That a welfare state does more harm than good

Lower prices Means Better Welfare They may not need to make a profit, but they also have no incentive to keep prices low. There is no competition, so they can charge whatever they want. The welfare market is large enough that it can support several large firms. It's like the automobile insurance industry - there has to be a significant amount of customers, but there are also choices of which company you would lik to do business with. Sweden's welfare was originally privatized. It was only recently that they became a welfare state. [1] Sweden is now showing signs of returning to private welfare, due to the inefficiency and high costs fo their current system. [2] At the time, New Zealand was also working to reduce the deficit. To reduce a deficit, you need to have more money than you are spending. They were taking money from people without prviding anythingin return, so businesses had to price things higher to make a profit for the shareholders. Sorry about that. One source is an inflation calculator. The other acknowledges that it is a website dedicated to progressive views. [3] Even though you did identify your sources, they still don't show that the concensus among economists is that privatization of welfare doesn't work. If the wealthy are the ones in charge of firing people, a charge of paying them if they lose their job, then there is no reson to fire them. State Welfare Drives Out the Businesses I never stated that the ridiculous things would happen immediately; they probably wouldn't. The prolem is that it would happen gradually. Changes would happen at a slow enough rate that we wouldn't take much notice of it. The government would get away with much more simply because it wasn't drastic enough to be broadcasted all over the news. voting only works at election tie, there is no option to fix things immediately and no promise that the person you elected will do as he promised. It is the large amount of customers that is the problem in this scenario. The government has all of the market, so there is often long waiting lists and red tape. People don't always choose private health care companies because they provide additional service, some choose this because the quality of service is better. Private firms do need as many customers as possible. Even so, there can be more than one firm large enough to operate, providing competition. Duty of State A welfare state would have to provide welfare for everyone. I suggest charity and privatization because the people with more money would have to pay for their welfare and the people that couldn't afford that would have their welfare taken care of by charities. The lack of a contract betewwn th free market and a random person is not a negative. Democracy is inherently unequl. As longas you can get enough people to vote for what you want, you can have whaever you want. Contracts can be made without a state as long as there is a person to write up a contract and another to agree to it. In the contract, the two parties can agree on what wil happen if the terms of the contract are broken, such as what will happen in terms of punishment. If w can do as we please with the state (as you suggested when you said that policies could be changes by electing someone else), then logically we should be able to either do what we want with the states' money or change the policies so that the state does not own the money. Poor Quality The problem withthis is that the market isn't only one market. There sredifferent markets depending on the eeds of the customer. Again, I'm going to compare this to the car insurance industry. Dpending on what you need (motorcycle insurance, someone that will still insure you after many accidents, etc.), there are different providers. They still charge a fair price, but it is a fair price for that specific market. Sources[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...[2] http://www.mjpa.umich.edu... pages 3 and 4[3] http://www.commondreams.org...