I am finding it difficult to have a sensible debate about where the optimum dividing line between 'government' and 'private sector' is. To my mind, it is fairly clear cut. It is not so much a question of one being better or worse, it is a question of each having things which is does better, and woe betide us if the line is crossed in either direction.
For some reason, people don't want to have the debate. They would rather choose examples where either side has clearly crossed the line (and inevitably messed up) and say "Yah boo sucks! That proves that the government/private sector is better at running things!" Nope. These examples merely illustrate where the line is (or should be drawn).
This applies to right wing as well as left wing commenters, they are both deaf in one ear. To pick a couple of examples from my previous post:
From the right:
Sobers: Nonsense [during the Golden Age of Capitalism] the State owned pretty much the entire 'commanding heights of the economy' during that period (Mines, steel mills, railways, road transport, docks, shipbuilding, power generation and distribution, telecoms etc etc). There was no way the State was merely sticking to building the infrastructure allowing the private sector to grow, it controlled the majority of the economy. And as for doing their best, we all know what happened to the mines, the steel mills, the railways, the shipbuilders etc.
From the left:
DBC Reed: Then there was the brilliant fire fighting system: you insured with one of several companies. They turned out in their falling to bits machines (a feature of privatised bus services too btw) but if the fire spread to non insured houses next door ,the whole row burnt down. Much amusement was to be had when rival crews turned up to adjacent buildings and then fought each other over the fire hydrant (who provided that?) The houses burnt down while they finished each other off.
Bayard does his best to steer a middle path in the comments - to little avail.
AFAIC, Sobers and DBC, despite thinking they are taking opposing points of view are doing no such thing. They are, inadvertently, merely illustrating where the dividing line is (or should be drawn).
Taking Sobers' list:
Stuff like mines, steel mills, ship building, electricity generation and telecoms belong in the private sector. So of course the government messed it all up. There are UK specific reasons why the government got so heavily involved in these (mainly hangovers from WW2).
Transport infrastructure i.e. the actual railways (as distinct from the trains), roads, docks and electricity distribution are of national concern and the government should either provide them for the benefit of everybody (producers and consumers alike), or at least keep its beady eye on private providers because there is too much opportunity for private rent seeking.
These things are run by the state in most countries, and by and large, they lead to better outcomes than the government just shrugging its shoulders and saying that if there's demand for these things then the private sector will sort it out.
DBC gives the example of private fire brigades.
Clearly, the fire brigade is a public service. As I have explained to him half a dozen times, the fire brigade is not there for the benefit of the idiot who sets fire to his own house; it is there for the benefit of his neighbours. Which is why, in most countries, the government runs the fire brigade.
So the fire brigade example does not prove that 'the private sector is bad at running things', it is merely an illustration of something that should be run by the government.
Debate Magazine
