Capitalist competition is about increasing profits, not value for consumers.

[Alceste]

There seems to be a mantra in conservative circles that competition always drives for-profit businesses to reduce prices and increase value for consumers, resulting in efficiency. Is it true?

To me, it appears to be a completely baseless assertion. Corporations are not competing to lower consumer prices, they are competing to increase their profit margin - a goal which is often completely at odds with the concept of reducing prices.

To give an example of how this works, when I worked for a cell phone company, they kept a close eye on the offerings of all the other cell phone companies. At one point, a competitor decided to start charging for incoming texts. There was no question that we had to immediately do the exact same thing, or risk being the "losers" in the real competition: stock market value.

Banks do the same thing. Remember when they used to pay you interest? Then one bank started charging "service fees", thus increasing their profits and their stock market value. Then it was a mad scramble for all the rest of them to start charging service fees too. The sooner the better!

I can't think of one example of a public service that has been privatized due to the pervasive myth of private sector efficiency that has become cheaper for consumers after privatization. Whether it's a utility or a railroad, the cost to consumers always skyrockets and the quality deteriorates as companies compete with each other to increase their profit margin.

Profit is waste, not efficiency.

Thoughts?

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm starting to believe that taking the mickey out of them is the only hope

Have you BBC 3 where you are?

[youtube]AQHV92LL4Tg[/youtube]
Water Companies - The Revolution Will Be Televised - BBC Three - YouTube

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Evolution is about increasing genetic diversity, not generating beneficial states of consciousness.

 

[Shermana]

There seems to be a mantra in conservative circles that competition always drives for-profit businesses to reduce prices and increase value for consumers, resulting in efficiency. Is it true?

No. This little snag called "Competition" can be easily remedied by a series of illegal price agreements and collusion ("conspiracy") with other producers to make prices higher than the market dictates, with lower quality and dilution of product. This happens in numerous basic goods industries, such as the Olive Oil market, even the Spice market. In addition, certain resources are only available in small quantities, so a Monopoly will naturally have less of a problem monopolizing where less competition is simply impossible. This system in fact motivates prices and inflation to rise to their limits. This ultimately reduces the value of the dollar far more than government policies.

To me, it appears to be a completely baseless assertion. Corporations are not competing to lower consumer prices, they are competing to increase their profit margin - a goal which is often completely at odds with the concept of reducing prices.

Yes. Even if they actually have to compete, they are still only going to compete in a means to ascertain the most profit, regardless of its effect on the economy/environment/sociology. An individual corporation's profit is not necessarily linked to the mutual benefit of a society's work force and industry.

To give an example of how this works, when I worked for a cell phone company, they kept a close eye on the offerings of all the other cell phone companies. At one point, a competitor decided to start charging for incoming texts. There was no question that we had to immediately do the exact same thing, or risk being the "losers" in the real competition: stock market value.

Additionally as you point out, competition can have an effect of making other corporations "cheap out" as well just to keep up with the others. In more ways than not, competition has a way of reducing overall product quality.any

Banks do the same thing. Remember when they used to pay you interest? Then one bank started charging "service fees", thus increasing their profits and their stock market value. Then it was a mad scramble for all the rest of them to start charging service fees too. The sooner the better!

Monkey see monkey do can be disastrous when the monkeys are the only ones who have access to most of the resources.

I can't think of one example of a public service that has been privatized due to the pervasive myth of private sector efficiency that has become cheaper for consumers after privatization. Whether it's a utility or a railroad, the cost to consumers always skyrockets and the quality deteriorates as companies compete with each other to increase their profit margin.

I have been reading about the Soviet system was much different than Capitalist propagandists have made it out to be, they allowed small businesses of up to 20 employees with a degree of control that can be comparable to modern American regulations, they had National Banks that lent heavy equipment to the peasant farmers for a mere 25% crop tax. I am starting to understand why these facts are not well known.

Profit is waste, not efficiency.

Beyond a certain point, absolutely.

If a company can have a "Limit two per customer" to regulate the supply, perhaps a Democratic society should consider a similar rule for ownership of natural resources.

 

[Alceste]

I'm starting to believe that taking the mickey out of them is the only hope

Have you BBC 3 where you are?

[youtube]AQHV92LL4Tg[/youtube]
Water Companies - The Revolution Will Be Televised - BBC Three - YouTube

lol - I don't have cable TV at all, but that doesn't slow me down, if you catch my drift. That looks like a good show.

 

[Alceste]

No. This little snag called "Competition" can be easily remedied by a series of illegal price agreements and collusion ("conspiracy") with other producers to make prices higher than the market dictates, with lower quality and dilution of product. This happens in numerous basic goods industries, such as the Olive Oil market, even the Spice market. In addition, certain resources are only available in small quantities, so a Monopoly will naturally have less of a problem monopolizing where less competition is simply impossible. This system in fact motivates prices and inflation to rise to their limits. This ultimately reduces the value of the dollar far more than government policies.

