Definitely more efficient than NASA today. But private companies wouldn’t have been able to pull off the moon landing, which was NASA’s great accomplishment.
There’s a place for government programs and enormous piles of money.
SpaceX does one thing though… Well, three things. Rocket development, launch services and starlink.
NASA does a whole lot more, they have 10 times as many employees and far more suppliers than SpaceX does. SpaceX is basically a service provider for NASA.
This is kind of like saying that Lockheed Martin is more efficient than the department of defense.
Ok… So what does NASA do that overlaps with SpaceX? Apparently nothing. NASA is 100% dependent on private rockets. Are we supposed to call that a win or a loss?
Well one metric would be cost per kg to get something into space. I also recall a lot of people dying when NASA first started going into space, of which SpaceX has not had any rockets explode with people in them, but I’m not impaired enough to make that false equivalence like you did with Mars.
Of course my comment is false equivalence, because the initial assertion is false equivalence.
You can’t compare NASA and Spacex because they have different goals. NASA even contract many of their payloads to Spacex, which they wouldn’t do if they were in the same business.
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.
What do you think have been the successful privatizations in the UK. To my mind none of the big ones. I guess the little ones that work we don’t hear too much about.
A lot of subjectivity about what is a success or not, but I would say many nationalised companies (and most were only nationalised for 20-30 years) were absolutely stagnating and/or suffering from widespread union disruption and should have been cut loose. But just picking out a handful of privatisations that went well, I think British Telecom, British Gas & British Airways did much better as privatized companies. Some privatisations went not-so-well - look at steel or coal privatisations or British Rail.
And an example of successful nationalisation - hospitals & doctors were a loose arrangement of private / charitable causes before being nationalised as the NHS. I think we can agree the situation is far better for everyone as a public health service than if it were run for-profit.
I think the way energy markets work is pretty cool, where you have an independent regulatory entity that operates a market, with very strict control measures and compliance monitoring. That way you take advantage of market incentives but you still own it. China’s “hold on to the big, free the small” economic policy is interesting as well.
In the end privatizing means maximizing for profits and not other quality factors though. It would be great if that would lead to increased value and quality of service, but that’s not the reality in our current form of capitalism. Here, it leads to saving costs whereever possible, which finally implies loss of quality.
When it comes to infrastructure like train networks, telecommunication lines or postal services and critical services like hospitals, privatizing is the worst you can do from my point of view. Living in Germany, I see plenty of such examples. Our train service got incredibly worse since it was privatized, hospitals have severe issues on multiple fronts, and let’s not forget how we are extremely sucking with the modernization and upkeep of our telecommunication infrastructure.
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:
Government consultant here. The federal government does nothing if it is not military related or medical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Everything they produce is done via contract. That includes leadership which is queued up using consulting. Sure, they make the decisions but that’s not management or the visionary leadership people think it is. It’s all contract management.
Eh, you can quickly create a new division/bureau/area and hire for the new roll and when it doesn’t work out you can fire easily. That ain’t possible within government where everything is governed by statue or rule
You are wishing for the Argentine’s recuperation and well being and not for their further downfall and demise that could cost even more lives than the previous government took, right?
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.
My biggest worry about private prisons is that it incentives making more things illegal, longer sentences, disregard for recidivism rates, etc. There have already been cases of judges taking kickbacks from private detention facilities to hand out longer sentences. I guess this is a case of private companies corrupting government though. Government contracting stuff out to private companies is probably the worst of both worlds.
That is a completely legitimate concern. It’s important to note that even if prisons are publicly run, there’s still a bunch of private actors in the prison system in the form of the people who work in it. Prison worker unions and police unions lobby for more laws already to protect their jobs. Private prisons might make that aspect worse, but it’s not like it’s perfect now.
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!
Why wouldn’t there be warlords? I’m not sure how this comment follows. Without a government, you get both eggs in one basket, which the original commenter agrees is bad.
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.
Something like aggressive taxes on the uber-rich and comprehensive welfare for the poor, y’know?
This is why aggressive estate taxes are so incredibly critical. People shouldn’t be professional descendants. And of course welfare provides both ladder and safety net. The fools who are trying to abolish one or both are working against social mobility.
Afraid to say this but that college course was capitalist propaganda. When you look at the actual facts it points to capitalism being trash in every metric except cancer-like growth for the sake of cancer-like growth, which of course it’s good at because that’s what it was designed for.
