Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You make two arguments and they contradict one another:

1. That public internet would suck because all public projects suck (and cite examples). 2. That private companies wouldn't be able to compete with public ones.

They cannot both be true. If the public offering was as bad as you claim, private companies could compete (e.g. on quality).

So which is it? Either public companies suck and therefore private companies would be able to compete (by virtue of them sucking less presumably) OR public companies don't suck and the private companies wouldn't be able to compete.

Your whole post reads like one of those propaganda pieces put out by the far right, interest groups, or think tanks. Just generic "all public services are terrible" then switch it up into "it is unfair that companies have to compete with taxes!"

One could take the logic in your post and use it to literally argue that all public entities ever should be closed and privatised. Even things like cops, fire services, and so on could be hit by that logic. There's no limits.




It absolutely can be both. The government-run solution could be poorly managed, unreliable and overly expensive while still scaring away the massive investment needed for someone else to compete. A private for-profit business could be completely undercut by the government service which can be incredibly unprofitable but continue to operate using tax dollars.

The current telecom oligopoly is bad, but a government-run monopoly is the one thing that could be worse. Now, public money going to build last-mile fiber which is then leased to competing ISPs to create a functioning marketplace (neither corporate oligopoly nor government monopoly, but a true economics-textbook 'free market') sounds like something that could be a good use of public money & power.


Theoretically, there is no reason for a government-run utility to be worse. There should be democratic pressure to improve service, balanced by democratic pressure to cut costs. Despite what ideologues say, there are many examples of well-run government-run programs, such as NOAA, CDC, NIH, interstate highways, FDIC.


In what way are the enumerated programs well run? Well run compared to what?


Take NOAA vs Weather.com as an example. One employs hundreds of scientists and engineers to improve their forecasting models and early alert systems. The other employs hundreds of engineers to improve ad-clicks and increase profit margins.


> They cannot both be true. If the public offering was as bad as you claim, private companies could compete (e.g. on quality).

Unless those private companies are legally prohibited from competing, or are prohibited from practically competing by things like red tape or fees for constructing infrastructure.


Alternatively, it's usually possible to heap tax money on the inefficient government option to allow it to have an incredibly low "sticker price" because they charge everyone for the service whether or not they use the service through taxes. Essentially making it so you buy the inefficient services either way, and if you want you can pay a bunch more to use a private competitor.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: