Should The U.S. Government Be Privatized?

Should The U.S. Government Be Privatized?

One of the most hotly contested issues during
the 2016 Presidential election has been the privatization of Social Security. Favored
by Republican candidates, privatizing Social Security would make workers bear responsibility
for their own retirement fund, instead of having it managed by a government agency.
Similar calls are being made for privatizing Medicare and Veteran’s Affairs. So what
is privatization, and should more government agencies be privatized? Well, privatization occurs when a government
agency that provides public services is converted into a privately owned organization. While
the services often remain, they can be delivered on a for-profit basis rather than strictly
operated for the benefit of the public. For example, in the 1980s the United Kingdom sold
several state-owned companies, like British Airways and British Petroleum, to cut company
costs and improve government efficiency. Similarly, in America, the Student Loan Marketing
Association, also known as Sallie Mae, was privatized in 2004. This helped reduce the
government’s direct financial risk associated with taking on student debt. Additionally,
it freed Sallie Mae from restrictive congressional oversight, which was said to stifle and impede
their ability to quickly react to new market changes. Proponents of privatization argue that if
government agencies were run like private companies – with less oversight – free market
competition would result in “better, faster and cheaper” services. This is based on
the idea that companies would have to compete for your business, instead of the government
being your only choice. The argument also rests on the assumption that because private
industries can hire and fire people more easily, employees are incentivized to be more competent
and efficient. However, opponents of privatization argue
that increased government oversight and a small private sector is better for the public.
While government agencies are created to serve and be publicly accountable, private organizations
are only beholden to their shareholders. As is sometimes the case, profit-seeking motives
tend to overrule the public benefit. This conflict of interests is not always transparent,
as private companies have less oversight. One current example of the privatization debate
is the United States Postal Service. Over the last decade, the USPS has been hemorrhaging
money, losing $5.5 billion dollars in 2014 alone. Many see the USPS as an obsolete and
failing industry, with e-mail having eliminated much of its function. Privatizing the program
could cut costs and allow freedom to adapt to the changing marketplace. However, Postal
Unions are still very powerful and have widely protested privatization and other potential
cuts to the agency. For many politicians, the controversy over
privatization boils down a choice between larger government oversight with a smaller
free market, or small government with a larger free market. Privatizing an intentional government
monopoly like Social Security may lead to both positives and negatives, and whether
Congress can find a suitable compromise is yet to be seen. Many prisons in the United States are privatized
— and that can be a problem. Find out why in this video. Thanks for watching! Don’t
forget to like and subscribe to TestTube News. We’ll see you next time!


  1. let me tell you this, when a company has to make a desicion between the well-being and profits, always will decide for profits. if by example I have a pharmaceutical a medicine that heals a disease, that is a loss, but if I just keep you sick but strong enough for the next quarter. ..mmm great I have a captive consumer, the same with hospitals, I will pick the most expensive procedure…SS private? I would skyrock the payments and move the retirement age to 75 and if I have a joint venture with a pharmaceutical why not give you something to kill you? paranoid? would you trust wall street your pension fund?

  2. this is a "lip" service for people who only have the great American purge left to conquer. privatization of something like ss would end it.

  3. it should be both. It should be for profits but still be under the gov so it can maintain checks and balances on the system and other companies should offer social security packages so people can pick and choose which is better for them…. and people should be caring for their own social security with the gov offering incentives to top up social security for lower income earners and encourage people to seek employment and upgrading or getting new skills to suit the market.

  4. I don't understand why citizens from other countries criticize the US. People that live in glass homes shouldn't throw stones..

  5. The us government is already privatized. They call it campaign contributions but it's nothing more than a bribe.

  6. 1st privatize your government, then if you are the meanest cut throat, you'll name yourself the king and the country is belong to you everyone else is your subject and slave, servant, sub servant, etc etc.

