Evil 1 karozans is a straight idiot but that's not the point, the point is that certain things like pharmaceutical companies don't always lower there prices like they should sometimes they increase them with their competitors. And that's why some things should be public
My experience with the postal service is the opposite. When I buy something online, when the USPS delivers, the package often arrives a day earlier than expected, and I've never lost anything in the mail. On the otherhand, UPS and Fedex tend to deliver late.
What planet are you living on? USPS always loses, "misplaces" or is tardy with my packages. Probably because government doesn't give a shit on how they spend your tax dollars.
The problem with the private section is when monopolies are form and there is no more competition. They become so large and powerful, they can gain more influence over the government than the people and start legislating the nation in their own best interest to maximize profit.
For a private business to obtain and maintain an actual monopoly, it must offer it's product or service at a fair market rate, otherwise competition will arise and the monopoly will cease to exist. The fed gov passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, and has used it as a weapon almost exclusively ever since, to the detriment of the nation's economy. Government is the problem, laissez-faire is the solution.
I'm an arch-capitalist, but even I think there are places the private sector shouldn't thrive too easily in - like healthcare. Good health is a right, and I don't know why people continue to deny it. If you want a private health sector, that's fine, but the national focus should be on an effective Public Health Service that helps everyone.
This USPS hate is not as cut-and-dry as people think. USPS is actually VERY profitable, and their service is much cheaper in many cases than the private sector alternatives. The thing that hurts the USPS is the government mandate that it must pay about $5.6 billion a year for 10 years to prefund the retiree healthcare plan. Something that no other private entity does or is required to do. Also, according to the USPS, "the Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations."
Huh? I don't see the connection unless you believe that having a vote means that it counts and that having a mortgage is a tax rather than a financial service. (PS At least where I live the there is mortgage tax, deed filing fee and several other smaller ways of dipping into my pocket at a real estate closing.)
No. Voting holds the public sector accountable. Your mortgage is 10 times higher than it should be because the private markets have introduce so much easy credit since banks were deregulated yet too big to fail. These issues are complicated.
Shad Jones I agree that being a responsible adult is complicated, always has been, always will be. Mortgage rates reflect not only the actions of the lenders but of the government which controls the money market (quantitative easing, etc.). The public sector, government, also buys the mortgages from the banks and transfers the risk of default to the taxpayers. Government actions caused the marketplace imbalance which resulted in ever higher housing costs by mandating lending practices which no sane underwriter would have allowed unless forced to do so by public sector policies and regulations. I vote in the private sector every day when I choose one company over another thus influencing who prospers and who fails. These economic "votes" have far more effect on the world than my vote for a politician.
All I know from my own experience is that it's much cheaper to send packages through USPS (the US postal service) than it is through a private company like FedEx or UPS and you still get the same shitty service no matter which you choose. I also know that public sector jobs are better paying and offer better benefits than private sector jobs... at least for the average person. I've worked in the private sector my entire life and just recently was hired through the public sector and I have to say... the public sector pays a lot better, has better benefits, and has much easier jobs... easier in the sense that you're not squeezed to death to maximize the amount of work you produce comparative to the wage you make. I hate to tell you Prager U, but the public sector actually works better for regular people both as consumers and as employees. Just my experience as an average American.
'Works better for consumers', that's because the public sector runs a deficit; it's not profitable. If you extended the public sector to the entire economy, the government would go bust. Thus it only works due to a highly efficient and profitable private sector. The terrible part is is that the public sector just employs resources less efficiently than does the private sector, making us collectively less wealthy.
@@lmy2366 absolutely right. More pay less work sounds fantastic and inefficient as f. Efficient private sector does quite literally fund the deficit of the always poorly administrated public sector.
The major problems I see with the public sector and government funded programs is that (A) there's hardly any "punishment" if these things fail, whereas, if a business does bad in the free market, they'll tank, and (B) these things are often driven purely for political reasons, rather than, empirical. For example, the Democrats pushed for education reform through government programs during the Clinton era. Education reform sounded good but it failed. Nothing changed. No one was punished. And, even though they knew it was likely to fail, the Democrats still pushed for it anyway because politically speaking it sounds great..... The private sector still has its flaws but, in general, the private tends to be a more "progressive" model in the sense that the free market demands things to change if it's bad and the free market demands things to be better. Whereas, government is more of the same.
no no no no. Stop looking at it as something that offers the better service, the video even gave you an example with the police and firefighters. The government should be in control of essential programs/businesses. They should be in control of natural monopoly markets such as the water, electricity(well the lines, cables and power grids.) The private sector should do everything else it is good at. Most western nations use a mixed economy, between free market and regulation, why can't you see that this should also apply to the public and private sectors, they should work together, with the public sector doing things that shouldn't be left to the private sector and maybe with some government business to add competition. They should both do what they are good at, so stop comparing the two when they are very different and are offering different services, look at how well they work together, look at how well maintained the roads are,the schools shit like that, don't look at the government and say well there business always go broke, which means the public sector is inferior, no it's just that the public sector is clearly trying to do something that it shouldn't. With the post office, i'm not really sure but i think a private business won't send a package to a remote are without heavy cost, this may be fine for you but i think(once again not sure) that a public post office would do it for lower cost, why, because there is no profit motive, there is just get the job done and we'll do it at a affordable price.
I love the guile of this video, simply "knowing what's best" what needs to be private and public sector without even TRYING to find out through testing.
The history of the United States is the test and proof. Capitalism made us strong. But now, as things become more and more socialized our economy is becoming weak.
i am not a fan of the new style of video, the animation is fine, it's just the way the information is explained seems like you are trying to be 'trendy' and dictating the information rather than teaching it
They need to make it at a grade 8 level so most people can understand it. When it comes to economics, it really isn't open for discussion. Either you like corruption and the extortion of tax money through force to pay for things, or you don't, and you want to be free to offer a better solution, and empower people to be free to create change. Which is it?
I guess I am not explaining it well, I liked the fact that they are educating just, simply I didn't like the style the way it was being said. Sort of like how if you read a book that you know is good, but you just don't like the style
Using USPS as an example was a mistake. 1. The USPS would be profitable if congress didn't straddle it with the erroneous obligation to forward fund it's retirement by 75 years. The average term of service for a federal employee is approximately 28 years, and retirement age is currently 72, so they are paying retirement benefits for employees who haven't even been born, let alone hired. 2. When you mail your tax payment do you take it to FedEx or the Post Office? You take it to the Post Office, why? As a branch of the government you payment is considered delivered at the point it is received by the USPS, if you FedEx it then it's the point of delivery. Further, you can't FedEx to a PO Box which is where most payments to the IRS go. 3. Levels of service. It doesn't matter where you live, you likely receive you mail delivered directly to your house. If you live in rural areas, FedEx and UPS often hand packages off to the USPS for delivery because they don't have the infrastructure to support rural delivery. 4. Cost of service. You can mail up to 2 oz. in a standard envelope anywhere in the US for a flat rate less than $1. No other delivery service provides that service at that rate. All these things are made possible because of something that the Public Sector does that the Private Sector doesn't. Equality of service and outcomes. The public sector doesn't look at profit directly, it looks at an objective, daily delivery 6 days a week to your door, no matter where you live. Private sector looks at it from the standpoint of, fastest possible delivery for a price, where cost is marketable. The USPS's best products are their flat rate products, mail and parcel, they are very efficient at delivering mail over 5,800 mail items every second. Despite what this video says, they have receive no federal funding, however they have been bailed out in the past when technology changed and they were not structurally prepared. The problems with the USPS are fabricated, none of their competitors, nor any other branch of the government are required to pay retirement for persons not yet hired. This obligation forced on them by congress was intended to kill the USPS, and force privatization. Personally, I live paying $0.50 to send a birthday card, not $7.00.
This video misses several key aspects of how a market economy works. The benefits of the free competition only works if A. There are many different choices available, B. The consumers are well informed, know what is best and are capable of making the right decision, and C. You want to maximize consumption The private sector tend to bring forward monopolies or oligopolies, wich makes the same situation as the public sector. In many areas there aren't different choices, for example in the countryside In many areas it is very hard for consumers to make a right decision, for ex healthcare, schooling, banking and so on In many areas you don't want people to consume, for ex tobacco, alcohol or things that are bad for the environment, in these fields you want people to consume less, not more. Some ares are suitable for the private sector to manage, some areas are not. BTW: If the public postal service works bad, then the elected representatives that govern should be replaces by the next election.
If you don't mind the slower processing, and want to save money, you'd use the USPS. If you want it to get there fast, and money's no object, you use the priviate postal services such as UPS or FedEx, etc. It's good to have both options and having choices, and monopolies are bad in both private or public sectors.
most of this I can agree with, the irony being that the postal service has been the cheapest carrier I can find for shipping packages since their flat rate boxes. really it's the only thing that's saved them. snail mail needs to go the way of the dinosaur
public sector give the oppotunity for everyone a basic living condition like health care or school while private give people more the oppitunity to actually innovate or something
Tbh, if I'm shipping stuff, which happens semi regularly, I always go usps. All because of flat rate boxes. Unless I'm very much mistaken, there is nothing that ups or fedex has that matches that kind of value or simplicity.
This is so true. The private sector makes costs go down. Take healthcare for example. America is the only industrialised country in the world not to have a government-run healthcare system and is the most expensive in the world... oh, hang on a minute. Well at least private businesses can be trusted to behave responsibly or they would go out of business. Take banks for example. They always run themselves well and don't bring the world economy to its knees like in 2008 when... oh, hang on. Well at least they didn't run to somebody else to save them from their own stupidity... oh, hang on. Fortunately the people who helped them out weren't the government with our tax money... oh, hang on... Well at least we can console ourselves with the fact that everything the private sector does is good and everything the government does is bad. At least we have established that. We have Prager U to make sure we have a completely unbiased view of why the rich people who fund them think they should pay as little as possible in tax.
America’s healthcare system isn’t private. It’s a jumbled mess of 3 different public systems, consumers, and countless insurance companies. I agree there needs to be a rework of that system. But you are also missing something, America is footing the bills for other countries. America is the number 1 in medical research, with a majority of it coming from private companies. This research is used in other countries at no charge, due to them price fixing their treatments.
@@zachb1706 On your first point, do you think costs for Americans would come down if other countries removed their price caps, and if so, why? I can't see that companies wouldn't just take the extra profit and pocket it, making no difference to Americans. So I don't see the relevance of your point. On your second comment, I agree with you. There absolutely are some things that are done better by the private sector. However, there are some things that are also done better by government, and sometimes the worst excesses of the private sector are best regulated by government. Every industrialised country I know of works as a combination of private and government actions. I wish people could use that as a starting point and having sensible discussions about what is best done by each. Instead we get right-wing misinformation by organisations like Prager U who say that if there is a push to a particular thing dealt with by government then they are radical socialists (which is a lie) and the real aim is to make the country communist (which is a lie) and we should compare the USA they want with Cuba (another lie).
Phil B I think so, as companies would get able to bargain better across the world. This would stop them relying on the rich America to fund their R&D. Do I think other countries should stop regulation? No, as I said I don’t like the US medical system. But it’s got to be known that the reason the us pays so much is that others don’t pay anything and can piggyback off of the US. It’s the same with military.
@@zachb1706 American companies aim to maximise their profits. That is their no. 1 goal. They do not have a target and if they go above that they say "Well, we've made enough money now so we'll drop our prices". I see absolutely no reason to think that prices going up somewhere else would cause them to drop their prices in America - absolutely none at all. If they can charge a certain price, they will charge that price. They don't see Americans as a charity towards whom the will act more favorably if they can make more money elsewhere. If you think they would I think you are living in a fantasy world.
Okay, I'm all private sector solutions, but there are a few things you erred on when the video started. The Post Office isn't a public sector business, it's a public/private sector business. It has to make most of it's money the way the private sector does (which is why it sells post cards, envelops, stamp collectors books, collectible stamps, PO Boxes, wallets, key rings, etc), It has to beg the government to raise it's rates on stamps to pay for the actual cost (and the government only gives money to balance the cost they keep artificially low), and the cost of shipping is competitive (even when you consider the free air freight they get). Anyway, the more important thing is, I, as a private sector company, must use the lowest cost shipping, which is the post office. I pay really low prices, get door to door pick-up and delivery, and can pay at home, print my own labels, and the service is very reliable. So, the "public sector" wins because of the rest of the private sector's free market needs.
WRONG... Watch TIK Public/Private Video for the FACTS. Public sector is Anything not Owned by a Person ... Selling shares is called "Going Public" as the greater community, or Public, can own a part of the business wheres previously it was owned by a single individual. This continues the LIE that Corporations are Private.
