State ownership isn't very good

From CroziervisionWiki

Author: Patrick Crozier

Permalink

I believe state ownership isn't very good because it seems to me that those things owned by the state:

• are not as good as their freer alternatives
• get worse over time

Q&A

What makes you think that state enterprises are not as good as their freer alternatives?

• The examples of
  • East v West in the Cold War
  • British Leyland
  • National Coal Board
  • British Railways
  • the National Health Service
  • State education
  • Council housing in the UK
• There are reasons to think that state enterprises wouldn't be as good

So, what's the story with British Leyland?

Oh, rotten cars, constant strikes, huge losses

But didn't it at least provide jobs?

• I always find the idea that jobs should be the objective slightly odd. Surely, the aim is to create wealth?
• While subsidising BL may have created wealth for some, how much did it take away from others?

So, what makes you think that BL destroyed wealth?

Because profit means that you have created wealth and, therefore, losses mean that you have destroyed it

And, the National Coal Board?

Huge strikes and huge losses

And, what makes you think that these enterprises get worse over time?

Because that seemed to be what happened. State education and the NHS weren't all that bad in their early days. There seems to be nothing like the horror stories we get these days. I would, however, make an exception for British Rail. That sort of, kind of got better in the 1980s.

So, why are state enterprises so bad?

See here

Comments

If you would like to comment on this article I suggest you make it here rather than attempting to use the Talk/Discussion page. I have recently received a large amount of Wiki spam and the only effective way of preventing it is to prevent the unmoderated creation of new accounts without which the page is uneditable (unless your name is Kieran or Jax).