[refurb]

The fact the US has problems with corruption and lobbying isn’t proof that authoritarian central planning isn’t worse.

The example I always like was Vietel, the national telecom company in Vietnam. It’s a business owned by the People’s Army of Vietnam.

Wrap your head around that. The military has its own side business running the nations telecommunications infrastructure.

[noiwillnot]

> isn’t proof that authoritarian central planning isn’t worse

All advanced economies in the world today are mixed economies. One can point USA or China as two success stories (in their own way) and argue for years about what is best.

> It’s a business owned by the People’s Army of Vietnam.

I do not know anything about Vietel and how they will operate. Would the population be served better if it was privatized? Because I can point plenty of failures of the so called "free market capitalism" that is so perfect that never exists if it fails, as proponents of communism do with "communist" countries.

Would Swiss be better serviced with private trains like in the UK? Would the UK citizens would be better serviced with private healthcare like in the US?

[refurb]

Well, my comment was less about Vietel being private, since it’s neither, it’s owned by well connected people in the government. My comment was more about the opportunity for corruption. At least if a company I private there is (or can be) a separation in decision making which reduces the risk of people lining their own pockets with someone else’s money.