Musk is getting $$$ from the government. Just last month, I believe, Musk cried that the russians are paying far more in gov money to their own space agency than the US gov to Musk.
Privatizing the DMV is a horrible idea. The DMV isn't supposed to make money, it's supposed to process stuff like license requests. If you put a private company in charge of the DMV they're going to make sweeping changes in order to increase returns. We've seen this with private prisons, which also shouldn't be in the hands of private companies. They effect change in our laws to increase prison sentences and make laws more punishing purely for the purposes of driving up the prison population. We need to stop thinking of private business as the solution for everything because they're number 1 priority will be to always make money and we need to analyze what services we want profit driven or not.
The USPS would be profitable these days if they didn’t have to pre-pay for 75 years of expected employee retirement and health expenses. Private businesses don’t have to do that, and that explains 95% or more of the difference.
Good grief this is one-sided Public services are often that because... 1) It might be a basic utility that doesn't really have much in profits, but is needed anyway. Say, road maintenance, trash collection, schools. Oh sure - with schools there are private schools. They tend to be expensive. Should that mean that poor people shouldn't get to go to school at all? No? Well then, public schools do offer that service. 2) it might be something that is deemed too important for private businesses to do on their own. Imagine if the EPA, FDA or other regulatory goverment agencies were privately owned. Like, I dunno, the MPAA. Oh hey, medical company X just invested a ton of money in the agency that approves new medicine. Totally not shady at all, right? Or, I dunno - police? Firefighters? Judges? The entire legal system? Should that be abolished and replaced with security companies/armed mercenaries guarding the streets? What if you can't pay? Hell, what if your local private security company 'leaks' a list of all the homes in an area that do not have any security contractor covering them? Some would say it might invite in thieves, others might say it would 'incentivise' those homeowners to sign up with a security contractor - or sleep with one eye open. With a tax-paid legal system judges and whatnot can be all that more impartial. If a judge has to worry if he upsets the rest of his stock holders if he rules in a case where one of their friends are involved.... that doesn't sound good. With a tax-funded legal system, that can't really happen.
I, like the video when they mention police and firefighters, agree with claim 2. Therefore I'll dismiss it with regard to its use for the video being "one sided," as the video clearly addresses such issues. The videos intent is not to do away with all public services either: your argument sets up a straw man in this sense. All it argues, with which every non-Marxist political scientist will agree, is that the market mechanisms generally lead to more efficient and well-run institutions than the bureaucratic model. Private companies are incentivized to make things more efficient and cheaper, as they get to keep money saved. Public institutions must return it to the govt. Public institutions are also far more regulated, giving public managers more hoops to jump through to improve service. Public workers also deal with more limited resources. Re:the school argument you brought up: while public school is "free," it tends to spend more per student than a private school of similar caliber
Right, because private run free market solutions are 'generally' the best? Come on - don't give me those weasel words. Sometimes - sure - but not always. Plus, private market solutions have the problem that the businesses that run them usually only answer to its shareholders - not the publics. Microsoft, Apple, Google - they don't give a crap about what you feel or think, and they're way too big to be influenced by you simply choosing not to buy their products. Yet at the same time, as they compete on various software and hardware platforms, that competition has led to non-compatible solutions - because they have no incentive to work together: That's why you generally can't play PC games on a Mac, or charge an apple laptop with a Dell charger. Each company might seek out its own 'best and cheapest' solution, but unless government standardization sets the tone then they don't really have much incentive to make compatible solutions. Console wars much? and cripes - I'm not arguing for communism - I'm just saying that there are some things that government services do better than private services. Not everything, but some things - and to parade around saying that the private sector can do EVERYTHING better if given the chance (which is the vibe the video gives off) hell, consider banking. I'm sure Wall Street even today would insist that it doesn't need government regulations - but exactly how many stock market meltdowns have we had over the last ten years by now, due to unregulated and grossly careless lending and investments?
1) I never said generally "the best," as the best is largely subjective to political ideologies. I simply stated they tend to be more efficient and well-run. There are very few examples of governmental institutions that are "well-run," save the military. 2) Shareholders thrive on the company making money, which relies on the companies' abilities to market product to consumers. Companies make the shareholders happy by making profits; companies make profits by making their products appealing. It is us buying things that appeals to shareholders. And "way too big to not be influences by your choices" are "weasel words" if I've herd any. Every company you listed has had products that people don't buy. And guess what? They either change them or stop selling them. Look at Microsoft's Zune. And if incompatibility was a big issue to people it WOULD affect sales. Why have Macs always had a smaller market share? Furthermore, the idea that government regulation is the only way to assure compatibility is also false. Did the government invent USB? 3) I, too, agree that everything should not be run by the private sector. So does the video (once again, look at the argument for firefighters and policemen the video makes). 4) This delves into an economic argument. A large reason that there were careless investing was not because of a lack of regulations, but because of artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve. If the investors had a "risker" investment prospect with interest rates actually equal to the demand for capital and real estate, there would have been less careless investing. Artificially created investment bubbles always have more disastrous bursting than natural bubbles, because the artificial bubble creates a greater disparity between the demand and the ability to fill the demand.
Certain services such as public health, food inspection, law enforcement & the judiciary, and so on, are best delivered by the public sector, which in principle should be objective and working solely in the public interest, rather than being solely motivated by the financial bottom line, which is the case for the private sector.
If the video is saying what I think it is, that the USPS would be better off dissolved: it would hurt the economy to do so. Fun facts/things to consider: (Yes, I know the USPS is the absolute worst of the three options, and I more or less agree.) 1: Both UPS and FedEx have partnerships with the P.O. to lessen costs of delivery. These are UPS Surepost or FedEx Smartpost. The expensive part of delivery- evidently- is the person who goes out to drop it at your doorstep, and in these sytems, UPS/FedEx drops your package at the local Post Office for them to deliver. If you get something off Amazon Prime, it is UPS surepost 90+% of the time. 2: The Post Office does not have to make a profit. Stupid, right?? Yeah... except when you consider that the Post Office needs to have stations on the Alaskan islands that have 500 people. And in American Samoa, Guam, middle of nowhere Nebraska, etc. Places that are just not worth it to deliver to for anyone else. 3: Who else is going to carry pieces of paper for cheap? A for-profit would charge about $1 or so, the P.O. does it for about 10 cents. So yes, bitch about the USPS taking up 'taxpayer money' (even when they charge for their services, have a .com web URL, and act like a for-profit in some ways). But without them, advertisments through mail would be more expensive, Amazon's shipping prices go up, etc. -- Oh also: Canada's Post Office is bankrupt (or was) as well.
I gave you a thumbs up for the god points you made. Nobody hates the post office more than me, but I don't consider them the worst. They do a job that their competitors can't (door to door ad mail). The competitors may smile bigger, but their prices are actually higher.
Well nobody really teaches anybody. At least I haven't heard a word about it except from my dad. I live in a socialist country, so that might be the reason, but it's very important information :/
Can't speak about the educational system in your countries. But this is pretty much the basics in a GCSE economics class. The fact that this needs to be explained to an ever increasing society of socialists, is woefully shameful.
People say the private sector is sometimes run by corrupt businesses but unless they run a monopoly, you can shop at another business If I feel like Wal-Mart, I'll shop at Target That's the greatest benefit, having to choose and have options, instead of the government choosing for you
After knowing how Fedex treats it's drivers under its business model no way I would trust Fedex with a package. Also always end up mailing things through USPS. Private Sector is not always better.
but you have a choice whether or not to use Fedex. If you don't like Fedex you can just not give them your money. Forcing people to fund the post office through taxes is immoral.
@@biggibbs4678 This is old... It's not immoral. That's almost like saying taxes for roads or firefighters are immoral. The Untied States Post Office was setup to make sure mail could be delivered even to areas where Fedex or UPS may not deliver, and I seriously doubt you will ever see any of them deliver mail. Why does everything have to be some moral argument? It's a dumb. Also connecting America or giving access to roads, mail, internet, etc. in the long run boost the economy tremendously indirectly, so I really don't think you have much of a argument.
Great video, but I'm surprised Prager U. seemed to imply that services such as fire fighting and police either shouldn't be private or that they can't. It might depend on the size of the community, but their are plenty of voluntary fire departments, and in cities like Detroit, where the police basically said they couldn't adequately enforce the law due to a lack of funding and your security was in your own hands, you had security businesses step up to make things better. Frankly, if law enforcement was more privatized, I bet you wouldn't be hearing about so many cases of police brutality and murder.
While obviously not really the point of the video, the ironic thing about the choosing between the USPS vs FedEx/UPS is that it usually doesn't matter in the end because FedEx, UPS, DHL, and others drop ship countless packages every day for the USPS to deliver because it is cheaper and more convenient than doing it themselves. So, maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is. "Why are private corporations are using a public service to improve their bottom-line at the taxpayers expense?"
This is over simplifed, some things like railways fail when they need to make a profit Public transportation can survive for a year without making money and increasing efficiency and price but private rail could fail or endlessly increase price and that would cause problems for the public
Using the USPS as an example for this video was a poor choice for several reasons: 1. Post Office is only losing money due to bad politicians enacting Pre-funding requirement. 2. USPS does not receive tax money. 3. Parcel/ package cost is set by the market. (stamps by congress) 4. USPS works with and competes with FedEx, UPS, and other shippers for transport and final delivery. This means even if you think FexEx will deliver, a mail carrier may still deliver it (smartpost).
USPS has delivered late to me six out of the past eight times that I've ordered a package that won't fit in my mailbox. Two of those times they didn't deliver my package until I went to the post office to complain. When I get a package through UPS or FedEx they always come before the predicted delivery date and I never have to complain before getting my item. If I have the option I never use USPS.
Weird thing too is just a few years ago the trend was for the other parts of the government to take funding and revenue _from_ the postal service, not to bail it out.
In Pennsylvania, our Turnpike is completely dependent on tolls it collects, it receives almost nothing in tax funding and it's in way better shape than most of the highway systems in the state. I think if the USPS ran the same way it could do way better......."could" being the key word.
Yup. Prager-U, as usual, neglected to mention something like this. Perhaps because its really quite damning to their argument? Or perhaps they just didn't do any real research? Or, most likely, both.
+MWH12085 (I'm not from the US so I don't know many names) If the post system runs of of tolls it collects and not tax money, and it does not have a monopoly, what's the diffrence between that and a private company?
Tusenbensen The short answer is because the government still runs it. Though to be fair, it has some aspects of a private business and some aspects of a public one. It doesn't fit neatly into either category. This link much better explains it though: usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm
+Tusenbensen UPS (United Parcel Service), FedEx, DHL are private owned, they're publicly traded companies (stocks) and are not owned by the government . the USPS (United States Postal Service) is owned by the federal government. the private sector companies receive money through the services they provide whereas the postal service actually gets both money from services rendered and tax money from the federal government. Not to get too deep into this (because there's A LOT of shit to cover) but it all boils down to complacency. The private sector doesn't get a guaranteed source of revenue like the Postal service does. for UPS, FedEx, DHL......unhappy customers=no money. No money= out of business. The Post office will never have to worry about that between being a function actually provided by the US Constitution and protected by public sector unions (whole other story), nothing short of an amendment to the US Constitution will put it out of business.
That's just a market economy. Nothing is stopping labor from owning businesses. In fact labor unions have repeatedly refused to accept company shares or stocks as part of a benefits package. Why? Because then they would suffer right along with the company as other competition entered the market, and what labor craves is certainty. Business is about managing risk.
Because, in practice, socialism becomes centralized, state control of the economy. People who are for socialism typically like socialist politicians, who will centralize power and ruin the economy. The "community" can't really control the state. Democracy is an attempt (mostly for show anyway) and it sucks. Majority rule doesn't lead to any principled rules even if we assume we are being "represented." As for "Worker ownership," people can do that even now. There's a business down the street from me that spreads out ownership throughout the company. I don't really know the effectiveness (I do know they have a good product, though), but as long nobody put a gun to their head to make them "collectivize" I have no problem with it. I still wouldn't call it socialism, though.
USPS is strangled by the federal government. It would be a successful business if they could determine their own rates and did not have to prefund pension benefits for 75 years (for employees who are not even born yet).
I think the positive and personal vibe of your video gets kind of killed by the outro, it's too robotic and impersonal. I'd change it if I were you, Just some feedback :)
It's about time someone addressed this and thank you for this video. I worked with some in the public sector for 6 months. They have no concept of urgency and staying busy. I pissed me off and I moved on to another lab job in the private sector, of course.
