Neither is obviously more efficient than the other overall, it depends on the structure and the incentives. People worry about private prisons for example. If you make it so the government sends people to prisons and you pay the prison a fixed rate per prisoner, of course you're gonna get skimping on services by the prisons. If you instead give the prisoner a voucher for a prison and make them pick where they go and prisons get money per voucher they get from prisoners, you're gonna get competition on quality so you'll get high quality prisons. Opposite outcomes with just a change to incentives.

This is something you really can't say one way or the other.

I could cite examples of sick, failing government owned companies that did better under privatization, or simply shouldn't have been governments owned in the first place. On the other hand, I could cite disastrous privatization efforts that should never have happened because they were vital services, or in the national interest. I lived through most of it in the UK when they were privatising stuff left right and centre - some succeeded, others didn't.

And if they stay under the control of government then they need incentivization and means for measuring success. Success doesn't just mean profit but it does mean value and quality of service. And in some ways that would require operating similar to if it were a private company.

looks at ICBC, BC Hydro and BC Ferries.

Looks at how Canadian ISPs led the world in early internet technology then once privatized, ignored it and allowed Nortel to be infiltrated and shut down by CCP spies, allowing then to steal 5G technology.

Hell, in Vancouver you have the private Canada /RAV line, and the public Skytrain line. One was built in the 1980s and isn't at capacity yet and the private one was finished in 2008 and is already over capacity.

Yeah there really is 0 comparison between public and private.

Corruption is the issue when governments are involved with capital. Social inequality is the issue when private owners control the capital.

My view is that having an army and control over the capital is too many eggs in the same basket.

Even if it was more efficient on average it still would have major costs associated with privatization, namely ceding control from the public.

Having worked on both sides. Private industry has the ability to quickly maneuver and change tact.

Imo

The government should not be efficient. The faster it moves the faster it can oppress.

Where I live they have semi-privatized utilities and it's funny because unlike the fully private company they'll actually do their job, but then they'll make record profits and their directors will spend it all doing lines of coke. It's most noticeable when you compare the lines of the private company to the semi-private one, and one will be overgrown and decrepit while the other will be completely spotless.

We also have a fully public utility and you wouldn't even notice because the prices are dirt cheap and the infrastructure is taken care of. The only difference between public and private ownership is how much of your money goes into maintenance instead of up the board's nose.

If you believe this, a year working at a Fortune 500 should cure you of it.

Certain things, yes. Certain other things, not at all.

As much as I hate Elon Musk the company he owns that does space stuff pretty rapidly got a whole lot of new rockets up and got them to land instead of crashing into the sea. The newest govt produced rocket, the SLS, was years late and billions of dollars over budget, and they expend the rockets.

spaceX did some cool stuff. That being said, fuck Elon Musk, he had nothing to do with any of its success.

But government likes to starve the stuff they run to make it look bad so they can carve it up and sell it to their mates. See literally anything Britain privatised.

Anything with no competition trends towards being shit over time.

Private companies are master at screwing customers for profit. Lefts not try to be private companies.

Looks at Argentina

Yeah, sure buddy

The government needs to take over things which are not viable for the private sector, but important for society to work.

Lets say privatisation of public transport: In countries where it is completely private, only major cities have reasonable connections. Because those are the most profitable ones. But if you want people to actually use public transport, you need to have a fine and widely spread net of connections. For that to happen either the state completely owns the public transport, or takes off financial pressure and only partially owns it.

Exactly this mechanism enables (partially) state owned organizations to run suboptimal. As explained in the example, this is a desired effect. But it also enables memes like the lazy state employee - which are at least partially true.

If private companies were more efficient than the public sector then you'd want to privatize the armed forces. The fact that no serious person argues for this tells you all you need to know.

b-b-but wait times