Economics truly is everywhere! One concept that grabbed my interest was the idea of privatization and public goods. In class, we were having a discussion on how when objects and places are available and open to the public there is no one to take care of them. When things are privately owned, there is someone to take care of them and to help tend to its needs. We learned how privatization can actually be a good thing!
An example of this are endangered species. We examined the Yellowstone wolf as one of these endangered species that are no longer endangered. This is because someone took ownership of them and protected them. Take your very own home for example. As a homeowner you take care of your house, repair damages, keep the lawn in good care, clean your home, etc. You take care of your home because you want it to last. You want to keep it nice. Now say you make your home a renter home for free. What do you think the condition of your home will be after renters live in it for no cost for about a year? It probably will not be kept as nice as you kept it.
These examples demonstrate how privatization can be beneficial to an object or place. Overall, looking back at the semester, I thoroughly enjoyed this class! I think this is the class that has taught me the most about real-life economics and the way systems work in our world and in our everyday lives!
Hi Julie! I enjoyed reading your post on privatization, and I agree with what you are saying. I believe privatizing a lot of “public” entities would be good. One such theory I have would largely privatize social welfare programs. For starters, I believe 501(c)(3)s such as churches should play a more active role in giving back directly to their communities. I realize a good amount of 501(c)(3)s already do a more than adequate job at this, but there are thousands who do not. I realize the reason these entities are tax exempt is because they do, supposedly, contribute to their communities. But, let’s say there are minimums set into place for them. That is, these tax free entities are required to submit documentation each year proving they have contributed a certain amount to their local homeless shelter, community project, etc. This “contribution” could be in the form of volunteer hours, monetary contributions, etc. For example, a church could either send volunteers to their local soup kitchen, or they could donate money, food, etc. Or, they could start their own soup kitchen, start and contribute to their own community project, etc. In addition, private individuals, companies, and such would also be incentivized more to give directly back to their communities rather than having all their tax dollars filter through the sticky fingers of our government. This project, as a whole, would throw money directly back into the community rather than filtering it through the greedy fingers of bureaucrats who have little to no accountability. It would help set a basic standard for tax free entities (and others) to follow, thus preventing these countless groups from taking advantage of the system and their fellow Americans.
This theory may have a lot of holes, but I enjoy toying with it. One problem could be that, yes, we get rid of a lot of bureaucrats, but how many new bureaucrats need to be hired to run this new program? I dare say we would still end up with an advantage here, but that is not certain. Another potential problem could be the government setting unfair standards. For example, a crooked bureaucrat in charge of a certain area could decide to enforce the standards more for a church than he does for a non-religious 501(c)3, but I find it hard to believe this would not also be relatively easy to keep in check by instating processes to watch such behavior. Overall, this theory would need more work, of course, but I think certain aspects of such privatization welfare programs could be very beneficial to all parties involved.
Hey Julie! I really enjoyed your discussion about public and private goods. The analogy of taking care of your home is a great example of the difference between the two. If we want something to last we need to take care of it. Privatizing something can be beneficial if privatizing it will help in the grow of that thing. This helps with bringing different endangered species back by protecting the species from people that would want to harm them.