A total load of rubbish. There are massive problems with the private sector that seeks to deliver services while making unrealistic cuts. In most countries, the private sector has been a colossal failure.
Oh, you wouldn't want police services competing with each other? That is the exact reality of Brazil haha. To get the public service you need to pay again, either under the table or by buying private products forced by the public services.
the private sector should be the most powerful because that is where ordinary citizens do business. while the public sector is more like a monopoly like and pay for our programs or go to jail.
I do not know if someone has said this, but I used to work for the Post Office and they do not need to be bailed out of debt constantly and is the most profitable part of the government. Congress had made it to where they look bad for now the Post Office has to put millions of dollars aside for future retirement plans for all of it's employees. No other branch of the government has to pay in advance like this.
This video has an incredible bias. At least in Canada the public sector provides far superior service, quality, and price oppose to the private sector. However government run retail stores such as liquor stores and cannabis dispensaries there's a huge monopoly which drives the price up for alcohol and weed
You forgot to include the government contractor. Supposedly "private sector" but just as inefficient as the "public sector." These government contractors are the bread and butter of the US government now.
+jeff switzer Maybe in most major cities, but I grew up in a county of small towns where there was only one DMV for the entire County, and absolutely nothing was automated.
How long does it typically take to receive a new licence in America? I applied for mine in the UK and it took 3 weeks, and it wasn't exactly cheap either.
The problem with essential public services like fire and police is that there is no market feedback to allow them to reduce the size of the workforce where appropriate. The unions pressure the politicians to maintain their numbers and benefits (if not expand both). Where I live we have too many firemen and fire stations so their utilization is ridiculously low. I lived in a small but wealthy MA town and the weekly Police Log was a joke (backed up by my cousin, a cop, who visited them and couldn't believe how much stuff they had and so little work to do).
Twinkle Sprinkle check your history. Buildings burned down while firefighters actually fought over who would put the fire out. And privatized security companies tend to get into a lot of hot water, read up on blackwater.
Last time I checked, I get the mail on time. Yet these videos always conveniently ignore the US power grid and Railroad systems, which are both privatized and causes major disasters more frequently than anyone should remember.
Britain's healthcare is probably the most government controlled healthcare system in the first world and the most efficient. The Royal Mail in Britain is also the main post service used in Britain and it is a great one.
yes but if policeman and firefighters worked for the private sector you would have to pay for them, but at the same time they would probably work better than the public sector one's
+Anatolie Lupacescu what are they going to do? Start fires at people's homes? They'd get severely discredited as a legitimate business and would no longer exist.
No, I do not think they will actually go ahead and start fires at random. However it would not amaze me if "money will find their way" - some sort of a symbiosis with other parties that would split the revenue.
Some things are more efficient in the private sector and some things are more efficient in the public sector. You wouldn't want all roads and infrastructure privatised, you could but as seen in many countries when they privatise areas of the public sector, things can run a lot less efficient. But you don't want nationalise everything either. Neither to be honest is better than the other.
PragerU has already stated they're against corporatism. That doesn't mean the private sector isn't scores more efficient than the public sector. Not to mention it was government policies that lead to the collapse of the housing market.
The Boomer Whisperer they're fine with corporate donors to republicans and their fine with unions giving money to democrats. That's corporatism. They also stated in the video that they support government monopolies on firemen and police.
What people don't seem to realize is that whilst public sector can afford to be lazy, it is necessary for provision of basic needs like water and electricity and emergency services. If a private firm was given control of the power lines in a country, for example, would they continue to supply power and maintain all the cables that lead to small towns and villages with low population? Probably no as it would be unprofitable and they would rather withdraw to cut costs, leaving all that population without this necessary resource.
The DMV where I live *is* fast. I have only ever had a quick and cheap service from the post. The idea that competition improves service and reduces prices is a myth.
I agree that law enforcement, a justice system, and a military should be in the public sector. Though, even with those there is room for privatization. I disagree with fire departments being public, though. I believe people should be free to pay for their service if they so desire. They should be treated much like insurance. Also, over 70% of all fire departments in the United States are already manned by volunteers. Regarding law enforcement, a justice system, and a military, there is room for privatization. There are already private security firms, private courts, and private military contractors. However, I don't think these are quite adequate enough replacements.
In the Uk the rail industry, water, and energy and postal services were privatised with disastrous results. Prices went up, quality of services went down, the first thing Railtrack did was to cut spending on track maintenance resulting in trains becoming derailed, killing passengers. 3 billion litres of water is lost every day through leaks in the system because the companies refuse to invest in repairs. Anyone in the UK who posts a parcel and actually wants it arrive at its destination uses Royal Mail. Privatisation, provides profit for investors as its priority over a service to the public.
The public sector places make sure prices are low for services that shouldn't have a bar of entry based on wealth. This means the services are minimally subsidized by the government. Take an envelope to UPS and ask them how much it would cost to mail it cross state. literally one state difference. It's probably $7-$9. Because that's about how much it would cost for the package to be collected, labeled right, sorted, loaded onto various vehicles, transferred, and then hand-delivered to your door, safe and sound. At USPS, it's a 30-cent stamp. Same thing goes for the DMV. If that place wanted to turn a profit, there'd be no limits on driver's licenses, costs for tags and various legal services would skyrocket, and every idiot with $300 to spare would be poorly trained and behind the wheel of a car. You can demonize public sector for what it does, and I'll admit that it's not better than UPS or Fedex for high-cost fast shipping, but I bet if USPS stopped functioning tomorrow, people would be willing to pay 1% additional income tax just to see it come back (Hint: 1% is a veritable shit-ton more than the USPS actually costs).
"For example, you probably wouldn't want firefighters or police officers competing with one another for your business." - Why not? Because these services are so important that only the government - which is an involuntary monopoly - should be trusted to provide them? In other words, competition creates high quality and/or law price, and, as a result, the state is bad - so it should only do really important things? Where is the logic here?
George Lominadze dude you tend to get what you pay for. It has been my experience that most corporate CEOs are worried about profits not people. I worked as a corrections officer. You do not want to under pay these people. They have private minimum security prisons now. Each and every employee usually has multiple resumes out to the public owned jails. It is usually a big raise in pay. The better officers tend to make the move. The others tend to stay. Watch orange is the new black on Netflix, it is pretty accurate.
The USPS (Post Office) is not ever bailed out with taxpayer money. It is completely run from profits. Not a penny from taxes are received. There are benefits such as tax exemptions, and favorable interest rates. These benefits are stipulated with service mandates that a private company would not have to perform. Such as a mandated 6 day delivery, every address delivery, prices fixed at certain rates that can only be raised by Congress. There's no flexibility in the way that these services are done and what price. The debt is from being forced to prefund retiree healthcare 75 years into the future. There are no other corporations or government offices that are being required to do this. Also, the USPS must deliver to every door regardless of the profitability. A private company does not have to do that. They go where the profits are. There are also accommodations for disabled people. Private companies have no such mandates as far as I am aware. I like Prager University but this blatant misrepresentation makes me think that not all of your information is correct and that I will need to fact check everything that I hear from what I thought was a trusted source.
You forgot to mention that the private sector has no conscience ... if not regulated by the government the almighty dollar would be the bottom line and the welfare of the individual would come last on the list of important things. For example, airlines and cable TV was given over to the private sector ... and guess what the prices did not go down ... THEY WENT UP! Greed is the main motivator in the private sector which does need to be supervised by the public sector. Amen.
I love Prager university videos. This one seems to be a hit piece on the post office. You think you get a better value shipping with ups? If ups was a better value than ups would be delivering your letters and advertisement mail door to door. The post office competes with ups for packages. As far as routinely being bailed out by tax money, when was that? The post office does not consume tax dollars.
I agree, they could have done so much more like showing benefits and downsides of each, show where to apply each, describe where we are mismatched, and indicate some type of call to action to solve the problems. The missed the mark on this one.
Not sure what country you're in, but it is common knowledge the United States Postal Service has been losing money for a while. That is why locations are cutting back on hours of service, with some places going from mail six days a week to five days a week and other cost cutting measures. UPS, FedEX, and other private carriers ARE competing with the U.S. Postal Service even with all the inherent advantages the USPS has over private companies. Not advantages for the consumer, but for the USPS itself. This is not to disparage the USPS, but to be realistic about the situation. At one time their services were necessary because of gaps in coverage with the private sector. It is possible some level of their service will always be necessary, but perhaps not what it has been for so long.
UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete in the letter delivery business, only the package business. Several companies have attempted to start private mail delivery services only to be shut down by the USPS.
+Otaku I'm in the United States. In Michigan. We have carriers out seven days a week. In Greenville Michigan usps carrier do a dedicated parcel service for Amazon on Sunday.
I'm in South Dakota and I lived in Iowa for decades. The USPS doesn't deliver on Sundays at all. Since moving to South Dakota (so I don't know about Iowa) smaller towns have had to cut back on their postal service. Doing a quick Google search, Michigan is pretty abnormal.
Actually, this video is not showing any of the actual problems with the private sector. For example, the prices DO go down for small items and relatively small services like clothes, restaurants, etc... and i seriously don't want those public but still, it has to be asked: HOW do those price go down? The best way? Exploitation of the employees (I work kitchens, i know what I'm talking about), sending operations overseas, therefore robbing Americans out of jobs, using cheap materials to make a worst product that's still sellable (product quality has gone down since the fifties because a cheaper product breaks easier and needs to be replaced faster). Although, prices go way up in other sectors. Mostly when the price of the product or the starting fee makes it hard to compete. For example, the electricity sector. Quebec's electricity sector is public and for some reason it is the cheapest in north america. How could that be? Well, the government has a bigger starting found than most companies, so they can invest in ventures that cost a lot to build but cost less over time. Example? Hydroelectricity. The maintenance cost are insanely low compared to the profits, but building the dame thing (see what I did there?) is very pricey. Although it's very profitable. Quebec produces so much energy that they sell a portion to the state of New-York, making a profit straight to the government and helping keep the tax money down. Also, this video doesn't account for monopolies, which are supposed to be illegal but still happen all the time, especially with the U.S. very loose laws on businesses. For example, companies like Comcast control most of the internet market, and make deals with other companies to stay out of each other's way so they can offer a terrible service with very high price without you being able to do anything simply because they have the control of your area. It can still happen with ''imagined'' monopolies. For example, ever wondered why apple products are so insanely pricey? Branding. That's it. The base materials don't cost more, they just control the market with good advertising. They have a little competition but not enough to keep their prices down by a lot especially in markets they control like mp3's. Even in other ones they still make customers pay insanely high for laptops when pretty much any company sells them cheaper for better performance, but with advertising they control the market. So yeah, it,s not that black and white. Some industries should be public, some private. I know a lot of you may say TL;DR but still, this is an important topic.
"The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx This quote is all you need to destroy anti-gun liberals. Guns are designed for killing, not protection. Liberals got this part right, but the conservatives got the part about how they are necessary for a free society correct. As a Marxist Leninist I am a proud advocate of gun rights. The NRA makes horrible arguments which play into the liberal talking points. I prefer the Socialist Rifle Association tbh.
***** Leninist/Hoxhaist. Socialism is on the rise and thankfully in my state socialism means what it traditionally meant and not the current liberal sjw cancer definition. I live in a state with a socialist past, we're all farmers here so it's just kind of what we prefer. I live in ND btw.
The public sector doesn't care about providing quality services or managing their money effectively. After all, they get all of their money from taxpayers, and its not their own money their using. There are no consequences for mismanagement in the public sector, so obviously their services would be worse. This is somewhat similar to investments. Private investment works, while government subsidies don't.
Two main sectors that have to be full successful as perfect. 1: medical 2: scientifical Both sectors have to work on both: livingthings & non-livingthings.
Because the private sector never seeks to create a monopoly on any level, be it national or local. And if it just so happens, private business would never take advantage by running up prices and offering poor customer service. Yeah, Ma Bell was a paragon of efficiency and customer service.
This really doesn't go into much detail about what makes something actually better or worse in terms of public vs private. One of the best things about the public sector is that it can provide services that are necessary for people at a lower cost (or even free) than what could possibly be provided in the private sector in order to allow people who don't make much money to receive these services. That is one of the major reasons for education and health care to be better off when run by the government: because everyone needs those. Not to mention it's not like government systems are absolutely hopeless at being well run. The public schooling system (at least in some states) is very successful and just as good as private schools, however those do require good oversight and accountability to the voters, which can have the same beneficial effects of accountability to the customers that come from private sector businesses.
