I mean the state could pay for it...but then people just pay for it with taxes. Which is fine but also just moving the ball around. Unless you think the state wouldn't pay wrongful death lawsuits and therefore could charge the user (taxpayers) less.
I'll preface this by saying I don't know any details about PG&E. But public ownership doesn't just 'move the ball around', it also allows the enterprise to make decisions not purely based on the pursuit of profit. For instance, charge the service closer or at cost.
Why do you believe against all evidence, that government owned and controlled companies can run at a lower cost that provate for profit companies?
What is the incentive to reduce costs, make the business more efficient, provide a quality service? And if there is such an incentive, can you please explain why you believe it is stronger than the profit motive
, even with all the dis-incentives in place in a not for profit company
> Why do you believe against all evidence, that government owned and controlled companies can run at a lower cost that provate for profit companies?
Um, because "all evidence" points to the exact opposite of what you're saying?
A private company is trying to maximize profit. To the extent they minimize their costs they have no incentive to pass that on to any customers.
Empirically, if what you said was true, then the US would have the cheapest health care out of all the other OECD nations because it's run by "for profit private companies". Instead the US pays on average double, as a % of it's GDP.
PG&E has profit caps so it has to offer service close to cost. This article is about a large wrongful death suit it has to pay. In order for it to not be negative and it has to raise prices to continue to be close to cost. The writer is criticizing this as an example of greed.