I used to think it had to be collusion myself - some smoky back room full of the captains of industry all making hand-shake deals to work together to provide crappier products for higher prices. That's before I saw the "race to the bottom" in action. If you're the first guy to dilute your olive oil and charge the same price as your competitors, you're going to make more money than they are, and they're going to want a piece of the action. They aren't going to go "HEY! That guy's diluting his olive oil! How terrible! Buy our olive oil instead!" because then they don't get those extra profits.

Yes. Even if they actually have to compete, they are still only going to compete in a means to ascertain the most profit, regardless of its effect on the economy/environment/sociology. An individual corporation's profit is not necessarily linked to the mutual benefit of a society's work force and industry.

Additionally as you point out, competition can have an effect of making other corporations "cheap out" as well just to keep up with the others. In more ways than not, competition has a way of reducing overall product quality.any

Monkey see monkey do can be disastrous when the monkeys are the only ones who have access to most of the resources.

I have been reading about the Soviet system was much different than Capitalist propagandists have made it out to be, they allowed small businesses of up to 20 employees with a degree of self control that can be comparable to modern American regulations, they had National Banks that lent heavy equipment to the peasant farmers for a mere 25% crop tax. I am starting to understand why these facts are not well known.

I think the economic elites in every country live in fear of the day the "peasants" snap out of it and realize they're being shafted. They seem to invest more heavily in propagating misinformation about the virtues of capitalism than they do in innovation.

 

[Alex_G]

There seems to be a mantra in conservative circles that competition always drives for-profit businesses to reduce prices and increase value for consumers, resulting in efficiency. Is it true?

To me, it appears to be a completely baseless assertion. Corporations are not competing to lower consumer prices, they are competing to increase their profit margin - a goal which is often completely at odds with the concept of reducing prices.

To give an example of how this works, when I worked for a cell phone company, they kept a close eye on the offerings of all the other cell phone companies. At one point, a competitor decided to start charging for incoming texts. There was no question that we had to immediately do the exact same thing, or risk being the "losers" in the real competition: stock market value.

Banks do the same thing. Remember when they used to pay you interest? Then one bank started charging "service fees", thus increasing their profits and their stock market value. Then it was a mad scramble for all the rest of them to start charging service fees too. The sooner the better!

I can't think of one example of a public service that has been privatized due to the pervasive myth of private sector efficiency that has become cheaper for consumers after privatization. Whether it's a utility or a railroad, the cost to consumers always skyrockets and the quality deteriorates as companies compete with each other to increase their profit margin.

Profit is waste, not efficiency.

Thoughts?

I definitely agree with you that all these businesses are motivated by a central desire to increase their profits. When competition over a certain product or service emerges, the reduction in price is done not out of the goodness of their hearts to the consumer, but to ensure that they don’t loose profit to anyone else.


But i think there is scope however for an individual customer to do relatively well out of such competition even if the business motivation towards such is not aimed at specifically benefiting them.
High prices to a few, or low prices to many amounts to the same end goal of total profits, so if pressures to maintain such profit causes them to lower prices in order to capture many, then as an individual amongst the many you could benefit in a way that wouldn’t happen if there was a monopoly.

Additionally i think that with competition come increased pressures for businesses to get an edge over the rest, driving innovation, which could lead to a more dynamic and actively evolving service/product. I mean without it all, we wouldnt have any of the products at all.

I do think your right that competition can just be a superficial power play between companies in order to get the immediate attention of customers. Short term plans just to keep them around until they come up with the next fad.
I think it raises an interesting point especially regarding products or services that the customer base don’t understand very well. In such markets there’s much more flexibility for these companies to succeed by offering silly gimmicks without ever improving the core product. An example that strikes me is that of Internet Service Providers and the ‘up to…’ speeds. I think it’s often a problem in the technology market generally.

Additionally a problem that emerges from 'profit focused' businesses is that they often make products that are designed to fail after say 2 years, or just out of a warranty they set (which again acts as a little bit of a gimmick in many instances).
That way they can sell you another one. Sell more often and get more profit, whilst not having to deal with repairs/customer support. They prob have to cleverly assess psycological issues relating to not making the product fail too early to induce a negetive response, but early enough to max their profits from having them buy again. I mean thats the definition of 'getting played'

Also it plays into the gimmick business plan of just labelling the same product in a fancier way to get them to buy the ‘new one’. People might throw away their toaster 2.0 for toaster 3.0, when in fact they aren’t really getting anything better.

It raises a question of whether they are delivering this 'disposability' to a culture that is concerned with getting things immediately, and preferring to buy new more often, or whether such behaviour by these businesses has fashioned that culture.
Gone are the days of buying something, having it for a lifetime, repairing it when it breaks.

But then again, the space is there whist companies compete on a shoddy level for a gem to emerge from the rough and deliver something of genuine value to the customers beyond the rest. Where their profit making, and motive for such is not mutually exclusive with increased customer value, but rather dependant on such.

 

[Alceste]

I definitely agree with you that all these businesses are motivated by a central desire to increase their profits. When competition over a certain product or service emerges, the reduction in price is done not out of the goodness of their hearts to the consumer, but to ensure that they don’t loose profit to anyone else.