I lean left and of course I agree with this. This is obvious. The points of conflict come in on which things do we use the government for and which do we privatize? Where is that "sweet spot", if it exists?
depends on the item. generally with something like healthcare, the private sector does better. you get much better service and wait times are normally smaller. when the government runs healthcare, it gets slower, you get worse service, and many more problems. a perfect example of this is Canada. Canadian hospital wait times are abysmal. what person with cancer wants to wait a year for chemo therapy because the government hospitals are backed up? with something like education, it could go both ways. public education is free and has more classes and activities available, but private schools could offer a better education and one on one time without waiting forever. in the end, the private sector runs business practices (shops, healthcare, food, etc) better, but the public sector runs necessary services (police, fire department, roads, etc) better because it can get more funding. as I said at the beginning, it's dependent upon the issue at hand.
the more you add to the Private sector by way of favorable conditions, the lower prices come by way of competition, and lower profit margins in the Private sector. the more you add to the Public sector by way of cronyism, the higher the taxes & inflation occur, by way of monopoly, and nobody looking in on inefficiencies, and the general ineptitude of the entire system. now, it's likely, that a vast percentage of the population is unaware or don't care about the inefficiencies/differences in long-term effects on a nation's economy; namely high welfare, high crime, high taxes & inflation...vs. the opposite. you necessarily want a nation's people to be fully-productive to the point where time-away from work isn't being paid-for by higher prices down the road...we achieve the desirable, by monitoring what percentage the government is responsible for a nation's GDP...the lower, the better. undoubtedly... a nation, who's GDP is 'supported' by government-spending, by 5-10%, is undoubtedly stronger, than a nation, who's GDP is supported by government spending of 45-50%...because, the more capitalist-driven-government has room to absorb bureaucratic-error. e.g. wasteful government spending, war, man-made pandemics, etc. we have an attitude, world-wide, where we sacrifice tomorrow for today. but, you only build a better tomorrow, by sacrificing the here-and-now. this is ages old wisdom; and is true of the national-debt, as well as the socialism vs. capitalism debate. for whatever reason, those in power decide otherwise (corrupt/inept), impatient, excuses etc.
It's pretty simple. Public sector stuff is bland, generalized, and focused on sacrificing the good of the individual for the good of society. Private sector stuff is specialized, personalized, and focusing on pleasing individual customers instead of focusing on pleasing society as a whole. So if you want to be treated like just another number in a computer system, go with public sector stuff. If you want to be treated like a human being, go with private sector stuff.
The private sector aims to profit, therefore it sells us the product or service, and in turn is more efficient since we pay for a quality service. The public sector is non-profit, it is solved thanks to the collection of taxes and with that money it provides the services at no cost, being also the worst of the services.
The post office is not really in debt. What happened was while republicans had a majority last time they made it so the post office must have enough money to cover retirement benefits for its staff...for 75 years into the future. But I don't recall them mentioning that part. In fact most of the private mail services use The Post office to cover places that would be a lost to do so without charging the shipper a surcharge for making a UP truck to go out in the middle of nowhere to deliver a single letter. Basically as long as you don't rely on a service to the point that your life is depending on it, then make it private. If your life depends on it then you should make it public. A good example of a bad private sector is medical as they will surcharge you up the ass for everything they can, often because without it you are going to die.
The DMV and USPS are failures not because they are public sectors, but they are layered non transparent bureaucracies, that the general public has yet to push or lobby to improve. If there are passionate people who can guarantee votes for a better USPS, then the USPS will improve. State Parks, Highways, and the Department of Agriculture are Public sector (Huge Omissions in Video because *Bias*) and are better managed because proactive voters have forced these departments to be more efficient.
this... not entirely correct private sector w/ competition DOES lower prices, but there HAS to be competition in the netherlands public transport was changed to the private sector, however because there are no competing private companies running public transport services, service is abominable: buses&trains are late on a regular basis, trains get canceled if they're delayed more than 30 minutes, so it doesn't count as them being late in the statistics when a train is canceled & in rush hours it's very common for trains to be so full people don't fit, in part because it is at these times that the busy tracks are serviced by trains that are half their normal size buses regularly just don't show up or are more than an entire cycle (30 minutes - 1 hour) late, communication is virtually nonexistent, so an issue that prevents trains from going to one station can take 6-7 hours to reach other stations prices insanely high (it is cheaper to drive a car), complaints are ignored entirely (or met with the response "well, take a train/bus earlier if our being late causes you to miss your connection") and bus drivers tend to be assholes (turning the heating on full blast on the hottest day of the year, refusing to stop to pick up passengers while there are still seats available, refusing people entry that want to throw away a soda can in the trashcan inside the bus, promising they'll wait for 1 minutes while the guy throws it away in the trashcan no more than 10 meters away, then shutting the door and driving off) in a situation like this, having transport as a public sector service allows government to enforce regulations on things like price & quality of service
Because Firefighters and Police are essential services. In the private sector, bankruptcy is far more likely because you have nobody to bail you out, and if too many, for example, Firefighters or Police officers went bankrupt, then we'd have a serious problem on our hands.
zdrux that's an accountability thing. If you don't pay your water/electric it's gone immediately. If that was government, you would still be getting water and electric for at least 2weeks before you get a notice that they are shutting off your water. They are more bureaucractic
Coolmaster X Incentives fires? Are you serious? How do they know which company you will call or who provides your service? Why would they risk being criminally responsible once found out? Do lawn care companies come and shit on your lawn to increase their business? Do window installers break windows in their neighbourhood for more business? You're not really taking cues from the real world here. Also, what does it have to do with accountability? If you don't pay for a service, you don't get it. I guess it's not that essential to you at that point, is it? What you consider essential might not be the same for everyone.
Poor example. I am a UPS employee. I know conservatives are very anti union and UPS has one of the strongest unions in the country, hence why UPS drivers make $37 an hour compared to private sector jobs like fedex or amazon which barley clear $20 an hour. But UPS is "private". People complain about how unions and public sector employees are "overpaid" how about the private sector starts paying a union wage with benefits? That would even out the competition and provide a better argument to privatize everything and lower pay which is what companies want. Dont mind me, im just an employee in the private sector.
i principially agree. but i think postal service vs. private is a bad example. if i want a package delivered i always use postal office. bad experience with ups etc. those companies only earn money if they successfully deliver the package. so when i wasnt at home, the deposited it at the most daring places. in grocery stores in the next block... in an office across the street. sometimes the notifications got lost, and when after a few weeks i looked online, where the package was, it said "delivered in office", well this one was the store actually. horrible. the post offers better service. if they dont meet you, they just take it with them again. and it can be conveniently picked up at the next postal office.
I'm so sick of hearing people bad mouth the post office. I use the post office almost exclusively for my business and they haven't lost a single package or letter yet. Every time I go there I've received fast and friendly service. I don't know about post offices in other places but here its gotten a lot better. The DMV in California has improved their service as well. Is there still more room to improve? Sure. But plenty of private companies give bad customer service as well. Bank of America was notorious for giving bad customer service. At one point they used to charge you to talk to a teller! Go read the reviews on Fry's Electronics they almost all bad. They sell cheap crap a lot of the time its refurbished and they make you jump through hoops if you want to return something but yet both of these companies are still around.
Federal taxes DO NOT fund government spending. Government spending funds federal taxes. The federal government doesn't tax people to raise money so it can spend. The federal government creates the US dollar, it doesn't need dollars from people in order to spend. The public on the other hand, we need dollars in order to pay our taxes and buy things. If you work and are paid in crypto currency, you would still have to change some of it to US dollars so you can pay your taxes. If the US government were to stop spending money into the economy and it continued to collect taxes then there would be fewer and fewer dollars in the economy. The government would be running budget surpluses and the economy would be in recessions. If the government were to pay back pay off all of its debt, it would need to collect every us dollar it ever issued so there would be zero US dollars if the federal government paid off its debt. In other words the US Federal debt is actually just the total amount of us dollars that was spent into existence and has not been collected in taxes
this did not even cover 1% of the information you need to tell the differences between the public and private sectors. There is so much more to it than just listing a bunch of financial differences. For instance. The government might be a public corporation but the Federal Reserve, is a private entitiy, which funds almost everything within the public sector gov't. How this is possible, and how those private entities like the federal post and the federal court system operate with the public and the way things intertwine are extremely deep. You, also operate in a public and private manner everyday. The government also operates you in both capacities all the time. We babble so much so, that they had to write another language called legalize to decipher the differences of both and to make both sectors work together more fluidly. You might think one is water and the other is oil but the truth is that both are water in different states of water. where the public sector might flow the private sector remains solid with shape, but we sometimes throw water at it to change the shape.
Taxes don't fund government spending. How can you pay your taxes for your services if the government hasn't issued you with the money to pay your taxes yet? Taxes reduce aggregate demand to allow the government to spend without inflation.
Some things should be private and some public but just having one is all bad
Public (aka government) is ALWAYS bad. Government/public is the use of violent force and violent force is ALWAYS bad.
Idiot. Did you not watch the video? He specifically said that firemen and police should be public not private.
Evil 1 karozans is a straight idiot but that's not the point, the point is that certain things like pharmaceutical companies don't always lower there prices like they should sometimes they increase them with their competitors. And that's why some things should be public
True. There has to be some balance.
The thing is, it should be done right. Some things are good the way they are.
My experience with the postal service is the opposite. When I buy something online, when the USPS delivers, the package often arrives a day earlier than expected, and I've never lost anything in the mail. On the otherhand, UPS and Fedex tend to deliver late.
What planet are you living on? USPS always loses, "misplaces" or is tardy with my packages. Probably because government doesn't give a shit on how they spend your tax dollars.
UPS and Fedex gives a lot of packages to USPS for delivery
The problem with the private section is when monopolies are form and there is no more competition. They become so large and powerful, they can gain more influence over the government than the people and start legislating the nation in their own best interest to maximize profit.
And this happens beacuse of governments too
For a private business to obtain and maintain an actual monopoly, it must offer it's product or service at a fair market rate, otherwise competition will arise and the monopoly will cease to exist. The fed gov passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, and has used it as a weapon almost exclusively ever since, to the detriment of the nation's economy. Government is the problem, laissez-faire is the solution.
Sounds like the USA
I'm an arch-capitalist, but even I think there are places the private sector shouldn't thrive too easily in - like healthcare. Good health is a right, and I don't know why people continue to deny it. If you want a private health sector, that's fine, but the national focus should be on an effective Public Health Service that helps everyone.
This USPS hate is not as cut-and-dry as people think. USPS is actually VERY profitable, and their service is much cheaper in many cases than the private sector alternatives. The thing that hurts the USPS is the government mandate that it must pay about $5.6 billion a year for 10 years to prefund the retiree healthcare plan. Something that no other private entity does or is required to do. Also, according to the USPS, "the Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations."
Thank you. USPS is self sufficient and there are many hands in the budget
agreed it should not be sterotyped
If the USPS is so wonderful, how do private businesses like UPS and FEDEX stay in business?
Thats why GM retirees lost their health care in 2008
The private sector works for its customers by contrast the customers are required to work for the public sector.
bingo
So you don't vote or have a mortgage?
Huh? I don't see the connection unless you believe that having a vote means that it counts and that having a mortgage is a tax rather than a financial service. (PS At least where I live the there is mortgage tax, deed filing fee and several other smaller ways of dipping into my pocket at a real estate closing.)
No. Voting holds the public sector accountable. Your mortgage is 10 times higher than it should be because the private markets have introduce so much easy credit since banks were deregulated yet too big to fail. These issues are complicated.
Shad Jones
I agree that being a responsible adult is complicated, always has been, always will be. Mortgage rates reflect not only the actions of the lenders but of the government which controls the money market (quantitative easing, etc.). The public sector, government, also buys the mortgages from the banks and transfers the risk of default to the taxpayers.
Government actions caused the marketplace imbalance which resulted in ever higher housing costs by mandating lending practices which no sane underwriter would have allowed unless forced to do so by public sector policies and regulations.
I vote in the private sector every day when I choose one company over another thus influencing who prospers and who fails. These economic "votes" have far more effect on the world than my vote for a politician.
All I know from my own experience is that it's much cheaper to send packages through USPS (the US postal service) than it is through a private company like FedEx or UPS and you still get the same shitty service no matter which you choose. I also know that public sector jobs are better paying and offer better benefits than private sector jobs... at least for the average person. I've worked in the private sector my entire life and just recently was hired through the public sector and I have to say... the public sector pays a lot better, has better benefits, and has much easier jobs... easier in the sense that you're not squeezed to death to maximize the amount of work you produce comparative to the wage you make. I hate to tell you Prager U, but the public sector actually works better for regular people both as consumers and as employees. Just my experience as an average American.