  7. 1:42 Large government oversight and small private sector? That sounds awfully familiar… cough command economy cough
    Big Brother is watching you

  8. Well, a free market can only work for all when the state stays out of it 100%. Don't trust your government, if you think companies are trying to screw you over then you have no idea how much politicians are doing it. Politicians see you as a customer, and the bigger the state influence the more "customers" for the state, it's a business idea…

  9. When services are privatized, those services inevitably become more expensive as the companies that own them seek to make more profit. And if there's only one or two companies involved, they can make the price as high as they want because they know that people have no other choice.

  10. When services are privatized, those services inevitably become more expensive as the companies that own them seek to make more profit. And if there's only one or two companies involved, they can make the price as high as they want because they know that people have no other choice.


  12. You should be allowed to do what you want with your pension so privat pensions should exist but government pensions aswell. It gets tyranical when you are forced to pay to the government for a posible pension. In Sweden you are not even sure you get your rightfull amount of money back because the government takes your pension money and does what it wants with them

  13. the only reason USPS is broken is because congress forced it to pay all future pensions in advance, which no save company manager would ever do

  14. If all your shit is privatized, then you've lost all control over how the system is being run. You can vote out a politician…but you can't vote out a CEO unless you're also a major shareholder.

  15. Sallie Mae was the worst example they could pick! They , and their Natzie collection agengy, Simm associates have thousands of horror stories about their brutal, little old lady , arm twisting ways. If a students cosigner dies, they auto default the loan and call in the full payment from the estate! Simm, who wants the contract for the IRS, are thugs that the government should be protecting us from, not hiring to terrorize us! The more they privatize, the less protected we are! Our votes will mean nothing! Private goons are fighting wars, doing student loans, and many other important services, and not only don't play by the rules in their jobs, they rob the taxpayers blind! If I'm going to vote, I want it to count! The further away Government gets away from voters and their power to vote them out, the more likely it is that government will count you out! That is what I am seeing happen, they are no longer accountable to the people when they can just give a little fine to their Natzis, and continue to milk the contrbutions from them ,while citizens are being robbed and beaten down from everything they worked for! Privatize, and have no accountability, Simm and associates are a perfect example, check the complaints, I advise everyone to stay away from Sallie Mae& Simm, until; Simm is gone!

  16. I hate that they say privatizing these thing will bring more competition when they know full well new companies wont be able o compete with the existing infrastructure, market share etc its just a legal way of getting a monopoly.
    God I hope they dont privatize social security things that are purely for the benefit of the public should not be made into organization purely after profit.

  17. Of the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE….."WE" ARE the government; dont decry "government", pay attention, DO NOT BE a FOOL,,, do your own diligence.. if OUR elected officials are butt-heads,, GET THEM OUT OF "OUR" government! its about "our" daily happiness, enjoyment.. NOT screwing someone else to take their "stuff"… the more people happy and content,, the fewer horrible headlines we'll have to see,,my rights do NOT extend to infringing yours..

  18. No…but the government could use the free markets to interest a portion of incoming taxes instead of just tax and spend.

  19. You want to make the Senate and Congress to stock companies? Then the vote would really be for sale. It was what I thought about "Should The U.S. Government Be Privatized?".

  20. This chick is too hot.

    I can't concentrate on what she's saying because all of my blood is instantly transmitted from my brain to my penis.

  21. Man, I'm an aspiring politician but fuck politics, look how beautiful this woman is… My goodness, a gorgeous, classy and well educated woman… And her eyes, man… Keep getting lost in them

  22. There seems to be a little "bias" in this piece. You make the statement that the USPS "has been hemorrhaging money" yet you fail to mention that a Republican controlled congress and President made of anti-union corporatist puppets passed a pension funding bill in 2006 that left the USPS having to pre-fund healthcare benefits for the next 75 years. Something no other public or private agency do. It would be nice if you were a bit more balanced in your reporting rather than appearing like a Republican based corporate media news outlet.

  23. Wouldn't the best way to privatize any non-essential government service be to just leave it in the hands of the people to begin with?

    Instead of forcing 12.5% of my income into SS, how about I just keep it and save for retirement myself?

    Hows that for privatization?

    Give me a bond that matures when I'm 62.5 for the amount I have paid in so far and leave the rest of my income in my own hands.

