Re:The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Se...
by rstuart4133 on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @06:02AM
(#23985049)
A counter example.
- Australia Post is a government owned entity.
- Australia Post has a universal service obligation.
- Australia Post is allowed to sell whatever it damned well pleases.
- But, it has a monopoly on only one thing, letters.
- The combination of universal service obligation is a liability of course, but being able to sell whatever it damned well pleases ameliorates it somewhat. Many firms (like banks) farmed out otherwise unprofitable branch functions to Post Offices.
- Australia Post is, and as far as I know has always been profitable.
From what I can tell, the idea that a government run entity is more poorly run than a private one is myth. If the area has open competition, and the government run business makes a profit (this is generally the case in Australia), then it really makes no difference if it's privately run or government owned.
Differences only arise in non-competitive environments. A monopoly owned privately owned business charges like a rent seeking wounded bull. A subsidised government run business could destroy more efficiently run private equivalents, but can be a fine balance - it can also be a way to efficiently subsidise a service that was never going to be supplied privately. Doing it by subsidising private operators is equally fraught - regulatory capture is a thing, privately owned prisons being a poster child for what can go wrong.
- Australia Post is a government owned entity.
- Australia Post has a universal service obligation.
- Australia Post is allowed to sell whatever it damned well pleases.
- But, it has a monopoly on only one thing, letters.
- The combination of universal service obligation is a liability of course, but being able to sell whatever it damned well pleases ameliorates it somewhat. Many firms (like banks) farmed out otherwise unprofitable branch functions to Post Offices.
- Australia Post is, and as far as I know has always been profitable.
From what I can tell, the idea that a government run entity is more poorly run than a private one is myth. If the area has open competition, and the government run business makes a profit (this is generally the case in Australia), then it really makes no difference if it's privately run or government owned.
Differences only arise in non-competitive environments. A monopoly owned privately owned business charges like a rent seeking wounded bull. A subsidised government run business could destroy more efficiently run private equivalents, but can be a fine balance - it can also be a way to efficiently subsidise a service that was never going to be supplied privately. Doing it by subsidising private operators is equally fraught - regulatory capture is a thing, privately owned prisons being a poster child for what can go wrong.