'Works better for consumers', that's because the public sector runs a deficit; it's not profitable. If you extended the public sector to the entire economy, the government would go bust. Thus it only works due to a highly efficient and profitable private sector. The terrible part is is that the public sector just employs resources less efficiently than does the private sector, making us collectively less wealthy.
@@lmy2366 absolutely right. More pay less work sounds fantastic and inefficient as f. Efficient private sector does quite literally fund the deficit of the always poorly administrated public sector.
How can the public sector not profit when you think are all the people in our country and all the taxes in one day that are added up
WOW I LUV HOW IMPARTIAL AND UNBIASED UR ONIONS ARE OMG
Yes, very unbiased onions
*Please recommend an essay writing service.* Subject of my essay "Leadership in the Public and Private Sector".
Ordered my essay at essay.b190.all-about.in. Great work writing my paper! *The writer did an excellent and perfect job!*
The major problems I see with the public sector and government funded programs is that (A) there's hardly any "punishment" if these things fail, whereas, if a business does bad in the free market, they'll tank, and (B) these things are often driven purely for political reasons, rather than, empirical. For example, the Democrats pushed for education reform through government programs during the Clinton era. Education reform sounded good but it failed. Nothing changed. No one was punished. And, even though they knew it was likely to fail, the Democrats still pushed for it anyway because politically speaking it sounds great..... The private sector still has its flaws but, in general, the private tends to be a more "progressive" model in the sense that the free market demands things to change if it's bad and the free market demands things to be better. Whereas, government is more of the same.
Agreed
"If a private company does bad in the free market, they'll tank."
I think occupy wall street would have something different to say.
in my country we give them goals to accomplish if they dont achieve the goals people lose their jobs.
no no no no. Stop looking at it as something that offers the better service, the video even gave you an example with the police and firefighters. The government should be in control of essential programs/businesses. They should be in control of natural monopoly markets such as the water, electricity(well the lines, cables and power grids.) The private sector should do everything else it is good at. Most western nations use a mixed economy, between free market and regulation, why can't you see that this should also apply to the public and private sectors, they should work together, with the public sector doing things that shouldn't be left to the private sector and maybe with some government business to add competition. They should both do what they are good at, so stop comparing the two when they are very different and are offering different services, look at how well they work together, look at how well maintained the roads are,the schools shit like that, don't look at the government and say well there business always go broke, which means the public sector is inferior, no it's just that the public sector is clearly trying to do something that it shouldn't. With the post office, i'm not really sure but i think a private business won't send a package to a remote are without heavy cost, this may be fine for you but i think(once again not sure) that a public post office would do it for lower cost, why, because there is no profit motive, there is just get the job done and we'll do it at a affordable price.
+Levi For Waifu because government bailed them out... see how intersection of public/private is bad.
I love the guile of this video, simply "knowing what's best" what needs to be private and public sector without even TRYING to find out through testing.
was that sarcastic?
The history of the United States is the test and proof. Capitalism made us strong. But now, as things become more and more socialized our economy is becoming weak.
Tusenbensen What's your point?
If you want testing, look at Soviet Russia vs. 1980s West.
CAUSE PRIVATE PRISONS ARE SO MUCH FUN, YEAH!
Where did they say that?
you misspelled public.
in all seriousness, if the government bails out a business, its no longer private. Prager would agree.
This has nothing to do with private prisons.Prisons are government job.
How exactly would a state-run prison be any better? It's prison. Also, privatized prisons don't put people in them. You're government does that.
+MWH12085 your*
i am not a fan of the new style of video, the animation is fine, it's just the way the information is explained seems like you are trying to be 'trendy' and dictating the information rather than teaching it
its also econ 101
It's not that I didn't like the content, I didn't like the way it was presented
They need to make it at a grade 8 level so most people can understand it. When it comes to economics, it really isn't open for discussion. Either you like corruption and the extortion of tax money through force to pay for things, or you don't, and you want to be free to offer a better solution, and empower people to be free to create change. Which is it?
I guess I am not explaining it well, I liked the fact that they are educating just, simply I didn't like the style the way it was being said. Sort of like how if you read a book that you know is good, but you just don't like the style
Using USPS as an example was a mistake.
1. The USPS would be profitable if congress didn't straddle it with the erroneous obligation to forward fund it's retirement by 75 years. The average term of service for a federal employee is approximately 28 years, and retirement age is currently 72, so they are paying retirement benefits for employees who haven't even been born, let alone hired.
2. When you mail your tax payment do you take it to FedEx or the Post Office? You take it to the Post Office, why? As a branch of the government you payment is considered delivered at the point it is received by the USPS, if you FedEx it then it's the point of delivery. Further, you can't FedEx to a PO Box which is where most payments to the IRS go.
3. Levels of service. It doesn't matter where you live, you likely receive you mail delivered directly to your house. If you live in rural areas, FedEx and UPS often hand packages off to the USPS for delivery because they don't have the infrastructure to support rural delivery.
4. Cost of service. You can mail up to 2 oz. in a standard envelope anywhere in the US for a flat rate less than $1. No other delivery service provides that service at that rate.
All these things are made possible because of something that the Public Sector does that the Private Sector doesn't. Equality of service and outcomes. The public sector doesn't look at profit directly, it looks at an objective, daily delivery 6 days a week to your door, no matter where you live. Private sector looks at it from the standpoint of, fastest possible delivery for a price, where cost is marketable. The USPS's best products are their flat rate products, mail and parcel, they are very efficient at delivering mail over 5,800 mail items every second. Despite what this video says, they have receive no federal funding, however they have been bailed out in the past when technology changed and they were not structurally prepared. The problems with the USPS are fabricated, none of their competitors, nor any other branch of the government are required to pay retirement for persons not yet hired. This obligation forced on them by congress was intended to kill the USPS, and force privatization. Personally, I live paying $0.50 to send a birthday card, not $7.00.
This video misses several key aspects of how a market economy works.
The benefits of the free competition only works if
A. There are many different choices available,
B. The consumers are well informed, know what is best and are capable of making the right decision, and
C. You want to maximize consumption
The private sector tend to bring forward monopolies or oligopolies, wich makes the same situation as the public sector.
In many areas there aren't different choices, for example in the countryside
In many areas it is very hard for consumers to make a right decision, for ex healthcare, schooling, banking and so on
In many areas you don't want people to consume, for ex tobacco, alcohol or things that are bad for the environment, in these fields you want people to consume less, not more.
Some ares are suitable for the private sector to manage, some areas are not.
BTW: If the public postal service works bad, then the elected representatives that govern should be replaces by the next election.
If you don't mind the slower processing, and want to save money, you'd use the USPS. If you want it to get there fast, and money's no object, you use the priviate postal services such as UPS or FedEx, etc. It's good to have both options and having choices, and monopolies are bad in both private or public sectors.
And thats why we have the public sector in the first place. Its not as simple as "the public sector is baaaaaad".... 👍
most of this I can agree with, the irony being that the postal service has been the cheapest carrier I can find for shipping packages since their flat rate boxes. really it's the only thing that's saved them. snail mail needs to go the way of the dinosaur
agreed
public sector give the oppotunity for everyone a basic living condition like health care or school while private give people more the oppitunity to actually innovate or something
Tbh, if I'm shipping stuff, which happens semi regularly, I always go usps. All because of flat rate boxes. Unless I'm very much mistaken, there is nothing that ups or fedex has that matches that kind of value or simplicity.
This is so true. The private sector makes costs go down. Take healthcare for example. America is the only industrialised country in the world not to have a government-run healthcare system and is the most expensive in the world... oh, hang on a minute.
Well at least private businesses can be trusted to behave responsibly or they would go out of business. Take banks for example. They always run themselves well and don't bring the world economy to its knees like in 2008 when... oh, hang on. Well at least they didn't run to somebody else to save them from their own stupidity... oh, hang on. Fortunately the people who helped them out weren't the government with our tax money... oh, hang on...
Well at least we can console ourselves with the fact that everything the private sector does is good and everything the government does is bad. At least we have established that. We have Prager U to make sure we have a completely unbiased view of why the rich people who fund them think they should pay as little as possible in tax.
America’s healthcare system isn’t private. It’s a jumbled mess of 3 different public systems, consumers, and countless insurance companies. I agree there needs to be a rework of that system.
But you are also missing something, America is footing the bills for other countries. America is the number 1 in medical research, with a majority of it coming from private companies. This research is used in other countries at no charge, due to them price fixing their treatments.
Not everything private is good, but a lot is better than the public option.
@@zachb1706 On your first point, do you think costs for Americans would come down if other countries removed their price caps, and if so, why? I can't see that companies wouldn't just take the extra profit and pocket it, making no difference to Americans. So I don't see the relevance of your point.
On your second comment, I agree with you. There absolutely are some things that are done better by the private sector. However, there are some things that are also done better by government, and sometimes the worst excesses of the private sector are best regulated by government. Every industrialised country I know of works as a combination of private and government actions.
I wish people could use that as a starting point and having sensible discussions about what is best done by each. Instead we get right-wing misinformation by organisations like Prager U who say that if there is a push to a particular thing dealt with by government then they are radical socialists (which is a lie) and the real aim is to make the country communist (which is a lie) and we should compare the USA they want with Cuba (another lie).
Phil B I think so, as companies would get able to bargain better across the world. This would stop them relying on the rich America to fund their R&D. Do I think other countries should stop regulation? No, as I said I don’t like the US medical system. But it’s got to be known that the reason the us pays so much is that others don’t pay anything and can piggyback off of the US. It’s the same with military.
@@zachb1706 American companies aim to maximise their profits. That is their no. 1 goal. They do not have a target and if they go above that they say "Well, we've made enough money now so we'll drop our prices". I see absolutely no reason to think that prices going up somewhere else would cause them to drop their prices in America - absolutely none at all. If they can charge a certain price, they will charge that price. They don't see Americans as a charity towards whom the will act more favorably if they can make more money elsewhere. If you think they would I think you are living in a fantasy world.
new style of video, eh?
like you would care, you alpaca boy
+TheGreatslyfer ik damned alpacas always spitting in our faces (sloths are cooler we're chill ;) ), who needs an alpaca's opinion anyway?
Wowed
ayy lmao im alpaca shhhhhhhhhhiiiittt top dog report me bro
Declan Graham i don't stoop to your level
Okay, I'm all private sector solutions, but there are a few things you erred on when the video started. The Post Office isn't a public sector business, it's a public/private sector business. It has to make most of it's money the way the private sector does (which is why it sells post cards, envelops, stamp collectors books, collectible stamps, PO Boxes, wallets, key rings, etc), It has to beg the government to raise it's rates on stamps to pay for the actual cost (and the government only gives money to balance the cost they keep artificially low), and the cost of shipping is competitive (even when you consider the free air freight they get).
Anyway, the more important thing is, I, as a private sector company, must use the lowest cost shipping, which is the post office. I pay really low prices, get door to door pick-up and delivery, and can pay at home, print my own labels, and the service is very reliable. So, the "public sector" wins because of the rest of the private sector's free market needs.
This is copied straight from Information Station?
It says that at the end of the video.
It's a collaboration.
WRONG... Watch TIK Public/Private Video for the FACTS.
Public sector is Anything not Owned by a Person ... Selling shares is called "Going Public" as the greater community, or Public, can own a part of the business wheres previously it was owned by a single individual. This continues the LIE that Corporations are Private.
Also since the government is cutting space exploration, private companies will be advancing the exploration and colonisation of space.
"thumbs up"
Musk is getting $$$ from the government. Just last month, I believe, Musk cried that the russians are paying far more in gov money to their own space agency than the US gov to Musk.
Yesssssssss SPACE X FTW
Space X is way more innovative thant NASA
Whats the business case for going to Mars?
Privatizing the DMV is a horrible idea. The DMV isn't supposed to make money, it's supposed to process stuff like license requests. If you put a private company in charge of the DMV they're going to make sweeping changes in order to increase returns. We've seen this with private prisons, which also shouldn't be in the hands of private companies. They effect change in our laws to increase prison sentences and make laws more punishing purely for the purposes of driving up the prison population. We need to stop thinking of private business as the solution for everything because they're number 1 priority will be to always make money and we need to analyze what services we want profit driven or not.
The USPS would be profitable these days if they didn’t have to pre-pay for 75 years of expected employee retirement and health expenses. Private businesses don’t have to do that, and that explains 95% or more of the difference.
Any sources for those numbers?
It was in the washington post about a year ago or so, and I don't have the links for that, since I am travelling.