  24. Public cost + private profit = Fascism. Nothing in this video has anything to do with the free market or capitalism. When they talk of "privatizing" government programs, what they're really talking about is outsourcing to corporations. In a free market, corporations would not exist. Corporations are government-defined entities that shield the officers from liability. In a free market, the officers of companies would be liable both financially and criminally for defrauding stakeholders and shareholders.

  25. The flaw of the logic you need to privatized to receive the benefits is bullshit. You can just change the level and way in which the government controls the company they own. They can turn them into nonprofits that receive funds from the government. The nonprofit would have more freedom to react well still being owned by the government and its influence would be limited by laws so that it could operate efficiently and have certain rights to not listen if the government tells then to do something illegal.

  26. The problem is that these "private" or "semi-private" companies are heavily regulated (certainly companies owned by the state) and that it creates too much overhead to even work as expected on a market. Every sector is indeed so.

    Only the biggest and well-established companies can afford to compete.

  27. I encourage all to investigate the U.S. railroads choice back in the 1930's to not accept government controlled social security (SS) but choose instead to provide privatized SS to its employees. Their retirees ended up collected over twice the monthly income as they would have with the government SS plan.

  28. When I first saw the title of this video I thought it was asking if the entirety of the US government should be privatized. I thought "Are you fucking kidding me?" and instinctively clicked on the video.

    Good moves TestTube News. Good moves.

  29. Privatised services have rarely given the benefits they're supposed to have. Certainly in my home country, privatising the rail network just resulted in higher fares for a shoddy service; privatising British Airways caused fares to rise and jobs to be shed; privatising British Telecom has just filled the gap with crappy customer service. Industry should be private, yes, but there are some systems and services where competition just doesn't exist, and that results in monopolies. The rail network is a great example – you can't have lots of different companies running their trains on the same track, or you'll have trains hitting each other, so the only 'competition' is for contracts to serve particular areas rather than which company I want to give my business to.

  30. The government isn't meant to be small, it's supposed to manage and run the country, privatizing it would put the state in the hands of inexperienced business men.

  31. Why would we give the power of elected governments over to autocratic companies? Seriously that's what it is, giving away democracy!

  32. My understanding was that the U.S. Postal Service is only loosing money because it's being required to scrape up funds for its pension plans for the next 75 years of operation- in other words funding the pensions of employees who haven't even been born yet.

  33. NEVER!!! We've already privatized the U.S. prison system… And look where it's at now… The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of ANY country in the world. Now the private prison sector is lobbying for laws that would allow for more inmates to be held in and transferred to private prisons just to raise the private prisons stock market price… Yes. Humans are being treated as profit cows and treated like shit.

  34. the wet dream of every corporation is to have monopoly, and every business is doing their hardest every day to demolish competition by crushing the small guy, and buy the middle guy, and merge with the bigger guy to ultimately to get monopoly to get the most amount of profits by eliminate every possible competitor who sells their products by a cheaper price, but if you are the only guy selling something you can demand ridiculous prices, for possibly worse products, to get even more profits. so that the CEO, the company, and shareholders can hide away a bit more money in tax havens and buy just another mega yacht, penthouse, mansion, or buying a golden statue of them selves, while the rest of us pay the price with our money, hard work, health and well being, and our kids well being, health freedom and possibly a reasonable okay life. everything of this you can get by privatizing and not regulate on top of that. but be my guest. if you are a fucking idiot who do not know 2 + 2 , or know anything of politics or economy or how the system works then you deserve to be wrecked by your overlords. then it is the role of the protectors, the intellectuals, the marxists, the philosophers, the leaders, the communists and the true heroes of this world to come and rescue the world with its people from its doom, and take the right choices for them. you cannot expect a child to know what is right from wrong in these situations, and the general public is like a child, or a sheep who just and only follows the sheepdog who are the corrupt and neoliberal politicians, the shareholders, the capitalists, the super rich, the very worst of this system. dont get fooled by what they tell you. Think on your own, think what is best for the community, for you, and not for your CEOs million dollar salary while your really hard work gets you a salary that barely make the ends meet, or not even that. I am a marxist, and I hope you will become one as well, together we are stronger, so we can take up the fight against the ruling class, the capitalists, the shareholders, the plutocrats and the very super rich who own more than they can ever spend and their kids, and their kids, and you get the point. they have more than enough, but every day they cry and cry, and you get the impression that they never get enough, that is because this is what greed does to you, it is never enough, always just a bit more, or a shit ton of more money in your pocket while this effects everyone else in a negative way, the whole society, the whole world! we, the people of the world have to unite against this evil, which is capitalism, and we will be victorious, by taking back our businesses from the shareholders, the old owners that does not work, and make the businesses worker cooperatives, owned and run by the workers! We have the power to do so, it is just a question about when we do it, when we rise and stand together, nothing can break us, not even the military with their weapons can stop us. because if the soldiers moms, dads, and kids stand with us. they have nothing. we are the people of the world and we have the power if we stand together and fight for it.

