*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

No, because they are cuorrupt and have private interests at heart. So when they do run public services that they would like to privatise, they run them to the ground to given the idea of inefficiency so the people are brainwashed into thinking that private interests will deliver a better service. It might if there was serious competition, but am I going to browse hospitals on the internet before I get my fucked ankle looked at?

Do you think the other sectors of the economy would be better if government ran them?

[OngBonga]

Do you think the other sectors of the economy would be better if government ran them?

No. The government would have an advantage over small business, just like the corporations do. In fact more so, because they would be in a position to set regulations that suit them without the need for lobbying.

I don't think government should be competing with private businesses. But your natural monopolies which constitute critical infrastructure... these should be run for the benfit of the nation, for overal economic interests, and not by a private business making profit.

If the trains were free, people would travel more, and spend more.

[wufwugy]

natural monopolies

What are these natural monopolies?

making profit.

It is by the potential to make profit that resources are allocated to the thing in the first place. Taking away profits is like taking away the good or service itself (over the long term and if not subsidized).

If the trains were free, people would travel more, and spend more.

Sure. One effect of it costing people less to do something is that they do more of it.

However, what happens to the trains when there is no profit to be had by making a better train good or train service to consumers and potential consumers?