is private sector an efficient provider of public goods and services?
404286
I don't trust the private sector. I think that because they also have to make a profit for their services, they have a conflict of interest in helping.
931490
both if private gives u many opportunities for Ur growth,but no job surety govt. gives job stable no growth.now it depends what u want.
1165649
Yes, I think the government is obligated to regulate, and intervene, in a market economy. \n\nMarket economics concentrate wealth (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer), sabotage human values (if people value something, then it must be worth money, and if it isn't worth money, then it must have no human value), punish altruism and cooperation (which are anti-competitive), encourage deception and information hiding (to create competitive advantage), wreck the environment (it's rarely economic to use resources in a sustainable or non-polluting manner), and exploit consumers (who only exist to give businesses their money).\n\nSo far, unregulated market economies have, consistently, turned into economic, social, and environmental disasters. Just look at Britain and America in the late 19th century, or Indochina and Latin America in the 1990s. The former Soviet countries aren't looking too good right now, either, and I'm a little worried about the USA's current economic policies.
1097478
it's a profitable industry in the private sector. If you are looking for government expenditures on recycling programs u would have to look it up in the federal budget.
88821
What you're talking about is public works, which are not a bad idea really, but many (conservatives, mainly) see them as making the welfare problem worse.  The conservative's ideal solution would be to have the people on welfare working for private industry, not the government.  With public works you end up with additional staff, bureaucracy and taxation to pay for it than you do with just cutting a check, which means more bloated government, which is against the conservative doctrine of small government.  (Note this is the traditional definition of conservative.  Many Republicans (cough, Bush, cough) claim to be conservatives while at the same time massively increasing the size of the federal government and spending.)
777365
Government run agencies are not always willing to help the needy. People who know how to scam the system are usually the first ones helped. Private organizations help those who are trying to do things the right way. People helping people is a better way.
649989
owned by the people: yes\n\nControlled by the government: no
190435
I believe it is a way to provide for "services" for the common good.  Services here include, but are not limited to: transportation, police, infrastructure, as well as a variety of other human services that make life pleasant.
572776
"The financial sector mobilizes savings and allocates\ncredit across space and time. It provides not only payment services, but more importantly products which enable firms and households to cope with economic uncertainties by hedging, pooling, sharing, and pricing risks. An efficient financial sector reduces the cost and risk of producing and trading goods and services and thus makes an important contribution to raising standards of living."\n\nSo there - in short - if we didn't have one - we would have to work in real money (ie no loans) which could prevent us (or businesses) from investing in projects until the money was saved...\n\nAlso the whole insurance market wouldn't exist which could have devastating consequences for households and businesses.
108979
Wealth should never be redistributed or built by the government for individuals within the society. Each person is responsible for themselves and those within their own family unit.\n\nSo with this in mind, the obvious answer is YES, sustaining the economy is more important than any socialist wealth building programs.
850110
the thing is if u import cheaper ur resources will be located to some other industry so in the long term ur economy will benefit from it..the thing the more open and liberal u are the better u get..we could build an utopian society if only we wanted so..
500718
We live in a world with scarce resources. In other words, wood is scarce, steel is scarce, human labor is scarce; our resources on this planet are not infinite.\n\nWhen these resources are applied to things that are demanded MOST by consumers, you don't have economic waste. \n\nEconomic waste exists when our scarce resources are applied to areas that are NOT in high demand by consumers.\n\nProfits and Losses tell us where resources should be applied. When you see high profits, you see the marketplace providing a signal that this is an area of high demand.\n\nWhen you see large losses, it is also a signal. But this signal says that this is an area of low demand. Resources should be removed and applied to where demand is higher.\n\nIn order to have Profits and Losses, you MUST have Prices.\n\nIn order to have Prices, you MUST have Private Property.\n\nCapitalism is a system that contains Private Property, Prices, and Profits and Losses.\n\nUnder Socialism, there is NO Private Property, hence NO Prices, hence NO Profits and Losses.\n\nIt's obvious why one works, while the other fails.
901130
The general rule-of-thumb is that the marketplace will provide the public sector with all goods and services that a society would need.\n\nThis 'fails' under certain circumstances with modern society. If roads need to be built across state lines, or a telphone system, then the costs and cooperation needed end up being too prohibitive, for any one company to perform.\n\nHence the government steps in and creates a govn't agency, or a quasi-govn't entity to get the job done. Typically these organizations are beyond the normal supply and demand and competiveness features found within the private sector for lowering prices, and enhancing services (aggressively).\n\nThe idea of "privatization" is to move these quasi-govn't 'things' to the private sector and reap the benefits that come with better mgmt. and lower prices.
175129
When considering whether to produce more capital or consumer goods, you first must look at the state of firms in south africa. If here is a need for efficiency and productivity among firms and businesses, then capital goods should be produced. Yet to produce profit, firms must offer consumer products. An equilibrium must be found where the amount of consumer goods meets the market demand while producing enough capital goods to sustain firms. A good starting point is to draw a supply/demand graph for south africa goods.
774313
Have the government provide goods and services that benefit the community that cannot be efficiently/effectively be provided for by the private sector.\n\nExamples:\nnational defense--who wants to have a private army?\nrule of law--enforce contracts, provide rules for orderly economic exchange\ninfrastructure--roads, bridges, dams\n\nand many more!\n\nThe important distinction in my mind is that the public policy implementation must be less expensive than an equivalent service provided for by the private sector.\n\nPeople disagree on how to evaluate public goods and the relative capabilities of government and the private sector.\n\nAnother problem is the statesman/politician distinction.  A statesman will try to influence public policy to do what he/she believes is best for the community.  A  politician merely seeks to gain and exercise power through partisanship and the trading of favors, which inevitably hurts the community.
828118
Centralised control over services... financial efficiencies.. simpler policy making.. easier for the public to understand etc etc etc
1158422
The money seems relatively low compared to private and public sectors. But military personnel have benefits that we non-military types don't get.