John Stossel in
this article pretty much sums up why I think the government should keep it's grubby, in efficient hands out of healthcare, agriculture, education (at least to less of a degree than it already does), transportation, space exploration, and pretty much everything else it has taken upon itself to remove from the private sector without
(
Read more... )
Comments 53
Reply
*closes can of worms*
*sits on it*
No, you cannot open the can. Not yours.
Reply
Reply
Reply
That said, I agree that our government should generally not be running businesses. It's supposed to create laws, enforce laws, and incorporate the necessities to make #1 and #2 possible. However, that does not preclude regulation. Without regulation, greed causes corruption and the rest of us lose for it.
Reply
Reply
Also, as I noted, the USPS is financially profitable--I don't think it is considered "subsidized" if it generates more revenue that it costs to run.
Reply
Reply
Generally the government is inefficient because it does not have the luxury of cutting out the hard parts of running a country. Any private sector organization that was charged to cover the same responsibilities as the government would be just as inefficient only with less oversight and beholden to noone but their shareholders.
Reply
Reply
-- Steve's a Keynesian, and the current crop of Neocon buffoons doesn't look likely to change that opinion.
Reply
Education for example.
Sure, private schools might be more efficient at teaching individual students. Part of the reason for that is that poor children cannot afford private schools. The private schools likewise do not have to accept "problem children", also usually poor.
But privatizing all school would not lead to better education for the poor, it would not bring better education to ALL children. It would lead to NO education for MANY children. I don't think that's a more efficient method of developing an educated society. Though yes, it probably would improve average test scores.
Reply
Reply
I have mixed feelings about school choice. On the one hand it helps individual students get better education. Yet the funding for it bleeds public schools of the very money they need in order to properly educate. How can you really say that a public school is failing when it operates on 1/10 the budget of a private school? Of course it can't perform at the same level. It can't attract the good teachers, it can't buy new books or provide students with access to computers. Nor can it give students the extra-curricular activities that improve involvement and academic performance.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment