you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 7 months ago (5 children)

if it is necessary the industry behind it should not be allowed to profit and should be run and owned by the working public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Alternatively what if it does profit but all the profit goes towards public good? I.e. into the communal balance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If you mean letting public goods be run with a profit incentive for the purpose of increasing efficiency or such, I think what you'll find every time is that the service shifts focus to the median user and disregards fringe cases like users with disabilities, remote areas, etc. I would also expect material quality to degrade as those with cheaper up-front costs would be valued over expensive durable ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • no i meant more in the sense of: instead of the company not being allowed to profit, they can profit but 50% of the profit goes into the communal balance.

    it would be easier to implement that because all you have to do is to order that 50% of the company shares go towards the city/municipality.

  • source
  • parent