USPS also has to deliver mail to unprofitable areas.
Jeffrey O'Neill
Very true, even to remote villages of 10 people in Alaska.
***** Germany is also a much smaller place, most of which is developed. I bet USPS operations are profitable in Ohio also.
1:07 ancapa: allow us to introduce ourselves
Good grief this is one-sided
Public services are often that because...
1) It might be a basic utility that doesn't really have much in profits, but is needed anyway. Say, road maintenance, trash collection, schools.
Oh sure - with schools there are private schools. They tend to be expensive. Should that mean that poor people shouldn't get to go to school at all? No? Well then, public schools do offer that service.
2) it might be something that is deemed too important for private businesses to do on their own.
Imagine if the EPA, FDA or other regulatory goverment agencies were privately owned. Like, I dunno, the MPAA. Oh hey, medical company X just invested a ton of money in the agency that approves new medicine. Totally not shady at all, right?
Or, I dunno - police? Firefighters? Judges? The entire legal system? Should that be abolished and replaced with security companies/armed mercenaries guarding the streets? What if you can't pay? Hell, what if your local private security company 'leaks' a list of all the homes in an area that do not have any security contractor covering them? Some would say it might invite in thieves, others might say it would 'incentivise' those homeowners to sign up with a security contractor - or sleep with one eye open.
With a tax-paid legal system judges and whatnot can be all that more impartial. If a judge has to worry if he upsets the rest of his stock holders if he rules in a case where one of their friends are involved.... that doesn't sound good. With a tax-funded legal system, that can't really happen.
One sided? Like how I'm forced to pay for the public sector no matter what? Get your priorities straight.
one-sided because it doesn't really look at any of the positive aspects of public sector businesses and services
I, like the video when they mention police and firefighters, agree with claim 2. Therefore I'll dismiss it with regard to its use for the video being "one sided," as the video clearly addresses such issues. The videos intent is not to do away with all public services either: your argument sets up a straw man in this sense. All it argues, with which every non-Marxist political scientist will agree, is that the market mechanisms generally lead to more efficient and well-run institutions than the bureaucratic model. Private companies are incentivized to make things more efficient and cheaper, as they get to keep money saved. Public institutions must return it to the govt. Public institutions are also far more regulated, giving public managers more hoops to jump through to improve service. Public workers also deal with more limited resources. Re:the school argument you brought up: while public school is "free," it tends to spend more per student than a private school of similar caliber
Right, because private run free market solutions are 'generally' the best? Come on - don't give me those weasel words.
Sometimes - sure - but not always.
Plus, private market solutions have the problem that the businesses that run them usually only answer to its shareholders - not the publics. Microsoft, Apple, Google - they don't give a crap about what you feel or think, and they're way too big to be influenced by you simply choosing not to buy their products.
Yet at the same time, as they compete on various software and hardware platforms, that competition has led to non-compatible solutions - because they have no incentive to work together: That's why you generally can't play PC games on a Mac, or charge an apple laptop with a Dell charger. Each company might seek out its own 'best and cheapest' solution, but unless government standardization sets the tone then they don't really have much incentive to make compatible solutions.
Console wars much?
and cripes - I'm not arguing for communism - I'm just saying that there are some things that government services do better than private services. Not everything, but some things - and to parade around saying that the private sector can do EVERYTHING better if given the chance (which is the vibe the video gives off)
hell, consider banking. I'm sure Wall Street even today would insist that it doesn't need government regulations - but exactly how many stock market meltdowns have we had over the last ten years by now, due to unregulated and grossly careless lending and investments?
1) I never said generally "the best," as the best is largely subjective to political ideologies. I simply stated they tend to be more efficient and well-run. There are very few examples of governmental institutions that are "well-run," save the military.
2) Shareholders thrive on the company making money, which relies on the companies' abilities to market product to consumers. Companies make the shareholders happy by making profits; companies make profits by making their products appealing. It is us buying things that appeals to shareholders. And "way too big to not be influences by your choices" are "weasel words" if I've herd any. Every company you listed has had products that people don't buy. And guess what? They either change them or stop selling them. Look at Microsoft's Zune. And if incompatibility was a big issue to people it WOULD affect sales. Why have Macs always had a smaller market share? Furthermore, the idea that government regulation is the only way to assure compatibility is also false. Did the government invent USB?
3) I, too, agree that everything should not be run by the private sector. So does the video (once again, look at the argument for firefighters and policemen the video makes).
4) This delves into an economic argument. A large reason that there were careless investing was not because of a lack of regulations, but because of artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve. If the investors had a "risker" investment prospect with interest rates actually equal to the demand for capital and real estate, there would have been less careless investing. Artificially created investment bubbles always have more disastrous bursting than natural bubbles, because the artificial bubble creates a greater disparity between the demand and the ability to fill the demand.
Certain services such as public health, food inspection, law enforcement & the judiciary, and so on, are best delivered by the public sector, which in principle should be objective and working solely in the public interest, rather than being solely motivated by the financial bottom line, which is the case for the private sector.
If the video is saying what I think it is, that the USPS would be better off dissolved: it would hurt the economy to do so.
Fun facts/things to consider: (Yes, I know the USPS is the absolute worst of the three options, and I more or less agree.)
1: Both UPS and FedEx have partnerships with the P.O. to lessen costs of delivery. These are UPS Surepost or FedEx Smartpost.
The expensive part of delivery- evidently- is the person who goes out to drop it at your doorstep, and in these sytems, UPS/FedEx drops your package at the local Post Office for them to deliver.
If you get something off Amazon Prime, it is UPS surepost 90+% of the time.
2: The Post Office does not have to make a profit. Stupid, right??
Yeah... except when you consider that the Post Office needs to have stations on the Alaskan islands that have 500 people. And in American Samoa, Guam, middle of nowhere Nebraska, etc. Places that are just not worth it to deliver to for anyone else.
3: Who else is going to carry pieces of paper for cheap? A for-profit would charge about $1 or so, the P.O. does it for about 10 cents.
So yes, bitch about the USPS taking up 'taxpayer money' (even when they charge for their services, have a .com web URL, and act like a for-profit in some ways). But without them, advertisments through mail would be more expensive, Amazon's shipping prices go up, etc.
--
Oh also: Canada's Post Office is bankrupt (or was) as well.
I gave you a thumbs up for the god points you made. Nobody hates the post office more than me, but I don't consider them the worst. They do a job that their competitors can't (door to door ad mail). The competitors may smile bigger, but their prices are actually higher.
I don't live in Guam, so why should I care about them?
Explain without I verdict ending
Earning money-
Who earn's justice-
What economy make something justice ⚖️
Its a shame that this has to be taught to people these days. I learnt all of this back in high school.
And I'm in high school. Still I don't remember it being talked to us
Well nobody really teaches anybody. At least I haven't heard a word about it except from my dad. I live in a socialist country, so that might be the reason, but it's very important information :/
It to anyone*
Can't speak about the educational system in your countries. But this is pretty much the basics in a GCSE economics class.
The fact that this needs to be explained to an ever increasing society of socialists, is woefully shameful.
+Tusenbensen Hi ! If i may question you : which country you live ?
People say the private sector is sometimes run by corrupt businesses but unless they run a monopoly, you can shop at another business
If I feel like Wal-Mart, I'll shop at Target
That's the greatest benefit, having to choose and have options, instead of the government choosing for you
After knowing how Fedex treats it's drivers under its business model no way I would trust Fedex with a package. Also always end up mailing things through USPS. Private Sector is not always better.
but you have a choice whether or not to use Fedex. If you don't like Fedex you can just not give them your money. Forcing people to fund the post office through taxes is immoral.
@@biggibbs4678 This is old... It's not immoral. That's almost like saying taxes for roads or firefighters are immoral. The Untied States Post Office was setup to make sure mail could be delivered even to areas where Fedex or UPS may not deliver, and I seriously doubt you will ever see any of them deliver mail.
Why does everything have to be some moral argument? It's a dumb. Also connecting America or giving access to roads, mail, internet, etc. in the long run boost the economy tremendously indirectly, so I really don't think you have much of a argument.
Great video, but I'm surprised Prager U. seemed to imply that services such as fire fighting and police either shouldn't be private or that they can't. It might depend on the size of the community, but their are plenty of voluntary fire departments, and in cities like Detroit, where the police basically said they couldn't adequately enforce the law due to a lack of funding and your security was in your own hands, you had security businesses step up to make things better. Frankly, if law enforcement was more privatized, I bet you wouldn't be hearing about so many cases of police brutality and murder.
There are private police forces, and private firefighters thoigh
While obviously not really the point of the video, the ironic thing about the choosing between the USPS vs FedEx/UPS is that it usually doesn't matter in the end because FedEx, UPS, DHL, and others drop ship countless packages every day for the USPS to deliver because it is cheaper and more convenient than doing it themselves.
So, maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is. "Why are private corporations are using a public service to improve their bottom-line at the taxpayers expense?"
This is over simplifed, some things like railways fail when they need to make a profit
Public transportation can survive for a year without making money and increasing efficiency and price but private rail could fail or endlessly increase price and that would cause problems for the public
I like your new style. :)
me too.
I thought this was very good and concise, but tbh I like the narrative style of the previous videos better. Hope they don't drop it entirely.
I suppose it is, if you would rather have fancy graphics over actual facts.
Using the USPS as an example for this video was a poor choice for several reasons:
1. Post Office is only losing money due to bad politicians enacting Pre-funding requirement.
2. USPS does not receive tax money.
3. Parcel/ package cost is set by the market. (stamps by congress)
4. USPS works with and competes with FedEx, UPS, and other shippers for transport and final delivery. This means even if you think FexEx will deliver, a mail carrier may still deliver it (smartpost).
I go to the post office to send packages all the time, I never use those other services.
I've heard horror stories regarding the Macedonian postal service.
USPS has delivered late to me six out of the past eight times that I've ordered a package that won't fit in my mailbox. Two of those times they didn't deliver my package until I went to the post office to complain. When I get a package through UPS or FedEx they always come before the predicted delivery date and I never have to complain before getting my item. If I have the option I never use USPS.
Well good luck if you ever need to do an RMA and your item gets damaged in transit. Most companies will just make you buy a new item after that.
Weird thing too is just a few years ago the trend was for the other parts of the government to take funding and revenue _from_ the postal service, not to bail it out.
That's because the real cost is hidden. Tax payer dollars, it actually cost USPS 2-3 times more. You didn't get the point of the video.
The USPS is Quazi-Private sector, the problem with the US postal service is, that it keeps having to pay into the government pension fund
In Pennsylvania, our Turnpike is completely dependent on tolls it collects, it receives almost nothing in tax funding and it's in way better shape than most of the highway systems in the state. I think if the USPS ran the same way it could do way better......."could" being the key word.
Yup. Prager-U, as usual, neglected to mention something like this. Perhaps because its really quite damning to their argument? Or perhaps they just didn't do any real research? Or, most likely, both.
+MWH12085
(I'm not from the US so I don't know many names)
If the post system runs of of tolls it collects and not tax money, and it does not have a monopoly, what's the diffrence between that and a private company?
Tusenbensen The short answer is because the government still runs it.
Though to be fair, it has some aspects of a private business and some aspects of a public one. It doesn't fit neatly into either category.
This link much better explains it though: usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm
+Tusenbensen UPS (United Parcel Service), FedEx, DHL are private owned, they're publicly traded companies (stocks) and are not owned by the government . the USPS (United States Postal Service) is owned by the federal government. the private sector companies receive money through the services they provide whereas the postal service actually gets both money from services rendered and tax money from the federal government. Not to get too deep into this (because there's A LOT of shit to cover) but it all boils down to complacency. The private sector doesn't get a guaranteed source of revenue like the Postal service does. for UPS, FedEx, DHL......unhappy customers=no money. No money= out of business. The Post office will never have to worry about that between being a function actually provided by the US Constitution and protected by public sector unions (whole other story), nothing short of an amendment to the US Constitution will put it out of business.
PragerU, what are the issues with market socialism? Workers control the state and means of production, but businesses still compete with each other.
That's just a market economy. Nothing is stopping labor from owning businesses. In fact labor unions have repeatedly refused to accept company shares or stocks as part of a benefits package. Why? Because then they would suffer right along with the company as other competition entered the market, and what labor craves is certainty. Business is about managing risk.
***** Soviet Market Socialism was a lot better for economic growth than feudalism.
Hoxha
Thank god no one is arguing for a return to feudalism. Feudalism is pre-capitalism.