That’s a survivorship bias. Running a small group is easier, of course, than a large organization (though I’m not sure how much this get offset by the large organization having more resources and the advantage of size), but I suspect there is something else going on there. When there are small groups, there can be many small groups, and the inefficient ones can die leaving only the successful efficient ones. Large organizations are too often “too big to fail”.
It’s not just that. You want businesses to be able to fail if they are being run poorly. That’s something that’s a lot harder with government agencies, state owned enterprises, and large companies.
government agencies: People rely on them by design. You can’t simply shut down the health care or welfare system because it’s being run poorly or corruptly.
state owned enterprises: There is pressure from the ruling class to keep even inefficiently run or corrupt SOE going because they provide jobs and patronage.
large companies: They become systemically important. The loss of a single large business can cascade through the economy. See: Lehman Brothers or the big auto companies during the 2008 crash.
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.
Yesterday an American accidentally admitted that they tip their landlord. It was at that point I said to myself “man you fuckers deserve to suffer under whatever republican you end up voting for next election because we all know that’s what you dumb ass motherfuckers are going to do”
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.
Ah I wasn’t clear. I don’t mean government as in Democrats or Republicans. I mean government associations like US Army Corps of Engineers or the US Postal Service.
Maybe we should start a US Army Climate Battalion or something to sound cool and get funding 🤔.
Iirc the military (American, of course) is actually prepping for climate change. They might be evil but they do have to acknowledge the reality around them if they want to keep bombing innocent civilians or whatever it is they are up to these days.
People forget that ‘efficient’ in a capitalist sense means that all resources are used. So when you privatize security, prisons, public transport, etc. guess what happens: those companies try to extract as much value as possible and do as little as possible. Because that is what capitalist efficiency is.
A private company is absolutely more efficient than a government. The boss simply says “this is what we’re doing” and that’s it – it’s just a question of what goal they’re efficiently pursuing.
The problem is that intelligent, empathetic, and selfless people rarely rise to those positions. The few that do usually get pushed out of business by ruthless assholes.
I dont think that private corps with tens of thousands of employees can do that at all. Private companies also have committees and working groups and different departments that dont talk to each other (despite the committees), and policies that people follow even though the policy hasnt been good for years.
The boss says “this is what we’re doing” and then it takes years for those hundreds of departments and tens of thousands of people to do it. Or they dont do it, because they disagree with the boss and the boss is far away from any work that they have no idea if people are doing it or not. Or they sorta do it, but then a new boss comes in and has a different plan.
Despite the dictatorship of the owner in a private corporation, actually implementing a thing, especially a new thing, does take a lot of time.
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.
Except they didn’t. Whomever purchased the stock initially did, and often that amount is a shadow of what the stock is currently traded at.
It’s also a figure that’s been repaid over and over again as dividends have been paid.
With government organizations, the public, aka debt devices, aka the public wallet, pays for the initial investment. Once that investment is made it pays for itself over and over in goods and services over the lifetime of the investment.
Shareholders are basically the landlords of wall street. They contribute nothing and feel like they deserve everything.
Except they didn’t. Whomever [sic] purchased the stock initially did, and often that amount is a shadow of what the stock is currently traded at.
This ignores two other very important roles that subsequent shareholders play:
Give initial investors the opportunity re-deploy their capital elsewhere when they choose to do so.
Signal the value of the company’s equity, in real time, on the open market. When the stock is trading above IPO price (as your rebuttal implies), this enables the company to raise more capital by borrowing against its equity and/or selling shares of its own stock.
In light of these critical roles, it’s vastly unfair to say that shareholders contribute nothing to the delivery of goods and services—quite the opposite.
For the kids reading at home, this is what an ad hominem attack looks like—a logical fallacy in which one attacks their opponent personally instead of addressing the merits of their argument.
While I agree with you completely, the argument for a counter-point would be that exactly because the private company should create as much profit for the owners as possible - it has to be as lean / efficient as possible.
That is not true for “the goverment” as profit is not an encentive to rationalize the work process.
What I find interesting are goverment agencies that operate on both levels. A great example is Ordenance Survey in UK. While they provide a public service, they also sell some of their products commercially to cover some operating costs (hiking maps etc.).
because the private company should create as much profit for the owners as possible - it has to be as lean / efficient as possible.
Yeah but no. It would be if the owner/shareholders weren’t skimming of the top. The process may be lean but the pricing is designed to maximize and take as much as the market will bear. Which undoes the benefit the efficiency could bring to a public service.
Add comment