[d1zzy]

I grew up in a communist country, everything was state owned, everything was crappy (I mean quality wise) and generally out of stock but hey, it had amazing price (dictated by the state of course), theoretically anyone could afford it. That resulted in huge lines waiting for small stock drops (not unlike the new PC hardware situation with scalpers these days, which is funny) of chicken, electronics, bananas. Of course, it was even better if you knew someone working at those stores, then you'd get a heads up or they'd "reserve" some for you.

So in general I'd say I've seen government fail to run plenty of businesses. A more modern example would be PG&E which is in this weird situation where it's so regulated that it's almost government run but it's technically a private entity. There are also plenty of pure private entities that haven't run well (but at least, such entities end up being bankrupt, a healthy alternative for non-profitable private businesses).

So in my experience, seeing both private and publicly run companies fail, I've started to think that this aspect of it (being privately or publicly controlled) is not what makes the company run well but it's one of the many factors that can contribute to it. I think a more important factor are the interests, skills, will and agenda of those that control it, regardless of whom they answer to (voters or board).

And let's not discard the particularities of each business. Some enjoy a natural monopoly, others face tough competition. These are more important aspects contributing to efficient use of resources than, again, who the CEO answers to.