Jonathon Peterson Well there are the Narodiks. Lol
Because, in practice, socialism becomes centralized, state control of the economy. People who are for socialism typically like socialist politicians, who will centralize power and ruin the economy. The "community" can't really control the state. Democracy is an attempt (mostly for show anyway) and it sucks. Majority rule doesn't lead to any principled rules even if we assume we are being "represented." As for "Worker ownership," people can do that even now. There's a business down the street from me that spreads out ownership throughout the company. I don't really know the effectiveness (I do know they have a good product, though), but as long nobody put a gun to their head to make them "collectivize" I have no problem with it. I still wouldn't call it socialism, though.
USPS is strangled by the federal government. It would be a successful business if they could determine their own rates and did not have to prefund pension benefits for 75 years (for employees who are not even born yet).
I think the positive and personal vibe of your video gets kind of killed by the outro, it's too robotic and impersonal.
I'd change it if I were you, Just some feedback :)
It's about time someone addressed this and thank you for this video. I worked with some in the public sector for 6 months. They have no concept of urgency and staying busy. I pissed me off and I moved on to another lab job in the private sector, of course.
A total load of rubbish. There are massive problems with the private sector that seeks to deliver services while making unrealistic cuts. In most countries, the private sector has been a colossal failure.
government growing 50 yrs , create the poverty .And union bosses are greedy public sector
Oh, you wouldn't want police services competing with each other? That is the exact reality of Brazil haha. To get the public service you need to pay again, either under the table or by buying private products forced by the public services.
the private sector should be the most powerful because that is where ordinary citizens do business. while the public sector is more like a monopoly like and pay for our programs or go to jail.
I do not know if someone has said this, but I used to work for the Post Office and they do not need to be bailed out of debt constantly and is the most profitable part of the government. Congress had made it to where they look bad for now the Post Office has to put millions of dollars aside for future retirement plans for all of it's employees. No other branch of the government has to pay in advance like this.
So screw NASA, SpaceX is the way to go!
Bruh, my grandpa worked for NASA.
And what if the private companies fail?
Your grandpa would've likely gotten hired by Space X, if it existed back then and NASA didn't exist.
not sure if OP is being sarcastic but spacex is making massive strides in the space industry
+Purple Vortexx bingo
This video has an incredible bias. At least in Canada the public sector provides far superior service, quality, and price oppose to the private sector.
However government run retail stores such as liquor stores and cannabis dispensaries there's a huge monopoly which drives the price up for alcohol and weed
I think that government can invest in companies, but it can't be monopolist.
These videos should be shown to teenagers.
Why ?
intelis Because modern teenagers aren't taught basic concepts of private vs. public.
i am a modern teen i know a ton of stuff about how we run things
gabi delany Good.
You forgot to include the government contractor. Supposedly "private sector" but just as inefficient as the "public sector." These government contractors are the bread and butter of the US government now.
so. we need to automate dmv and postal service
There are automated kiosks at both the post office and dmv in Michigan.
+jeff switzer
Maybe in most major cities, but I grew up in a county of small towns where there was only one DMV for the entire County, and absolutely nothing was automated.
Whiskey Logic Yes, it would be a larger city to have these machines. Not all post offices in Michigan have them, but they do exist.
How about we divest from them instead?
How long does it typically take to receive a new licence in America? I applied for mine in the UK and it took 3 weeks, and it wasn't exactly cheap either.
The problem with essential public services like fire and police is that there is no market feedback to allow them to reduce the size of the workforce where appropriate. The unions pressure the politicians to maintain their numbers and benefits (if not expand both). Where I live we have too many firemen and fire stations so their utilization is ridiculously low. I lived in a small but wealthy MA town and the weekly Police Log was a joke (backed up by my cousin, a cop, who visited them and couldn't believe how much stuff they had and so little work to do).
what would be wrong with private police and firemen
I think they tried that back in the bad old days - ended very badly.
Howard Selby no one tried
Twinkle Sprinkle check your history. Buildings burned down while firefighters actually fought over who would put the fire out. And privatized security companies tend to get into a lot of hot water, read up on blackwater.
Last time I checked, I get the mail on time. Yet these videos always conveniently ignore the US power grid and Railroad systems, which are both privatized and causes major disasters more frequently than anyone should remember.
Lol I love how they just brush over law enforcement. Of course, that’s fine. Everything else is sOcIaLiSmMm
I see you have been brainwashed by the media!
Britain's healthcare is probably the most government controlled healthcare system in the first world and the most efficient. The Royal Mail in Britain is also the main post service used in Britain and it is a great one.
I disagree with the video about saying that firefighters and police should be monopolized by the government.
yes but if policeman and firefighters worked for the private sector you would have to pay for them, but at the same time they would probably work better than the public sector one's
Do you think it's wise to have an entity whose income depends on the amount of fires in a city?
+Anatolie Lupacescu what are they going to do? Start fires at people's homes? They'd get severely discredited as a legitimate business and would no longer exist.
+Γιώργος Μπούγιας we still have to pay for them with tax dollars involuntary. Services aren't ever free.
No, I do not think they will actually go ahead and start fires at random. However it would not amaze me if "money will find their way" - some sort of a symbiosis with other parties that would split the revenue.
Some things are more efficient in the private sector and some things are more efficient in the public sector. You wouldn't want all roads and infrastructure privatised, you could but as seen in many countries when they privatise areas of the public sector, things can run a lot less efficient. But you don't want nationalise everything either. Neither to be honest is better than the other.
And all of this is totally forgetting the bailout of 2008?
What are you trying to say?
PragerU has already stated they're against corporatism. That doesn't mean the private sector isn't scores more efficient than the public sector. Not to mention it was government policies that lead to the collapse of the housing market.
What's the argument? Most true conservatives wouldn't support a bail out.
***** How odd.
The Boomer Whisperer they're fine with corporate donors to republicans and their fine with unions giving money to democrats. That's corporatism. They also stated in the video that they support government monopolies on firemen and police.
What people don't seem to realize is that whilst public sector can afford to be lazy, it is necessary for provision of basic needs like water and electricity and emergency services. If a private firm was given control of the power lines in a country, for example, would they continue to supply power and maintain all the cables that lead to small towns and villages with low population? Probably no as it would be unprofitable and they would rather withdraw to cut costs, leaving all that population without this necessary resource.
The DMV where I live *is* fast. I have only ever had a quick and cheap service from the post. The idea that competition improves service and reduces prices is a myth.
...and if it actually DOES reduce prices it often also reduces quality.
I agree that law enforcement, a justice system, and a military should be in the public sector. Though, even with those there is room for privatization. I disagree with fire departments being public, though. I believe people should be free to pay for their service if they so desire. They should be treated much like insurance. Also, over 70% of all fire departments in the United States are already manned by volunteers. Regarding law enforcement, a justice system, and a military, there is room for privatization. There are already private security firms, private courts, and private military contractors. However, I don't think these are quite adequate enough replacements.
So happy PragerU is funding all my favorite progressive vlogs! Keep the ads coming!
In the Uk the rail industry, water, and energy and postal services were privatised with disastrous results. Prices went up, quality of services went down, the first thing Railtrack did was to cut spending on track maintenance resulting in trains becoming derailed, killing passengers. 3 billion litres of water is lost every day through leaks in the system because the companies refuse to invest in repairs. Anyone in the UK who posts a parcel and actually wants it arrive at its destination uses Royal Mail. Privatisation, provides profit for investors as its priority over a service to the public.
Nice animation. Great job to whoever did those.
u deserve more likes
The public sector places make sure prices are low for services that shouldn't have a bar of entry based on wealth. This means the services are minimally subsidized by the government. Take an envelope to UPS and ask them how much it would cost to mail it cross state. literally one state difference. It's probably $7-$9. Because that's about how much it would cost for the package to be collected, labeled right, sorted, loaded onto various vehicles, transferred, and then hand-delivered to your door, safe and sound. At USPS, it's a 30-cent stamp. Same thing goes for the DMV. If that place wanted to turn a profit, there'd be no limits on driver's licenses, costs for tags and various legal services would skyrocket, and every idiot with $300 to spare would be poorly trained and behind the wheel of a car. You can demonize public sector for what it does, and I'll admit that it's not better than UPS or Fedex for high-cost fast shipping, but I bet if USPS stopped functioning tomorrow, people would be willing to pay 1% additional income tax just to see it come back (Hint: 1% is a veritable shit-ton more than the USPS actually costs).
When Indira nationalized banks, and we unearth 4000 crore scams every year. PSUs are ineffective in making money.
"For example, you probably wouldn't want firefighters or police officers competing with one another for your business." - Why not? Because these services are so important that only the government - which is an involuntary monopoly - should be trusted to provide them? In other words, competition creates high quality and/or law price, and, as a result, the state is bad - so it should only do really important things? Where is the logic here?
George Lominadze dude you tend to get what you pay for. It has been my experience that most corporate CEOs are worried about profits not people. I worked as a corrections officer. You do not want to under pay these people. They have private minimum security prisons now. Each and every employee usually has multiple resumes out to the public owned jails. It is usually a big raise in pay. The better officers tend to make the move. The others tend to stay. Watch orange is the new black on Netflix, it is pretty accurate.
HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE PUBLIC😤
The USPS (Post Office) is not ever bailed out with taxpayer money. It is completely run from profits. Not a penny from taxes are received. There are benefits such as tax exemptions, and favorable interest rates. These benefits are stipulated with service mandates that a private company would not have to perform. Such as a mandated 6 day delivery, every address delivery, prices fixed at certain rates that can only be raised by Congress. There's no flexibility in the way that these services are done and what price.
The debt is from being forced to prefund retiree healthcare 75 years into the future. There are no other corporations or government offices that are being required to do this. Also, the USPS must deliver to every door regardless of the profitability. A private company does not have to do that. They go where the profits are. There are also accommodations for disabled people. Private companies have no such mandates as far as I am aware.
I like Prager University but this blatant misrepresentation makes me think that not all of your information is correct and that I will need to fact check everything that I hear from what I thought was a trusted source.
I DO want police and fire fighters to compete for my money. Why should I settle for worse service in those areas?
Because there is a chance they will interfere with each other. Too risky.
I agree! Service would be better.
Only the ones you hire would be assisting you if that were the case
it worked for Benjamin Franklin.
NYC used to have competing Fire departments. Things got kind of violent.
You forgot to mention that the private sector has no conscience ... if not regulated by the government the almighty dollar would be the bottom line and the welfare of the individual would come last on the list of important things. For example, airlines and cable TV was given over to the private sector ... and guess what the prices did not go down ... THEY WENT UP! Greed is the main motivator in the private sector which does need to be supervised by the public sector. Amen.
What's the main motivation in the public sector? Altruism? Bonhomie?
WORD SALAD!
I love Prager university videos. This one seems to be a hit piece on the post office. You think you get a better value shipping with ups? If ups was a better value than ups would be delivering your letters and advertisement mail door to door. The post office competes with ups for packages. As far as routinely being bailed out by tax money, when was that? The post office does not consume tax dollars.
I agree, they could have done so much more like showing benefits and downsides of each, show where to apply each, describe where we are mismatched, and indicate some type of call to action to solve the problems. The missed the mark on this one.
Not sure what country you're in, but it is common knowledge the United States Postal Service has been losing money for a while. That is why locations are cutting back on hours of service, with some places going from mail six days a week to five days a week and other cost cutting measures.
UPS, FedEX, and other private carriers ARE competing with the U.S. Postal Service even with all the inherent advantages the USPS has over private companies. Not advantages for the consumer, but for the USPS itself. This is not to disparage the USPS, but to be realistic about the situation. At one time their services were necessary because of gaps in coverage with the private sector. It is possible some level of their service will always be necessary, but perhaps not what it has been for so long.
UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete in the letter delivery business, only the package business. Several companies have attempted to start private mail delivery services only to be shut down by the USPS.
+Otaku I'm in the United States. In Michigan. We have carriers out seven days a week. In Greenville Michigan usps carrier do a dedicated parcel service for Amazon on Sunday.
I'm in South Dakota and I lived in Iowa for decades. The USPS doesn't deliver on Sundays at all. Since moving to South Dakota (so I don't know about Iowa) smaller towns have had to cut back on their postal service. Doing a quick Google search, Michigan is pretty abnormal.
Actually, this video is not showing any of the actual problems with the private sector.
For example, the prices DO go down for small items and relatively small services like clothes, restaurants, etc... and i seriously don't want those public but still, it has to be asked: HOW do those price go down?
The best way? Exploitation of the employees (I work kitchens, i know what I'm talking about), sending operations overseas, therefore robbing Americans out of jobs, using cheap materials to make a worst product that's still sellable (product quality has gone down since the fifties because a cheaper product breaks easier and needs to be replaced faster).
Although, prices go way up in other sectors.
Mostly when the price of the product or the starting fee makes it hard to compete. For example, the electricity sector. Quebec's electricity sector is public and for some reason it is the cheapest in north america. How could that be? Well, the government has a bigger starting found than most companies, so they can invest in ventures that cost a lot to build but cost less over time. Example? Hydroelectricity. The maintenance cost are insanely low compared to the profits, but building the dame thing (see what I did there?) is very pricey. Although it's very profitable. Quebec produces so much energy that they sell a portion to the state of New-York, making a profit straight to the government and helping keep the tax money down.
Also, this video doesn't account for monopolies, which are supposed to be illegal but still happen all the time, especially with the U.S. very loose laws on businesses. For example, companies like Comcast control most of the internet market, and make deals with other companies to stay out of each other's way so they can offer a terrible service with very high price without you being able to do anything simply because they have the control of your area. It can still happen with ''imagined'' monopolies. For example, ever wondered why apple products are so insanely pricey? Branding. That's it. The base materials don't cost more, they just control the market with good advertising. They have a little competition but not enough to keep their prices down by a lot especially in markets they control like mp3's. Even in other ones they still make customers pay insanely high for laptops when pretty much any company sells them cheaper for better performance, but with advertising they control the market.
So yeah, it,s not that black and white. Some industries should be public, some private. I know a lot of you may say TL;DR but still, this is an important topic.
Love Prager! How about a video on gun control? We could use one!
"The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx
This quote is all you need to destroy anti-gun liberals. Guns are designed for killing, not protection. Liberals got this part right, but the conservatives got the part about how they are necessary for a free society correct.
As a Marxist Leninist I am a proud advocate of gun rights. The NRA makes horrible arguments which play into the liberal talking points. I prefer the Socialist Rifle Association tbh.
***** Leninist/Hoxhaist. Socialism is on the rise and thankfully in my state socialism means what it traditionally meant and not the current liberal sjw cancer definition. I live in a state with a socialist past, we're all farmers here so it's just kind of what we prefer.
I live in ND btw.
The public sector doesn't care about providing quality services or managing their money effectively. After all, they get all of their money from taxpayers, and its not their own money their using. There are no consequences for mismanagement in the public sector, so obviously their services would be worse.
This is somewhat similar to investments. Private investment works, while government subsidies don't.
Two main sectors that have to be full successful as perfect.
1: medical
2: scientifical
Both sectors have to work on both: livingthings & non-livingthings.
Because the private sector never seeks to create a monopoly on any level, be it national or local. And if it just so happens, private business would never take advantage by running up prices and offering poor customer service. Yeah, Ma Bell was a paragon of efficiency and customer service.
This really doesn't go into much detail about what makes something actually better or worse in terms of public vs private. One of the best things about the public sector is that it can provide services that are necessary for people at a lower cost (or even free) than what could possibly be provided in the private sector in order to allow people who don't make much money to receive these services. That is one of the major reasons for education and health care to be better off when run by the government: because everyone needs those. Not to mention it's not like government systems are absolutely hopeless at being well run. The public schooling system (at least in some states) is very successful and just as good as private schools, however those do require good oversight and accountability to the voters, which can have the same beneficial effects of accountability to the customers that come from private sector businesses.
Had to send a package from MD to Germany. DHL wanted 789$. USPS wanted 130$. Doesn't fit in the picture you're drawing here
I lean left and of course I agree with this. This is obvious. The points of conflict come in on which things do we use the government for and which do we privatize? Where is that "sweet spot", if it exists?
depends on the item. generally with something like healthcare, the private sector does better. you get much better service and wait times are normally smaller. when the government runs healthcare, it gets slower, you get worse service, and many more problems. a perfect example of this is Canada. Canadian hospital wait times are abysmal. what person with cancer wants to wait a year for chemo therapy because the government hospitals are backed up?
with something like education, it could go both ways. public education is free and has more classes and activities available, but private schools could offer a better education and one on one time without waiting forever.
in the end, the private sector runs business practices (shops, healthcare, food, etc) better, but the public sector runs necessary services (police, fire department, roads, etc) better because it can get more funding. as I said at the beginning, it's dependent upon the issue at hand.
the more you add to the Private sector by way of favorable conditions, the lower prices come by way of competition, and lower profit margins in the Private sector. the more you add to the Public sector by way of cronyism, the higher the taxes & inflation occur, by way of monopoly, and nobody looking in on inefficiencies, and the general ineptitude of the entire system. now, it's likely, that a vast percentage of the population is unaware or don't care about the inefficiencies/differences in long-term effects on a nation's economy; namely high welfare, high crime, high taxes & inflation...vs. the opposite.
you necessarily want a nation's people to be fully-productive to the point where time-away from work isn't being paid-for by higher prices down the road...we achieve the desirable, by monitoring what percentage the government is responsible for a nation's GDP...the lower, the better. undoubtedly...
a nation, who's GDP is 'supported' by government-spending, by 5-10%, is undoubtedly stronger, than a nation, who's GDP is supported by government spending of 45-50%...because, the more capitalist-driven-government has room to absorb bureaucratic-error. e.g. wasteful government spending, war, man-made pandemics, etc.
we have an attitude, world-wide, where we sacrifice tomorrow for today. but, you only build a better tomorrow, by sacrificing the here-and-now. this is ages old wisdom; and is true of the national-debt, as well as the socialism vs. capitalism debate. for whatever reason, those in power decide otherwise (corrupt/inept), impatient, excuses etc.
It's pretty simple. Public sector stuff is bland, generalized, and focused on sacrificing the good of the individual for the good of society. Private sector stuff is specialized, personalized, and focusing on pleasing individual customers instead of focusing on pleasing society as a whole. So if you want to be treated like just another number in a computer system, go with public sector stuff. If you want to be treated like a human being, go with private sector stuff.
The private sector aims to profit, therefore it sells us the product or service, and in turn is more efficient since we pay for a quality service.
The public sector is non-profit, it is solved thanks to the collection of taxes and with that money it provides the services at no cost, being also the worst of the services.
The post office is not really in debt. What happened was while republicans had a majority last time they made it so the post office must have enough money to cover retirement benefits for its staff...for 75 years into the future. But I don't recall them mentioning that part. In fact most of the private mail services use The Post office to cover places that would be a lost to do so without charging the shipper a surcharge for making a UP truck to go out in the middle of nowhere to deliver a single letter. Basically as long as you don't rely on a service to the point that your life is depending on it, then make it private. If your life depends on it then you should make it public. A good example of a bad private sector is medical as they will surcharge you up the ass for everything they can, often because without it you are going to die.
The DMV and USPS are failures not because they are public sectors, but they are layered non transparent bureaucracies, that the general public has yet to push or lobby to improve. If there are passionate people who can guarantee votes for a better USPS, then the USPS will improve.
State Parks, Highways, and the Department of Agriculture are Public sector (Huge Omissions in Video because *Bias*) and are better managed because proactive voters have forced these departments to be more efficient.
this... not entirely correct
private sector w/ competition DOES lower prices, but there HAS to be competition
in the netherlands public transport was changed to the private sector, however because there are no competing private companies running public transport services, service is abominable:
buses&trains are late on a regular basis,
trains get canceled if they're delayed more than 30 minutes, so it doesn't count as them being late in the statistics
when a train is canceled & in rush hours it's very common for trains to be so full people don't fit, in part because it is at these times that the busy tracks are serviced by trains that are half their normal size
buses regularly just don't show up or are more than an entire cycle (30 minutes - 1 hour) late,
communication is virtually nonexistent, so an issue that prevents trains from going to one station can take 6-7 hours to reach other stations
prices insanely high (it is cheaper to drive a car),
complaints are ignored entirely (or met with the response "well, take a train/bus earlier if our being late causes you to miss your connection")
and bus drivers tend to be assholes (turning the heating on full blast on the hottest day of the year, refusing to stop to pick up passengers while there are still seats available, refusing people entry that want to throw away a soda can in the trashcan inside the bus, promising they'll wait for 1 minutes while the guy throws it away in the trashcan no more than 10 meters away, then shutting the door and driving off)
in a situation like this, having transport as a public sector service allows government to enforce regulations on things like price & quality of service
Wait.. why wouldn't you want a fire or security service to compete for your business?
because, it incentivizes more fires and more crime to justify work.
Because Firefighters and Police are essential services. In the private sector, bankruptcy is far more likely because you have nobody to bail you out, and if too many, for example, Firefighters or Police officers went bankrupt, then we'd have a serious problem on our hands.
Quantum Tunneller Water and electricity are not essential?
zdrux that's an accountability thing. If you don't pay your water/electric it's gone immediately. If that was government, you would still be getting water and electric for at least 2weeks before you get a notice that they are shutting off your water. They are more bureaucractic
Coolmaster X Incentives fires? Are you serious? How do they know which company you will call or who provides your service? Why would they risk being criminally responsible once found out?
Do lawn care companies come and shit on your lawn to increase their business?
Do window installers break windows in their neighbourhood for more business?
You're not really taking cues from the real world here.
Also, what does it have to do with accountability? If you don't pay for a service, you don't get it. I guess it's not that essential to you at that point, is it?
What you consider essential might not be the same for everyone.
Poor example. I am a UPS employee. I know conservatives are very anti union and UPS has one of the strongest unions in the country, hence why UPS drivers make $37 an hour compared to private sector jobs like fedex or amazon which barley clear $20 an hour. But UPS is "private". People complain about how unions and public sector employees are "overpaid" how about the private sector starts paying a union wage with benefits? That would even out the competition and provide a better argument to privatize everything and lower pay which is what companies want. Dont mind me, im just an employee in the private sector.
Why isn't it a good idea for firefighters and police officers to be private?
i principially agree.
but i think postal service vs. private is a bad example. if i want a package delivered i always use postal office.
bad experience with ups etc.
those companies only earn money if they successfully deliver the package. so when i wasnt at home, the deposited it at the most daring places. in grocery stores in the next block... in an office across the street.
sometimes the notifications got lost, and when after a few weeks i looked online, where the package was, it said "delivered in office", well this one was the store actually. horrible.
the post offers better service. if they dont meet you, they just take it with them again. and it can be conveniently picked up at the next postal office.
I'm so sick of hearing people bad mouth the post office. I use the post office almost exclusively for my business and they haven't lost a single package or letter yet. Every time I go there I've received fast and friendly service. I don't know about post offices in other places but here its gotten a lot better. The DMV in California has improved their service as well. Is there still more room to improve? Sure. But plenty of private companies give bad customer service as well. Bank of America was notorious for giving bad customer service. At one point they used to charge you to talk to a teller! Go read the reviews on Fry's Electronics they almost all bad. They sell cheap crap a lot of the time its refurbished and they make you jump through hoops if you want to return something but yet both of these companies are still around.
Federal taxes DO NOT fund government spending. Government spending funds federal taxes. The federal government doesn't tax people to raise money so it can spend. The federal government creates the US dollar, it doesn't need dollars from people in order to spend. The public on the other hand, we need dollars in order to pay our taxes and buy things. If you work and are paid in crypto currency, you would still have to change some of it to US dollars so you can pay your taxes. If the US government were to stop spending money into the economy and it continued to collect taxes then there would be fewer and fewer dollars in the economy. The government would be running budget surpluses and the economy would be in recessions. If the government were to pay back pay off all of its debt, it would need to collect every us dollar it ever issued so there would be zero US dollars if the federal government paid off its debt. In other words the US Federal debt is actually just the total amount of us dollars that was spent into existence and has not been collected in taxes
this did not even cover 1% of the information you need to tell the differences between the public and private sectors. There is so much more to it than just listing a bunch of financial differences. For instance. The government might be a public corporation but the Federal Reserve, is a private entitiy, which funds almost everything within the public sector gov't. How this is possible, and how those private entities like the federal post and the federal court system operate with the public and the way things intertwine are extremely deep. You, also operate in a public and private manner everyday. The government also operates you in both capacities all the time. We babble so much so, that they had to write another language called legalize to decipher the differences of both and to make both sectors work together more fluidly. You might think one is water and the other is oil but the truth is that both are water in different states of water. where the public sector might flow the private sector remains solid with shape, but we sometimes throw water at it to change the shape.
yeah, privatising the train network in the uk really made the service cheaper
Taxes don't fund government spending.
How can you pay your taxes for your services if the government hasn't issued you with the money to pay your taxes yet? Taxes reduce aggregate demand to allow the government to spend without inflation.