Some governments actually govern decently well, certainly way better than the US. I assume you haven't actually read much of said documented history.

I understand that you're intending to rebut the local claim that "giving money to government programs always ends poorly"; however, to the extent that your rebuttal is correct, it seems like a reason not to give more money to the US government?

Indeed it might! I personally hate paying a chunk of my annual income to the department of defense. But "the US govt" sure describes a large machine, and it's worth highlighting that some parts of that machine are better than others, and I believe that some of them are definitely fixable. We should fight for the good programs and try to kill that bad ones, imo.

But yeah, I mean on the whole, if I could abolish the US govt (not other govt's, just this one), I probably would. But that's not my call! So in the meantime I'm voting progressive and contributing to pressure to repair the good systems we have and make life more livable for the unlucky souls born poor in this country and on this planet.

Ah. I assume you can point out which of these "some governments" have logistics that rival Amazon via throwing a "fuckton of money" to their post offices?

Right, but I hope you also acknowledge that the US does not have very many flexible, customizable offerings competing in healthy markets?

There is barely a US industry left that isn't completely captured by 2-5 corporations. We may have the illusion of markets and choice, but we don't. We have monopolies and oligopolies extracting monopoly rents because they buy, destroy, or merge with the competition.

>>Right, but I hope you also acknowledge that the US does not have very many flexible, customizable offerings competing in healthy markets?

The implication here is that the health market in the US is a free market?

I will agree with your statement,however it seems you are attempting to use to show how markets can fail, US Health is one of, if not the most encumbered market with regulations there is. To claim it is anything resembling a "Free market" is factually incorrect.

>There is barely a US industry left that isn't completely captured by 2-5 corporations.

I dont believe this to be the case, but even it was why do you believe that happened? I hope you do not believe or imply that it is result of market forces that cause this consolidation. You would be wrong if that is your belief. Consolidation and monopolization is a direct result of regulation not market forces

Corporations LOVE government regulations, they write most of them, as it prevents competition.

Private markets only cater to those who can afford to pay, which can be a lot worse than only catering to the average.

Which is why public-private partnerships are a thing. This would end up essentially contracting one or more logistics companies to do the fulfillment for the public facing government service.

Yea I will pass on that as well, as an example I my City pays a private company to pick up trash, I have no recourse, I have to pay the city, the company has no obligiation to me at all, and there fore I get TERRIBLE trash service

When I lived out outside the city limits I had the choice of 5 different trash service vendors, all offering a different range of services at different monthly costs to suite my needs (and the needs of my neighbors) not only was the service CHEAPER, I got more for the money and if I needed something special or out of the ordinary I simply called up the company, asked for the additional service and maybe paid a little more... I have no such options with a city / government "public -private" partnership service

That is super rad, and markets can be so dope, and nothing beats good fair service like that, but doesn't it also seem kind of crazy inefficient to have 5 different company's trash trucks running around the city? Maybe I'm wrong, but in terms of overall ecosystem input/output, I would guess that 1 system consumes way fewer resources than the sum of 5. I guess if the prices correspond to resource-use, then maybe it is actually more efficient overall? Crazy.

In a perfect system, filled with perfect altruistic people, that always have perfect information, serving a community of people that all have the exact same needs then yes a monopoly would always be more efficient.

We do not live in such as world. First My trash needs are not the same as my neighbors trash needs so a single program does not work for all people. Some people have more trash, some people have more recycling, some people have large items all the time, others do not, etc etc etc. This is one of the reasons your city probably does have more than 5 companies already doing service in it, as most cities only provide residential trash services, not commercial, to businesses have to contract out their own trash removal because all of their removal needs are even more varied than residential and a government program would never work

Then there are other problems associated with monopolies that make them inefficient since they are divorced from the feedback loop of their customers. This is why there are very very few natural monopolies, because monopolies are inefficient even though on paper it seems like they would be the most efficient

It is like socialism in that way, good on paper bad in reality.

Monopolies are almost universally found due to some kind of government imposition, law or regulation that protects them.

The truck only has to drive down the street once, as opposed to 5 trucks driving down the same street?

That’s a lot less wasteful than you think.

I like the setup we have. The city regulates the trash company. So while they are private, they provide service according to what the city demands, and prices are regulated right along with it. I get great trash service, even with only a single company serving the entire area. And the prices are completely acceptable.