Remix.run Logo
lenkite 3 days ago

> Because public operation of infrastructure has often not gone well.

Kindly define "not well" compared to privately owned infrastructure.

user____name 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

All over Europe state utilities were privatized over the past 30 years or so. Has it been an improvement? Not really, things just got more complicated and more expensive. Rail especially is a disaster. Upgrading the electric and telecom grid is made more difficult because of all the (supposedly) competing utilities.

danielmarkbruce 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

https://chatgpt.com/share/68a37b87-6c30-8002-8a9a-76915e2e48...

lenkite 2 days ago | parent [-]

OK, that didn't really do a comparison. But here are the examples that are considered better run than corporate infrastructure:

Singapore MRT (Mass Rapid Transit)

Fully government-owned and operated through Temasek holdings. Known worldwide for punctuality, efficiency, affordability, and cleanliness. Consistently outperforms privatized systems like the UK railways in reliability and customer satisfaction.

Paris Métro & RATP (France)

State-owned, with fares subsidized for accessibility. High ridership, integration with buses and trams, and affordable tickets outperform privatized systems in cost to the public.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (USA)

The largest municipal utility in the U.S. Provides electricity and water at lower rates than surrounding private utilities (like PG&E), and is often more reliable due to public accountability.

Norway’s Energy Sector (Statkraft, state-owned hydropower)

Provides cheap, renewable electricity. Profits flow back to the public treasury instead of shareholders. Norway has among the lowest power costs in Europe.

Germany’s Municipal Waterworks

Almost all publicly owned; provide safe, affordable, and reliable water with strong reinvestment in infrastructure, outperforming privatized systems in the UK (like Thames Water, plagued by leaks and debt).

Singapore Changi Airport

State-owned and consistently ranked as the world’s best airport. Clean, efficient, profitable, and reinvests in expansion. Private-run airports often prioritize concessions and profits over passenger experience.

Dallas–Fort Worth Airport (USA)

A publicly owned joint venture between Dallas and Fort Worth. It is one of the busiest and best-managed airports in the world, consistently profitable and reinvesting in facilities.

ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation)

While not "utilities" per se, ISRO’s infrastructure (satellite launch facilities, tracking networks) is a prime example of state-run infrastructure outperforming expectations at extraordinary low cost.

Has launched satellites at a fraction of the budget of Western private and public space agencies, and even provides launch services internationally.

There are many more such examples. Public ownership tends to work best in natural monopolies (water, power grids, rail systems, airports, healthcare infrastructure), where competition doesn’t function well and the priority is universal service rather than profit.

danielmarkbruce 2 days ago | parent [-]

When you include costs, "better run" takes on a whole new meaning.

But, more simply - no one is suggesting all public ownership is bad, or all private is good. There are situations where governments have just decided they aren't doing a good job running something (all things considered) and that the amount of money they'd get for selling it is a better option all things considered.