Unemployment at a 26 year high (9.7%)

[ManusJustus]

mrstickball said:

ManusJustus said:

mrstickball said:
Manus -

On one end, you argue about the abuse of market power should companies exert a monopoly or monosopy. Why is this any different if the government exerts the monopoly?

The difference is accountability.  If a private company has a monopoly, the company can charge whatever price they want and deliver whatever quality of good they want, and the consumer has no choice but to purchase the good.  If the government has a monopoly, they need to balance price and quality with consumer expectations (similar to what a private business would do in a competitive market), and if politicians fail to do so then will have to answer to the public.  Note that this phenomenon is not unique to democracies, even a dictarotship/monarchy like Saudi Arabia wants to keep the price of government provided goods (oil) down to keep the populous happy.

Yet in America it doesn't work when government took over public education (costs are rising, quality of care is declining) or pensions (public are atrocious compared to state or private).

I don't understand the idea of accountability. Monopolies are bad regardless of what you want to argue for accountability. The government has been accountable for DECADES and yet nothing has improved. How exactly are they accountable? The fact is there's no competitive market when there's a monopoly - government or otherwise. I don't think you can honestly look at the US example of federally-run programs and think for a moment that their monopolies are something wonderful. This is why I advocate competition in these fields the government has so woefully failed at.

There are cultural and methodological differences, so not everything a country does will be as efficient as it could or should be.  Just because the United States government has failed doesnt mean any government would fail, which is apparent when we look at examples where other governments, such as the United Kingdom or Australia, have succeeded in those same areas.

Think about monopolies this way, lets consider a water company with a monopoly (or to be more specific a regional monopoly).  Would you rather have a greedy businessman be in control of the water company, or would you rather a mayor who is running for re-election in a year be in control of the water company?  Its no suprise that since the businessman is not accountable to the consumer at all, he will make price and quality decisions to maximize his profit.  However, the mayor needs the price and quality of water to be at a level where it will not negatively influence his bid for re-election. 

In both instances it is personal greed that is the driving mechanism, the businessman wanting to make as much money as he can and the mayor wanting power through being re-elected, but the greed of the mayor works in favor of the consumer whereas the greed of the businessman does not.