Sell Yosemite! Dump the Post Office, the prison system, education, Social Security!! Conservatives have been pushing this agenda for decades, insisting that private ownership would increase efficiency, but would it?
Now that private enterprise has hammered its way into the prison and school systems, we are beginning to see a comparison between corporate and governmental management practices, and it doesn't look favorable to the former. A careful analysis of the respective business models will show sources of inefficiencies on the corporate side not to be found with government, inefficiencies which make it impossible to maintain the same level of service at the same cost.
Let's go over that list again: The post office, the prisons, schools, Social Security. I could add more, but let's go with this bunch. Each of these are services provided to all citizens by the government, and my contention is that private corporations could never provide the same level of service at the same low cost. The reasons should be obvious. Private corporations must earn a profit, something not required of government, and that profit must come from somewhere, but where does it go?
Private corporations have owners, stockholders, who will routinely insist that not only should the value of their stock go up each year, but they expect a hefty dividend as well. Nothing of the sort is expected of government enterprises. We citizens are the owners in these cases and we expect nothing more than the service itself.
As example, Social Security is an annuity managed by the federal government. Conservatives claim that private insurance companies, which write and maintain annuities routinely, could take over Social Security and run it "more efficiently," but how could this be so? Insurance companies currently expect to make better than 20% profit annually. We know this because the ACA limits their profit to that figure, and they routinely go over and have to rebate various amounts to the customers. How could these companies ever provide the same level of service while extracting 20% annually from their revenues? In fact, they couldn't.
Further, private businesses have become famous for ever increasing executive compensation -- salaries and bonuses in the millions. Government enterprises do not suffer from this attribute. Salaries of government employees are subject to public scrutiny and pressure, rarely becoming excessive.
These two inefficiencies require private businesses to constantly push for greater profit in order to feed the appetites of stockholders and executives. The time honored ways to satisfy this demand, finding new markets or new products often will not suffice; and they are reduced to borrowing money for stock buybacks, squeezing labor, or cheapening the product. Often these methods will not be enough, and the company gets liquidated, eliminating the service. As example, what do you think would happen if Bain Capital took over the post office, knowing what we do about their business model?
Conservatives are remarkably good at accusing their adversaries of their own sins. It makes excellent cover. The accusation of "inefficiencies" in government enterprises is an example of this. Never let such nonsense stand. It is merely one tactic being used to push the American economy back to that of the dark ages.
Clearly, these issues are part of a much larger dialogue. Where should the line be drawn between government and private enterprise? Which essential services should be maintained by government and which left to private businesses? Questions of efficiency must enter into this discussion, as long as they are supported by actual facts rather than bogus a priori assumptions or blatant falsehoods.
Remember, conservatives have an agenda. . .