I will briefly respond to some of the interesting comments.
Many politicians oppose privatizations because of the opposition from employees of the enterprises that might be privatized. Employees have opposed every single privatization that I am familiar with. The reason is clear: public companies have too many employees from an efficiency perspective, and the employees know this. Also they have to work harder for lower pay when their enterprise becomes private.
Windows has a large share of the market, but Apple, Linus, and other systems limit the power of Microsoft's Windows. Microsoft's power is in my judgment rapidly declining in the overall computer-internet market. This is one of the best examples of the difference between static and dynamic competition.
The USPO illustrates the worst of public monopolies. It has lagged virtually all the important mail delivery innovations in recent decades. It is grossly overmanned, and its employees are often surly and unpleasant. The need to subsidize mail sent to remote places is no justification for a public monopoly. Such mail can be subsidized-if that is desirable- without having a public monopoly. Simply subsidize Fed Ex or any one else for their deliveries to such places. Take away the protection of the law and subsidies, and the USPO would collapse within a short time.
Many public institutions in higher education offer very fine products, but that is because they face stiff competition from each other and from private universities. Eliminate that competition-as in Germany, France, or Italy- and one sees how ineffectual public universities become.
Phone service has become much cheaper, not more expensive, since the telephone market was opened up. It is far cheaper to make long distance calls, including international ones, than it was before. Imagine what the phone system would be like if ATT still had a monopoly: where would wireless, cable, and Internet telephony be? ATT would have used its political power to resist and handicap every one of these and other innovations.
« Privatizing Highways--Posner's Response to Comments | Main | Agricultural Subsidies--Comment by Posner »
06/26/2006
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef013482fd320b970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Response on Privatizations-BECKER:
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Search
Become a Fan
Home Pages
June 2013
Recent Posts
- Reform of the Tax Code-Becker
- Tax Reform—Posner
- Abenomics and Japan’s Stagnation-Becker
- Should the European Union Emulate Japan's Inflationary Monetary Policy?—Posner
- China’s Tilt Toward the Private Sector? Becker
- The Chinese Economy—Posner
- Security Surveillance Cameras—Posner
- The Internet, Surveillance Cameras, and Misuse of Big Data-Becker
- The Rise in College Tuition and Student Loans-Becker
- College Costs and Quality—Posner
It is also interesting that on the Macquarie website the presentation of this investment gives short shrift to any expected gains in operating efficiencies. But, any sober look at the numbers shows that there have to be such gains if it will be a profitable investment.
I put down their denial to public relations. They don't want to antagonize the public employee unions until after they take over the system.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | 06/27/2006 at 09:15 AM
Prof. Becker writes: "The need to subsidize mail sent to remote places is no justification for a public monopoly."
To the contrary, that is precisely why the Framers provided for a national postal system in the Constitution. No more justification is required.
Posted by: Jake | 06/28/2006 at 09:08 PM
Postal Service can be improved a lot. On the macro- level, USPO should consider simply privatizing the entie organization at one go. At the micro-level, I my current mailman should get a different route.
Posted by: Arun Khanna | 06/30/2006 at 11:02 AM
Good, thank you, wonderful
بنت مكه
Posted by: Anonymous | 06/24/2009 at 12:17 AM
مركز تحميل
Posted by: Anonymous | 06/26/2009 at 10:24 PM
thanks for your post.perhaps you will like ed hardy
Posted by: Anonymous | 06/30/2009 at 02:35 AM
Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات صوتي
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/09/2009 at 06:12 AM
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/14/2009 at 06:18 PM
شات سعودي
00
دردشة سعودي
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/15/2009 at 06:58 PM
ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/18/2009 at 11:53 AM
Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™
دردشه
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/19/2009 at 12:14 PM
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/23/2009 at 08:17 AM
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/23/2009 at 04:01 PM
Great work, webmaster, nice design!
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/23/2009 at 11:46 PM
Beautiful site!
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/24/2009 at 07:33 AM
Perfect work!
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/25/2009 at 02:27 AM
دردشة برق
دردشة الخليج
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/30/2009 at 05:45 PM
thanks to tell me that,i think thats so usefully----
tiffany jewelry
links london
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/31/2009 at 03:29 AM
Great. Now i can say thank you!
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/31/2009 at 07:26 AM
Great site. Keep doing.
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/01/2009 at 06:13 PM
XcQ5Bd Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/02/2009 at 11:48 PM
Great. Now i can say thank you!
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/04/2009 at 12:05 AM
I want to say - thank you for this!
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/04/2009 at 02:55 AM
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/04/2009 at 07:13 AM
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/04/2009 at 10:06 AM