freediver wrote on May 17
th, 2022 at 9:30pm:
Quote:As often as not we get the argument that privatisation forces the price down though we know that isn't true either.
It forces the cost down. The price under government control is entirely arbitrary. Whatever they think will win the most votes.
Quote:You have some examples of this happening.
A public education is free. That does not mean it has no cost, or that you do not pay for it.
I would have thought all of this is bleeding obvious.
All of this is bleeding obvious but it is a poor example which seems to be outside of your proposition and hence does not answer the question.
Quote:They set the price to win votes, not to cover their costs.
How many votes are in Free public education and where is the expectation that it should cover costs?
The bleeding obvious does not support your claim as far as I can see. The example seems to be outside the scope of the claim.
Maybe you could do something with power or telecommunications but the issue there is that they all made greater government profits before they were privatised. Privatisation cost the country in government income quality of service and cost to the end users. So I guess maybe not so much there either.
Banking ? Well damn - another disaster with an out of control financial sector thumbing their nose at government direction and acting more like a banking cartel than competitors.