Liberal Policies

There is a new video from Aleix Saló, Europesadilla. I'm sorry, this time I could not find English subtitles yet. The video, as always, explains the situation in Spain in a funny but direct way, while showing that we're totally and utterly screwed unless we kick some current leaders and their friends out of the power.

In the video, they explain two economic and politic ideas that are currently clashing in the democratic (or "democratic", like Spain) countries around the world. I thought I'd made a rant about these ideas, specially regarding the public services...

At heart, both ideas want to make life easier for everybody. The idea towards socialism defends that government has to control companies, offer services, give money support and redistribute wealth, so people have jobs and money and are not exploited. The liberal idea says that this control and redistribution makes it harder for companies to prosper, and without companies people will not have jobs and will not have wealth.With more freedom, companies thrive and hire more people, and share this wealth with their employees, redistributing it. It also defends that public services are inefficient, because they don't have as an objective to create wealth. All this money lost in the public services makes wealth to be lost for no reason. It also defends that we should be free to choose which service do we want, and by having a public service this freedom is denied, since we need to pay for the public one.

Lately, both sides are being considered as worthy options. However, I'm taking a side, and I consider the other one unethical, for several reasons. I'm talking about the liberal side, of course. I believe it can only make the situation much worse.

So, let's concentrate on the public services issue: The idea is that services will be more efficient being run by private companies, plus we will have the freedom to choose which service we do prefer to pay. If presented like this, it may sound reasonable, specially in a moment of crisis.

The problem is that private companies have a clear objective, to make more money. Please notice that the objective is not to make money, but to make more of it. A company that always wins the same amount of money is not considered successful, and may even be considered a failure. The point in the modern world is to always grow, forever (an impossibility), so when you're not growing, you're failing at your job as a company.

When these abstract services become things like healthcare or education, you can see the problem: These services are vital in making us, as a society, able to deal better with life and work. If your only concern when making these services is how much money they will gain, while keeping the service barely acceptable, you will cut costs in any way you can. It's good not to waste money, but in these services a cut in expenses may mean thousands of dead people that would have lived otherwise, or thousands of idiots who are unable to think higher thoughts when doing even the most basic tasks, which will result in poorer results in these tasks.

I'm not saying money should be ignored in the equation, but that the equation should prioritize first, the quality of the service. Then, it should try to equalize expenses so the balance gets closer to 0. If you have benefits, invest them in growing. In private companies, the directives and the stock owners get part of these benefits, so they will try to increase this amount. Some directives will even try to maximise short-time benefits, so they get a big chunk of them and then the company can crash, since they will be retired and enjoying the bonuses they got. Eliminating them from the equation guarantees that money will be dedicated only towards the improvement of the service. As per motivation (people say that public workers are unmotivated  with some truth to it), I kind of agree that, sometimes, public workers do not do as much as they can. However, I believe that this problem can easily be solved: Treat all public workers like private ones. Make it easier to fire people according to their productivity, and establish productivity evaluations. Offer also the possibility to ascend in ranks (and salary), if you choose to do so. If you make somebody unfirable, no matter if it's public or private, you have a problem if they turn out to be lazy, so make sure you can do something about it....

As per improvements, another argument is that without the motivation of money, the services will not try to become more efficient. About that, you can always make public evaluations of the services, auditories and plans for improvements. Since it's a public company, it's easier to implement. Private companies, unless demanded by law, will not have such checks, and I agree to the fact that the law should not interfere too much with private companies, apart from requiring some taxes and guaranteeing a certain level of well-being and security for the employees. Also, when a private company tries to make improvements, the underlying cause, as mentioned, is money. With the public one, these improvements can be triggered by other reasons, and problems that would be considered too expensive to fix can be resolved in the public ones, since the economic benefits are not as important.

Of course, I'm not saying all services should be like this. If you want to get rich, go ahead and create a private company that offers some non-vital service, and do whatever you legally can do to increase your money. However, there is a list of services that should always be available in a public way, that are too vital to be left only in the hands of private companies. Services like healthcare, education, security (firemen and police, and even the army, although I believe armies should not get a big part in modern, civilized countries with no problematic neighbours) or some basic transportation should be always available for everybody, in public form.

One of the arguments against that is that your freedom to choose a service is denied: Part of your money is taken to pay taxes for those services. This argument assumes that you're rich enough to pay for any service you want. One of the things that is usually said about freedom is that your freedom ends where the freedom of another person starts. Basically, you're free to do things as long as you're not decreasing the freedom of another person to do them. If we try to follow this, if you force people to choose such vital services (instead of having always the public option available), your're decreasing their freedom. Not everybody is going to have enough money to pay for these services in the first place, so if there is no public services, you are denying their freedom to use these services and to choose what to study, or even more basic, their freedom of getting better and live after falling ill.

Defenders of liberal theories will usually be rich, or people that believe they are rich enough to have freedom in paying the service. I believe that those critical services can be offered by private companies, as long as there is a public service offering the same, and if you have enough money to pay for the private one, please go ahead. However, eliminating the public one because you have the freedom to choose does not mean everybody shares this same freedom, so the public one should always be available. Denying it destroys the freedom of the people who do not have enough resources, and the only thing that does to the people who do have the resources is to charge them taxes, not killing them.

Anyway, just a rant about the latest decisions taken in Europe  where some bastards are trying to turn everything private, even when examples like USA and UK show proof of the big disaster that this will cause...(ask USA about their healthcare, or ask UK about their private train system and some of their hospitals....)

Some other day I'll rant some more about politics....