Some things - transportation, water, healthcare... basically, all the traditional public services - are not suited to the private market bc the desired outcome is accessibility and quality of service, not profit. It's really not that hard.
When people talk about how public trains or whatever will be more "efficiently" run by the private sector, they just mean that the private sector will raise prices so poor people can't use it, and cut all the employee's pensions. For some reason economists call this efficiency.
-
-
-
Capitalism has proven pretty good at getting more people more of what they want. It has proven catastrophically bad at providing all people with what they need.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Economist definition of efficiency has nothing to do with justice or human needs only people who want something exchanging exactly as much as they are willing to pay for a good with no interference
-
This isn't really true. Pareto efficiency is based on a liberal version of justice. It's just that their theory that competition produces efficiency are empirically false.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Public transport can and should be free.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It efficiently funnels money upwards.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They don't call it efficiency, they just deny their theories about what produces efficiency have been consistently falsified. Market competition indeed does not produce efficiency but rather oligarchy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Of course they think it's efficient, who else would the extra profit from the raised prices and slashed benefits go to? The public? Now THAT would be inefficient!
-
(/s for that last bit, in case it isn't obvious)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.