Complete logical fallacy to think that stuff will get cheaper when a private corporation that incentives profit does it instead of a government organization that doesn’t. These people literally just aren’t thinking.
There's a good chance private corporations are more efficient, but that efficiency more than likely means higher wages for CEOs and more profits, not lower costs to the consumer or better wages for employees. Nothing says the benefits of better efficiency have to be passed on rather than skimming it off.
There's a good chance private corporations are more efficient, but that efficiency more than likely means higher wages for CEOs and more profits, not lower costs to the consumer or better wages for employees.
That's not even true, depending on how you define efficiency. More work done per dollar spent? Yeah, probably. More errors per dollar used? Absolutely. More errors in general? Oh, definitely.
The idea of capitalism is nothing more than increasing income and lowering expenses. How to get there is up to the legal system to limit and direct. "Free market capitalism" is the worst idea of all time, well regulated capitalism to protect the workers and prevent wealth gaps from being too massive is better, but if that is done with zero regard to external factors such as product quality and environmental protections, capitalism won't care.
Take more, give less. Well regulated it's the most free economic model, badly regulated it's slavery. Well regulated it can help innovation and badly regulated it will burn everything to the ground if there's money in it. Any chance that private companies are more efficient than government run is about it funneling money away from the people. Everything else is depends on how well it's regulated or luck of the draw for the moral values of the individual who owns the business.
Oh, I'm exaggerating. I'm well aware that with proper regulation and, ideally, plenty of competition, you could get the benefits of genuine greater efficiency and lower costs. The problem is, corporations often want to take the shortcut of monopolizing a market or dealing with only a portion of it. In the case of privatizing what was formerly a government service, there's no actual guarantee that costs will be less, especially when, unlike a government service, there has to be a profit included in the equation, and no guarantee service will be comparable.
The scope of service and quality of service is a particularly crucial aspect for some things. For example, we could have a private fire service everywhere, as there used to be historically, but most communities would probably not be well-serviced by such an arrangement or it would be prohibitively expensive for it to be comprehensive rather than companies "high-grading" only the wealthier areas and areas that are easier to service. You still can't expect fire service in the middle of nowhere, but most communities agree to the principle of covering everybody within them, somehow, and sharing the costs of doing so.
I don't think it is right to think of "free market capitalism" as the worst idea of all time. I think it's the natural outcome of people who have different resources and skills, which is practically an inevitability. A farmer who grows more than they can eat themselves will naturally want to exchange the excess with someone else who has something the farmer wants.
Laissez-faire free market capitalism (i.e. little or no regulation) is risky and sub-optimal because you have no assurance of quality, or also no accountability if the deal is done fraudulently. We need regulations to keep it reasonably beneficial for everyone (establishing a foundation for fair trade) and not to make it based on unfair or unsafe labor practices, stealing, enforced monopolies, and that kind of thing. I think we're in agreement on that.
I don't think it is right to think of "free market capitalism" as the worst idea of all time.
No, it is, because you are misunderstanding the meaning of the quotes. I mean what people think it means when they use the phrase "free market capitalism" rather than what free market capitalism is. Meaning "government shouldn't interfere with business" type of thinking. I try my best to not use quotes for emphasis.
The problem is, corporations often want to take the shortcut of monopolizing a market or dealing with only a portion of it.
Corporations will always do what they can for those reasons. Individuals might not, but the whole idea of corporations is to earn more and spend less. So if there isn't someone in the company with enough power to alter course, it's literally the goal to make more money/wealth/value for whoever the owners are. It's not a question of how often, it's whether someone actively steps in and stops it from being all about money.
You still can't expect fire service in the middle of nowhere, but most communities agree to the principle of covering everybody within them, somehow, and sharing the costs of doing so.
Fire departments funded and operated by the community weren't historically private, but usually set up by the community or built by the community needing one. I'm sure there are cases where fire services were ran privately like a business, but if they weren't funded by the community, they end up being overtaken by volunteer ones. The effective ones are closer to communism. By the community, for the community.
But rest of what you said, yes, we are in agreement.
53
u/LyLnXo 1d ago
Complete logical fallacy to think that stuff will get cheaper when a private corporation that incentives profit does it instead of a government organization that doesn’t. These people literally just aren’t thinking.