"Should we privatize this thing?"
And
"Should we give control over this thing to an unelected rich person who has no reason to act in the public good?"
Are exactly the same question
@researchfairy "ok you see the free market produces better solutions because of competition, so that's why we're giving an exclusive contract for providing this public service to a single company"
@waitworry @researchfairy
The trains are privatised which is why if I don't like the train company I will drive to the next county and take the train in a completely different direction from where I want to go.
@econads @waitworry @researchfairy Rail’s an interesting case. Allowing multiple, potentially private operators, to directly compete, can have benefits, but rail infrastructure needs to be something like a public good to allow such a market. Railway privatisation results in a natural monopoly, which worsens outcomes. In effect, a market requires public ownership, which is not what economic orthodoxy would indicate.
@janef0421 @waitworry @researchfairy
Yes thank you that was basically my point. Privatisation doesn't work for the passenger with rail, and I doubt it would even if different operators would run the same routes.
The competition generated by the privatisation of in theory rail serves the government because it can get bids for the lowest cost, but the government is not passengers. Temporarily nationalised services when an operator goes out of business tend to improve the outcomes.
@waitworry @researchfairy "The free market is much more efficient than government could ever be. We have to get rid of any publicly-owned option so that the free market can be viable."