  35. Should you be totally dominated by your rich?
    As in building an autocracy?
    Go on! Fuck yourself up!
    And finally let that warmonger country of yours destroy itself.

  36. Yes, and no. A balance is needed. Subsidize healthcare to people who can't afford it below an income threshold (Medicaid), while privatizing it and maintaining consumer choice and freedom, not forcing people to purchase insurance. If you are rich you pay full price for healthcare, if your poor, you pay considerably lower. What's wrong with that. We don't need socialism to solve this. Capitalism with a few tweaks would do. As for defense, the contracts for jets and ships are already given to private firms, although ground troops, no, that needs to be state run.

  37. You should've dug deeper on the subject. Cruz has been promoting the idea of privatizing Amtrak, for example. On the other hand, and in terms of privatization bonanzas, you should study New Zealand in the 1980's, Spain in the 1980's and 1990's (200 companies privatized, most notably the whole energy generation and transportation sector) and Argentina in the 1990's. And in terms of privatized prisons, it seems the UK is beginning to get into this direction…

  38. The United States government is already privatized and is a "representative republic" in name only. One only has to look at the absurd amounts of money the private sector spends to control and dictate (via electioneering, think tanks and media propaganda) the laws that govern this nation.

  39. Private industries have more pros than cons. Yes there will be competition, but look at what's going on now with the VA and the EPA in Flint, MI. Big government does a lot more harm than good for our economy. Once we shrink government (how the founding fathers intended government to be), get rid of income tax and stop the spending, the economy will flourish overnight.

  40. I really don't like how left Dnews and Seeker Daily has become, it makes me feel like i'm being lied too by their bias viewpoint. I'm sorry Seeker Daily but I'm unsubscribing.

  41. only major issue i have with the way you summed up the debate is the predetermined notion that everything government does is for the peoples benefit

  42. Yes, everything should be privatized except law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. Even here, I believe there is room for privatization to a degree. The only legitimate role of the government is to protect people's rights to their own person and property through law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. You shouldn't be allowed to murder, rape, steal commit fraud, or otherwise infringe on the rights of others to their own person and property. Everything else should be left to the people to decide for themselves as they see fit, without any government interference. Regarding prisons, I would consider that to be a part of the justice system that should be under government control.

  43. Privatization is good. Let only those contribute to live better and those only know to blame and cry all along to get what deserved.

  44. USPS is 'hemorrhaging' money primarily because Congress passed a law that requires the agency to pre fund its future pension obligations at a rate much higher than any faced by private companies still using pension systems. It essentially seems like a way to force USPS into a financial position where it must privatize to survive.

  45. Yes there's alot of greedy people scammers rip-offs that's what we the people are with out . Government take over need to be at a halt that's why so many of us can make in the world.

  46. sallie mae's loans are still us government backed. all student loans are backed by the government. This is not free markets.

