|
|
|
|
|
by room271
3849 days ago
|
|
There is a common idea in economics that explains the problem with what you say: externalities. This is when my behaviour affects you in a way not captured by the market. For example, if a forest is privatised and cut down the owner might be acting in their best (market) interest, but people living nearby will be negatively affected. We could try and put a price on these negative effects, but it's very difficult so the better solution is normally to keep things private. Essentially, you're arguing the solution to one set of externalities is to privatise, but that very privatisation will create a whole host of even worse externalities. We see with climate change and carbon emissions that ensuring companies pay for their externalities (pollution) is very difficult post the event because there are strong vested interests against this, and the people affected negatively are many but spread out, there is little incentive on an individual level for them to go to the vast effort to fight against the polluter. |
|