The limits of the ' Free Market', and why greens favour a Mixed Economy.
The idea is that we could turn practically everything that the government does to the private sector and let busines people take over. hell, some people would cross out the word ' practically' - we don't need a government at all, according to them. So lets go take a look at a bit of History and see what come up.
In the days when the State had a monopoly on telephones, if you left home and rang from your parents place that you had a new flat, and could the phone company connect a phone please, you were told that it would take about 6 months and cost you a hundred quid. I mean, who else was there to go to? You had to wait for the one supplier in the land to get their act together and no one else could do it for you. What incentive was there for the GPO to get their act together and be more efficient? None.
Anyway, enter Mrs Thatcher, and the era of privatisation. Suddenly, anyone could enter the telephones industry, and lots of people did. The last time we tried to get a phone fitted, it would cost nothing - and the job was done within the same week. Competition keeps everyone on their toes, see. you shape up and improve ,or you go bust. So, from a consumer POV, you have choices and you back the one who offers the best choice. If you want a phone fitted - the market works. If the market seems to be able to deliver anything and everything cheaper than the public sector, why not let them take over and run the whole show?
Well, this is a partial answer - fill in other details as you see fit.
1) The market tends to take money from the consumer and give it mainly to the CEOs , and not the workers.
One banker in the UK was named "Fred the Shred" - he got the moniker by sacking whole layers of admin, cutting back numbers in the workforce and left the remaining few to handle the same amount of work. For this, he was able to pocket the difference.
Customers never got a cheaper service, but workers got a lay off, and he got a rise.
people out of work are a drain on the community as they don't pay income tax. "Shredding" jobs is a bad move from society's POV.
2) The market is only willing to take up a mission where there is a payoff - preferable big and quick.
You want your tonsils out? It only takes an afternoon. tons of private clinics in the Uk will step up and take your cash if that's what you want.
long term care of the elderly and chronically sick, or terminally ill patients? Er, less payback. What there is is slow in coming. Not so many takers. Sorry.
You want a phone connecting in Greater London? No problem. You want a Post Office to be open all year round in a remote country village?No way.
The post office has to be run as a public service - otherwise, the rural comunity of farmers and such get no mail delivery at all, and the nearest mail box will be a few hours drive away. Low or non existent profit margins mean that government subsidises postal services and deliveries to rural areas. Where Post Offices are also places to buy TV licences, collect State Pensions, etc, this means trouble if the Govt. tries to cut the subsidy back.
3)The community may need something real bad - and be willing to pay, but can't raise the cash. The market runs on money. No money, no service. It would be nice to live inside a gated community, or have private bodyguards when you go shopping, but the market cannot provide this for everyone, so most of us have to make do with the Police force as it is.
4) Duplication of effort. Back in the days when Jane Austen was writing books and Nelson was ruling the seas while Napoleon Bonaparte ruled France, Britain had a Private Fire Service - several, in fact. If you owned a nice house in town, you paid to have it insured. And the insurance company ran a fire truck. Ok, it was horse drawn, the pumps were manual operation, but it was a proper fire truck that could put out a fire, manned by trained firefighters.
But if the house next door caught fire, nobody was going to stop the blaze till it reached your property. Every firm had it's own mark that was displayed on the front of the house insured. If the wrong company turned up first at your fire, too bad. They would not act, you had to wait for your own team to arrive.
This went on for some time until we had a single fire service in every area, staffed by professionals who would tackle any blaze in any situation. This model was eventually adopted as standard throughout the world. Nobody has ever accused the fire service of being inefficient - mind you, I suspect that firefighters are not the sort of people who you would find in the average office. I also think the same goes for cops and the military.
As a footnote, the UK also has what we call the Lifeboat Institute. If a ship or boat is in danger off the coast of Britain, a Lifeboat will put to sea in an attempt to save lives and recover the vessel. This is all done by a team of volunteers. The men who crew lifeboats for the Royal National Lifeboat Institute are fishermen, farmers and other private citizens, who take the time to learn the skills of seamanship together and set themselves against the elements as an act of public service. I don't know if other countries have such an arrangement, but we do here in the UK. Any political party or philosophy that wants to embrace the Free Market should not overlook the contribution made by public spirited volunteers such as these. Nor should should it overlook the shortcomings of the Free Market system in the instances cited above.
For these reasons, the Green Party in England and Wales advocates a Mixed Economy. We would keep things like Post Offices open as a public service, while allowing private enterprise to operate where it was clearly in the interest of the whole communiity. I personally would see to it that volunteer organisations like the RNLI got some share of public funding, but with no strings attached to how they spent their money - a nation's grateful thanks are fine, but a couple of hundred grand for new boats and radios would be more appreciated, I think.
