You are making my point....the govt needs to do less and less.... the more they get involved, the worse it becomes.... the private sector was just responding to the market condition..., oh, someone else is paying the bill....triple the rents. If the govt didn’t step in, another course would have to be followed. Does he evict 300 families...would those families leave peacefully? Or would the private sector have to step up, along with the community to do what needs to be done to help these families.... we’ve become so dependent on the govt to fix things and we’ve stopped relying on ourselves.
Why do you think college tuitions cost as much as they do? Because the colleges all know that there’s billions in grants and federal loans.... ever look at the balance sheets of these universities? Holding billions of dollars in endowments. Do you really think it costs $50k to attend a university? Of course not...its a fraction, but the colleges over charge, and bankroll the profits thru very clever accounting. Its not as though college professors make big money.
Same in healthcare....govt gets involved and between the waste, fraud and corruption, costs have spiraled needlessly out of control. So to get prices under control, insurance companies and the federal govt started determining what they were willing to pay for various procedures. In the process, it creates so much red tape, bloat and bureaucratic process, its pushed costs even higher.
The govt needs to do far less, and we need to do more for each other.
Totally agree, but with the proviso that when the government just decides to pull out of something it’s already engaged in, hand it over to the private sector etc, the law of unintended consequences will inevitably apply if it’s not thought through properly.
Granted I’m seeing it from a UK perspective where privatisations and benefits changes which should’ve saved the taxpayer money have resulted in the exact opposite.
I’ve worked at a private hospital in Scotland (with a 5 star hotel onsite!) which was profitable but got handed back to the taxpayers on the basis it wasn’t profitable enough. NHS Scotland is now running it at a very modest profit and reinvesting that profit to upgrade a neighbouring Scottish hospital. Everyone’s a winner. Nobody there can fathom the logic of the healthcare company that was making money from it, walking away. A smaller company in the same situation looking at the same numbers would’ve been whooping for joy.
UK Railways get more subsidies now then they ever received when state owned, yet investment’s flatlined, fares have gone spiralling upward, it’s now cheaper for me to fly to Rome than take the train to London, and dealing with a simple train ticket from one end of the country to another is an unholy mess of dealing with different companies charging different prices at different times of the day.
One franchiser handed the East Coast railway line back to the government saying it wasn’t making enough money - after trousering billions in subsidies. That same franchise company has promised undeliverable returns for another line, and the government just awarded it that franchise! Without a doubt that company will pocket another huge slice of subsidy AGAIN, fail to meet is targets AGAIN and hand back this franchise complaining it couldn’t make any money AGAIN. Who smells a kickback? No sane person should’ve awarded them that contract after failing so spectacularly on the last attempt.
So even when the British conservative government wants shot of a responsibility, it quite often finds that responsibility keeps being handed back to it by the private sector (often with some lame excuse along the lines of, “yes we know it’s profitable, but the thing is, after pocketing all these subsidies we’ve decided it’s just not profitable enough!” or “Yes we know we’ll be in profit by Year 2 and be making £2bn net profit year on year by 2015, but our venture capitalist buddies now want to sell the company before Christmas so we need the money NOW!!!”) And any cynic will wonder if money in brown envelopes has anything to do with it.
And that kind of lunacy happens in the USA too. It’s no more evident than in banking bailouts, GM, universities, healthcare insurance and the like. The decisions being taken are often so bonkers you have to ask is it really more cock-up than conspiracy?
If big institutions (especially national/international ones) insist on taking the rewards of their successes in the good times, but lobby hard for special treatment from the federal government while expecting the rest of society to deal with the fallout of destructive short-term decisions and long term financial failures, how do you expect to get rid of big government?