Inspired by comments in an old entry by a new subscription
Not all private organizations are solely profit motivated. Some of the worst modern american for profit corporations fit your bill, but that’s hardly the be all and end all of private organizations. The ACLU, food not bombs, EFF, etc, are all private organizations.
Furthermore, alot of private businesses do not have a corporate motto of ‘damn compassion, profit or death.’ Particularly small businesses, family businesses, whatever. Sometimes people set up businesses to do what they love doing. I suspect a minority of corporations are the poluting, unsafe child labor using, political boundary rearranging bastards we all love to hate.
Government organizations are not inherently less efficient than market organizations. Particularly not when you consider the risks of monopolistic competition, barriers to entry, and externalities and every other market failure. The market being defined and its rules being enforced by the government, the government is a great source of efficiency.
This view of “Private organizations are greedy, evil bastards, but ruthlessly good at what they do, while public organizations are bureaucratic and inefficient, well-intentioned, but ineffective, money hemmoraging behemoths,” is simplification well beyond the point of deception.
Every time you commute to work, every time you log on and read your journal, every time you pay for anything, and every time you walk or drive safely along the city streets without fear of mugging or murder, think of the government, and tell me how useless it is.
Particularly not when you consider the risks of monopolistic competition, barriers to entry, and externalities and every other market failure.
Wow, in reference to that. I found it interesting. I was talking to my grad school friends the other day and they were talking about how, since they’ve come close to finishing with a degree in arts management, they’ve noticed that different things interest them. their conversations are about market research and competetive pressures. and i was like, “whatever, you guys are boring! i haven’t changed a bit!”
it’s clear by my interest in this post that yes, i have changed. it’s good. i am interested in my industry and that includes business-y type things.
sorry, random.
Things definitely change. When I was a geek, I loved talking politics to other geeks, and violent agreement was the norm. Now that I’m more wonkish, the political alignment with the nerds is greatly reduced. Not that I don’t still have geek in me, but now it’s not alone. =)
I love it when people argue that EVERYTHING is more efficient in a competitive free market, especially basic services. Look how satisfied HMO customers are! Wouldn’t it also be groovy if you could consider competing bids from rival fire departments when you need one? Frankly, I’d rather “buy” those products at cost through my taxes than subsidize their advertising budgets and obsession with industry growth models.
Every time you commute to work
as steve knows, this is a sore point for me – i cannot resist a chance to complain about the nycta’s transit service. the at-least-once-a-week long delays, skipping of service, etc, just on my short single-train hop…
the reason i’m replying to you, and not him, is to also mention that the nycta actually advertises….
in other words, there is a side of things (sometimes) where somehow, because of lack of competition, a service becomes slothful and does not care as long as it is just barely doing enough to not draw attention to itself and demand need for a replacement/revamping. sort of like the bad-stereotype communist worker.
amtrak also somehow springs to mind…
That’s certainly true. I guess public and private services suffer from different forms of waste/inefficiency/stupidity. My original comment was mostly referring to how services like private medical care suffer because the decisions makers are rewarded for cutting costs, even at the expense of quality of service, since it’s not exactly a free market where people can freely choose between providers. Plus, their calculations are based on profit/growth, so you’re paying for that in addition to the cost of service.
I was thinking about listing cars separately (roads, traffic signs & lights, the cops that protect you from the lunatics that would cause a 20 car pile up, and arguably the protection of the oil supply) from trains (rather more obvious), but my point was the government does things that no private organization would ever provide effectively which benefits everyone in ways most of us don’t think about.
i see your point. i’m honestly on the fence on these issues (because i don’t feel i know enough about this, honestly), but i’ll argue what i see as devil’s advocate here.
essentially, the point would be that government started up as something resembling a private organization… it’s become public now, and is viewed differently because of that, but there is some merit, i think, to the argument that services which are not provided for but have a real need will get provided somehow.
unless you have people in power in whose interests it would be to prevent the provisions..
but maybe you see my point?
*just reminded of all the complains i’ve heard from canadians about their health care*
i don’t think it’s ever going to be clear-cut, and i think maybe that arguing one way or the other, in such a general fashion, is missing the point. really, there will always be good and bad examples of any given thing being performed efficiently or inefficiently by both private and public organizations.
and it’ll be even harder to decide when the communist/capitalist systems come into play – distribution based on perceived merit vs equal distribution vs other distribution.
This is a case like arguing white people are dumb, and black people are smart. We can both come up with examples and counterexamples. The very essence of “the plural of anecdote is not evidence.”
The real point here is that “government bad, business good” or conversely “business bad, government good” are two blind men in a room hitting one another with sticks over their descriptions of the color blue. It’s a senseless argument.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of business and what are the strengths and weaknesses of government? That’s getting a little closer to something sensible.
One of the little epiphanies I had in the fall was on the notion of the free market v government. The ideal free market has infinite little minds distributing the decision task, so that an uncountable number of decisions are being made in parallel, mostly by the people directly affected by the decisions being made. This is good in that Suzy can pick her favorite brand of syrup. This is bad, in that Suzy doesn’t have to care that the syrup was produced in a dangerous plant employing child labor, and tainting the water of half of vermont, and shortening people’s lives with cancer (theoretical example). Suzy’s decision to buy from another company won’t save the cancer victims, but it can lead to tastier pancakes for Suzy.
Whereas government involves a small number of people making decisions that affect large numbers of people. It’s centralizing power, but also, it’s centralizing the need for time and attention in decision making. They can’t tailor their decisions to the individual. Not efficiently, anyway. They can stop the company from ruining the watershed in vermont, but they can’t find a substitute for the thousands of Suzys who now have to find a new syrup.
The market is great at certain things. Government is great at certain things. Anyone who tells you either one is an inherently terrible thing is an idealogue who can’t see past the end of their nose.
The market is a creature of the government, but the government is also a creation of a demand for structure in society. A market, if you will.
Also, I think you’d really like “exit, voice, and loyalty”. Check it out some time. =)