It's All Over The Place

What makes people think that the privatizing of capitals and goods and propuctions willbe better than the socializing of them? What makes them think that privatization can finish corruption? How can people be so stupid?

I'm not at home, but at the place of a friend's parents, out in the rural Hungary. Houses look so much different from those we are used to. Foods are also different... and they have a gozillian pets. This is people too, and you find out that it's not what it used to be.

Everybody complains, always complains and people won't be people if they wouldn't complain, so, I believe this gnawing corruption grows on this matter. It's not a matter of giving things to the private enterpreneurs, but rather to clease the public administration from all those motherfuckers who think they can keep skimming the money and living the big life out of the taxes. On and on we see how many people pay LOADS for taxes and then get nothing from their money. Bad public administrations. Is it the solution to take then the matters from the public to the private? Let's say, in the best case scenarion, the tax for it would also be eliminated. Can the private make it for the public service? Better? I don't think so, and here's the economical reason why.

If you make a given service private, make it health, education, infrastructure, social insurance or whatever, it's possible it will be taken over by different enterprises (because there will be competition), or it could be taken over by one only enterprise. Unless the enterprise is a big, transnational enterprise, its costs would be higher than those the State would have, since the State can get better prices due to:

1. It's size
2. The size of it's purchase
3. It's stability, as in the State will last forever, therefore, the enterprises selling to it can be sure that if they please the State, they can have an eternal client.
4. Due to its stability and capacity of payment (States never go into bankrupcy... save very special occasions (Mexico 1982), and yet it can bounce back from it.)

These are qualities no enterprise can fulfil, therefore they can't back up a purchase or a business the same way a country, a State can.

Aside from it, it's a known fact that enterprises work for a profit, the State works for the benefit of the nation, therefore, the State offers its services either for free or for the cost of them. So, given two services, one given by an enterprise and one for the State, the one given for the State would be for free.

Here's where you run out of the economical discussion and say: "Yes, but the State is corrupt and it doesn't work, while the private business is efficient and isn't corrupt."

First, the State can be eficient if the correct controls are applied. That's not the case. At the same time, you call the private enterprises eficient? Like... AT&T? Sprint? Like the Health Insurance Companies? Humana? So, how's it again? Please break down this "private is efficient"? Then, the private is corrupt, but either they have the RIGHT to make exceptions among people, or they PUSH the public corruption through lobbying. The Public corruption has always happened due to the private interest (most of the times....)

I believe that privatizing is a direct step towards just embracing the bad, giving away the social interest, and condoning corruption, now under its twisted legalization by the market, seen as a "reasonable way for cutting prices" or "further investing, stock diversification and profit increasing".

Give me one single example of privatizing gone well.

I rest my case.