  47. Good video, very concise but touched on all the major points. BTW the reason the USPS is losing billions a year is because a Republican Congress forced it to fund pensions decades in advance (the GOP would like to see this multi billion dollar enterprize go to the open market — mostly the already established private corporations such as Fed Ex and UPS). Also, like many private businesses encroaching into government services, their service fees are actually higher — same with health care. Government does not have to pay its CEOs exorbitant salaries and stock options. The basic question for private vs public services is, do you want this industry accountability

    The result of privatizing Sally Mae meant that it was exempt from government oversight. That is the problem with privatization in a nutshell. Our system of government works because of the rule of law, democratic process and separation of powers (i.e. accountability),. Government oversight means accountability to citizens since we elect the people that do the oversight. So, the citizens need to decide what goods and services they think is best provided by the private market and what is best handled by government. Of course, even the so-called private market is regulated to protect the well being of individuals and the public good. This is as it should be.

    Those who favor privatization of more government services usually do so from two motives: one is ideological, tends to be libertarian-oriented, which is the idea that there is no constitutionality to many government programs and regulations. The other argument is wider held and has to do with efficiency. Both arguments, from the view point of a classic liberal are problematic.

    As I already said, the reason for the administrative state (built up largely since FDR's New Deal era) is to provide the basic freedoms and protections which are the basis for the constitution in the first place. For example, you can't pursue life, liberty and happiness if you are denied access to healthcare because you can't afford it in the market. The libertarian view of this same issue is that a doctor offering services for pay should not be forced to provide those services to those who can't afford them. While, as a moral imperative, the libertarian view has a moral core, it fails to take into account that a doctor providing services exists in a larger context of a society that enabled him/her to be in a position to be educated and charge for those services in an economic framework in the first place, so the simple moral calculus does not imply. This example also highlights why some services are better left to the free market (manufacture and sales of washing machines, for example) than a service like healthcare, which is transcends the definition of a typical market service. We, as a society have a vested interest in having access to affordable healthcare (including vaccinations, for example. The same applies other things such as education since democracy and the economy depend on educated populous we all have vested interest in each other's education).

    The efficiency issue is more complex. People often get frustrated with the efficiency and or cost of government services (e.g. education, prisons, etc.) Then there are also private businesses that lobby the government to turn these services over to them for one obvious reason — profit (often with a "rent seeking" motivation). These interests also fund campaigns in order to get this "quid pro quo". SO, if there is a public interest in privatizing government functions it should come from voters, not industry and their lobbyists because once a service is privatized there is far less accountability to the public. Most market services exist on a "take it or leave it" basis, which is fine when an industry is adequately competitive.

    There are a lot of people who want education privatized, in other words, they want a consensual market-based relationship with the education industry. The problem with this is that the public has a vested interest in its citizens having ACCESS to QUALITY education that is affordable (through taxes). Privatization of education inevitably leads to various levels of quality depending on your ability to pay. The obvious outcome of such a system is vast inequality. Being poor then means you are stuck going to a school with fewer resources and less qualified teachers and so a lower quality education. Then the society is more unequal and stratified and opportunity is limited. Unfortunately, parents who can afford quality education for their children don't care enough about the overall social results because their interest is maximizing their kids' competition. We see this problem more clearly in healthcare, for example, where it is obvious that one's well being should not simply be a matter of ability to pay.

    Government provided services are not always the most efficient way to deliver them. However, it is efficacious and it is better for our democracy. For example, in his excellent book "Constitutional Coup", Jon Michaels argues that apolitical civil servants (those that transcend various administrations) that run the administrative state serve as part of the separation of powers aspect of our governing system because, if their functions were provided by the private sector, each new administration would hire out these functions to private companies who do as they are told and, unlike civil servants, aren't concerned with the constitution or the public good. If they pushed back against an agency head trying to do something problematic (unconstitutional, unethical, unfeasible, etc) they would simply be fired, whereas it is harder to fire civil servants simply for doing their jobs.

  48. Go to Denmark.

  49. Privatizing the Government? No. Getting the Government out of formerly private practices? Yes. Government used to only run Roads construction/maintenance, Borders, Prisons, Military, and law and order. Now it runs or is heavily involved in almost all education, mail, healthcare, public transportation, ect. Meanwhile it privatizes Prisons, Military, and completely ignores roads and borders and partialy ignores law and order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *