disastrous privatization efforts that should never have happened because they were vital services, or in the national interest. I lived through most of it in the UK when they were privatising stuff left right and centre - some succeeded, others didn't.
And if they stay under the control of government then they need incentivization and means for measuring success. Success doesn't just mean profit but it does mean value and quality of service. And in some ways that would require operating similar to if it were a private company.
looks at ICBC, BC Hydro and BC Ferries.
Looks at how Canadian ISPs led the world in early internet technology then once privatized, ignored it and allowed Nortel to be infiltrated and shut down by CCP spies, allowing then to steal 5G technology.
Hell, in Vancouver you have the private Canada /RAV line, and the public Skytrain line. One was built in the 1980s and isn't at capacity yet and the private one was finished in 2008 and is already over capacity.
Yeah there really is 0 comparison between public and private.
Even if it was more efficient on average it still would have major costs associated with privatization, namely ceding control from the public.
The government should not be efficient. The faster it moves the faster it can oppress.
But government likes to starve the stuff they run to make it look bad so they can carve it up and sell it to their mates. See literally anything Britain privatised.
Anything with no competition trends towards being shit over time.
Where I live they have semi-privatized utilities and it's funny because unlike the fully private company they'll actually do their job, but then they'll make record profits and their directors will spend it all doing lines of coke. It's most noticeable when you compare the lines of the private company to the semi-private one, and one will be overgrown and decrepit while the other will be completely spotless.
We also have a fully public utility and you wouldn't even notice because the prices are dirt cheap and the infrastructure is taken care of. The only difference between public and private ownership is how much of your money goes into maintenance instead of up the board's nose.
Certain things, yes. Certain other things, not at all.
As much as I hate Elon Musk the company he owns that does space stuff pretty rapidly got a whole lot of new rockets up and got them to land instead of crashing into the sea. The newest govt produced rocket, the SLS, was years late and billions of dollars over budget, and they expend the rockets.
spaceX did some cool stuff. That being said, fuck Elon Musk, he had nothing to do with any of its success.
b-b-but wait times
If you believe this, a year working at a Fortune 500 should cure you of it.
The government needs to take over things which are not viable for the private sector, but important for society to work.
Lets say privatisation of public transport: In countries where it is completely private, only major cities have reasonable connections. Because those are the most profitable ones. But if you want people to actually use public transport, you need to have a fine and widely spread net of connections. For that to happen either the state completely owns the public transport, or takes off financial pressure and only partially owns it.
Exactly this mechanism enables (partially) state owned organizations to run suboptimal. As explained in the example, this is a desired effect. But it also enables memes like the lazy state employee - which are at least partially true.
Private companies are master at screwing customers for profit. Lefts not try to be private companies.
Which government?
You should see the companies in charge of the mexican government.
Typically this is something I hear more commonly within businesses.
Unsurprisingly the business thinks business is the most efficient way to run anything.
Permanently Deleted
I work for my local government and everybody means well but are hampered by a lack of funding. I complete a statutory required role, that is one of the two key performance indicators and it needs 2 people full time and I'm the only person on it.
It sort of depends on what the company is doing.
Honestly I was expecting more dogshit takes in the comments. Anyway everyone should read Elizabeth Anderson’s book “Private Government”
Even if the are more efficient, they earned the regarding profit for a small number of people, who has to much. For the society it is a loose loose. The services become more expensive and it lead to a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, whitch is even worse for the society and the economy.
But mail
R u talking about musk?
How dare u!
My guy. The government can't even make a budget and gave trillions of dollars away to commit genocide. They're both bad but the government is worse.
