tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (06/08/83)
Re: Response to Prudence's response to Jeff Myers
1. Renault is neither a particularly good nor particularly poor example.
The economy of virtually every country in the capitalist world has a
state-owned sector of greater or lesser importance - including Japan
and Germany. The statement that a government cannot, by its very
nature, run any business efficiently or at a profit, is the silliest
kind of rightwing doctrinaire tub-thumping.
It is important to keep in mind that state-owned outfits like post
offices and some railways have as part of their mandate to provide public
services in some areas where this would not normally be profitable. Usually
they pay for this with profits from mainstream services - therefore, they
will typically not be as bottom-line profitable as they would in the
private sector.
I think Jeff's point is that in North America, the 'mixed' economy
consists of the private sector owning the profitable industries, and
the government limping along with all the ones that are essential but
chronically unprofitable for structural reasons - eg the railways.
Are there any GOOD reasons why this has to be the case?
2. "Laissez-faire capitalism is the only..." ARRGGH. Lassez-faire went
by the board with the introduction of laws banning indentured child labour
over 100 years ago, and there has been no such
animal ANYWHERE for about three generations. Every democratic
government in the world closely regulates its private sector - basically
because laissez-faire capitalism is philosophically akin to piracy.
Capitalism in general, and particularly the laissez-faire kind, has
had its successes only in circumstances of rapid, continuous, economic
expansion. In case you hadn't noticed, we're living in a finite environment
and will surely destroy ourselves unless we evolve an alternative economic
structure which does not require open-ended growth just to survive.
Get with the 20th century.
tbray
PS just discovered this newsgroup... love it...