The volunteer ethos needs to be spread throughout the public service industries, though. Not everyone in the public services is as public spirited as the RNLI, or the fire brigade, or the military, in my experience of working in it. A better management style and a different service culture is needed, I feel.
In the days when the State had a monopoly on telephones, if you left home and rang from your parents place that you had a new flat, and could the phone company connect a phone please, you were told that it would take about 6 months and cost you a hundred quid. I mean, who else was there to go to? You had to wait for the one supplier in the land to get their act together and no one else could do it for you. What incentive was there for the GPO to get their act together and be more efficient? None.
Anyway, enter Mrs Thatcher, and the era of privatisation. Suddenly, anyone could enter the telephones industry, and lots of people did. The last time we tried to get a phone fitted, it would cost nothing - and the job was done within the same week. Competition keeps everyone on their toes, see. you shape up and improve ,or you go bust. So, from a consumer POV, you have choices and you back the one who offers the best choice. If you want a phone fitted - the market works. If the market seems to be able to deliver anything and everything cheaper than the public sector, why not let them take over and run the whole show?
Well, this is a partial answer - fill in other details as you see fit.
1) The market tends to take money from the consumer and give it mainly to the CEOs , and not the workers.
One banker in the UK was named "Fred the Shred" - he got the moniker by sacking whole layers of admin, cutting back numbers in the workforce and left the remaining few to handle the same amount of work. For this, he was able to pocket the difference.
Customers never got a cheaper service, but workers got a lay off, and he got a rise.
people out of work are a drain on the community as they don't pay income tax. "Shredding" jobs is a bad move from society's POV.
2) The market is only willing to take up a mission where there is a payoff - preferable big and quick.
You want your tonsils out? It only takes an afternoon. tons of private clinics in the Uk will step up and take your cash if that's what you want.
long term care of the elderly and chronically sick, or terminally ill patients? Er, less payback. What there is is slow in coming. Not so many takers. Sorry.
You want a phone connecting in Greater London? No problem. You want a Post Office to be open all year round in a remote country village?No way.
The post office has to be run as a public service - otherwise, the rural comunity of farmers and such get no mail delivery at all, and the nearest mail box will be a few hours drive away. Low or non existent profit margins mean that government subsidises postal services and deliveries to rural areas. Where Post Offices are also places to buy TV licences, collect State Pensions, etc, this means trouble if the Govt. tries to cut the subsidy back.
3)The community may need something real bad - and be willing to pay, but can't raise the cash. The market runs on money. No money, no service. It would be nice to live inside a gated community, or have private bodyguards when you go shopping, but the market cannot provide this for everyone, so most of us have to make do with the Police force as it is.
4) Duplication of effort. Back in the days when Jane Austen was writing books and Nelson was ruling the seas while Napoleon Bonaparte ruled France, Britain had a Private Fire Service - several, in fact. If you owned a nice house in town, you paid to have it insured. And the insurance company ran a fire truck. Ok, it was horse drawn, the pumps were manual operation, but it was a proper fire truck that could put out a fire, manned by trained firefighters.
But if the house next door caught fire, nobody was going to stop the blaze till it reached your property. Every firm had it's own mark that was displayed on the front of the house insured. If the wrong company turned up first at your fire, too bad. They would not act, you had to wait for your own team to arrive.
This went on for some time until we had a single fire service in every area, staffed by professionals who would tackle any blaze in any situation. This model was eventually adopted as standard throughout the world. Nobody has ever accused the fire service of being inefficient - mind you, I suspect that firefighters are not the sort of people who you would find in the average office. I also think the same goes for cops and the military.
As a footnote, the UK also has what we call the Lifeboat Institute. If a ship or boat is in danger off the coast of Britain, a Lifeboat will put to sea in an attempt to save lives and recover the vessel. This is all done by a team of volunteers. The men who crew lifeboats for the Royal National Lifeboat Institute are fishermen, farmers and other private citizens, who take the time to learn the skills of seamanship together and set themselves against the elements as an act of public service. I don't know if other countries have such an arrangement, but we do here in the UK. Any political party or philosophy that wants to embrace the Free Market should not overlook the contribution made by public spirited volunteers such as these. Nor should should it overlook the shortcomings of the Free Market system in the instances cited above.
For these reasons, the Green Party in England and Wales advocates a Mixed Economy. We would keep things like Post Offices open as a public service, while allowing private enterprise to operate where it was clearly in the interest of the whole communiity. I personally would see to it that volunteer organisations like the RNLI got some share of public funding, but with no strings attached to how they spent their money - a nation's grateful thanks are fine, but a couple of hundred grand for new boats and radios would be more appreciated, I think.
The volunteer ethos needs to be spread throughout the public service industries, though. Not everyone in the public services is as public spirited as the RNLI, or the fire brigade, or the military, in my experience of working in it. A better management style and a different service culture is needed, I feel.