But i think there is scope however for an individual customer to do relatively well out of such competition even if the business motivation towards such is not aimed at specifically benefiting them.
High prices to a few, or low prices to many amounts to the same end goal of total profits, so if pressures to maintain such profit causes them to lower prices in order to capture many, then as an individual amongst the many you could benefit in a way that wouldn’t happen if there was a monopoly.

Additionally i think that with competition come increased pressures for businesses to get an edge over the rest, driving innovation, which could lead to a more dynamic and actively evolving service/product. I mean without it all, we wouldnt have any of the products at all.

I do think your right that competition can just be a superficial power play between companies in order to get the immediate attention of customers. Short term plans just to keep them around until they come up with the next fad.
I think it raises an interesting point especially regarding products or services that the customer base don’t understand very well. In such markets there’s much more flexibility for these companies to succeed by offering silly gimmicks without ever improving the core product. An example that strikes me is that of Internet Service Providers and the ‘up to…’ speeds. I think it’s often a problem in the technology market generally.

Additionally a problem that emerges from 'profit focused' businesses is that they often make products that are designed to fail after say 2 years, or just out of a warranty they set (which again acts as a little bit of a gimmick in many instances).
That way they can sell you another one. Sell more often and get more profit, whilst not having to deal with repairs/customer support. They prob have to cleverly assess psycological issues relating to not making the product fail too early to induce a negetive response, but early enough to max their profits from having them buy again. I mean thats the definition of 'getting played'

Also it plays into the gimmick business plan of just labelling the same product in a fancier way to get them to buy the ‘new one’. People might throw away their toaster 2.0 for toaster 3.0, when in fact they aren’t really getting anything better.

It raises a question of whether they are delivering this 'disposability' to a culture that is concerned with getting things immediately, and preferring to buy new more often, or whether such behaviour by these businesses has fashioned that culture.
Gone are the days of buying something, having it for a lifetime, repairing it when it breaks.

But then again, the space is there whist companies compete on a shoddy level for a gem to emerge from the rough and deliver something of genuine value to the customers beyond the rest. Where their profit making, and motive for such is not mutually exclusive with increased customer value, but rather dependant on such.

Built-in obsolescence - that's another great "innovation" of the private sector that helps them get more money for crappier products. The new Macbook, for example, is actually designed not to be able to be repaired if anything goes wrong with it - you just have to buy a whole new one. For anyone who knows a little bit about computers, that's going to be a deal breaker, but many Mac users are going to buy it anyway because they don't want to have to learn a new OS. Also, a friend who worked for IBM told me they intentionally release buggy software because they make so much of their money from support. She didn't put it that way, but that was the gist of it.

 

[Alex_G]

Built-in obsolescence - that's another great "innovation" of the private sector that helps them get more money for crappier products. The new Macbook, for example, is actually designed not to be able to be repaired if anything goes wrong with it - you just have to buy a whole new one. For anyone who knows a little bit about computers, that's going to be a deal breaker, but many Mac users are going to buy it anyway because they don't want to have to learn a new OS. Also, a friend who worked for IBM told me they intentionally release buggy software because they make so much of their money from support. She didn't put it that way, but that was the gist of it.

Yeah im sure your right. I can definitely believe it. Its a shame. I personally couldnt go Mac because you cant tinker about with them under the hood. I love the bulky, messy, rough around the edges, chop and change nature of my pc. Wouldnt dream of changing it for a sleek but slimy mac ever. Something much more honest about my mongrel of a machine

 

[Alceste]

Yeah im sure your right. I can definitely believe it. Its a shame. I personally couldnt go Mac because you cant tinker about with them under the hood. I love the bulky, messy, rough around the edges, chop and change nature of my pc. Wouldnt dream of changing it for a sleek but slimy mac ever. Something much more honest about my mongrel of a machine

You can get a lot more bang for your buck by buying anything other than an Apple product. My Samsung Galaxy puts the iPhone to shame in every respect, except maybe for being pretty to look at.

 

[Alex_G]

You can get a lot more bang for your buck by buying anything other than an Apple product. My Samsung Galaxy puts the iPhone to shame in every respect, except maybe for being pretty to look at.

Interesting how much power and influence aesthetics has over people, and the degree to which other considerations can be overlooked on its account.

 

[Sir Doom]

There seems to be a mantra in conservative circles that competition always drives for-profit businesses to reduce prices and increase value for consumers, resulting in efficiency. Is it true?

No this is definitely not true. It should be, and it used to be but it isn't the way of things anymore. Competition used to be about offering the best product and being rewarded with the best market-share because of it. This is not the case anymore and isn't likely to return to that model unless something drastic happens. Like complete economic collapse for example.

To me, it appears to be a completely baseless assertion. Corporations are not competing to lower consumer prices, they are competing to increase their profit margin - a goal which is often completely at odds with the concept of reducing prices.

Its not completely baseless, but it isn't well-founded either. Companies simply don't practice this principle in any meaningful way. It is like you say, they are concerned with the bottom line and all other concerns are secondary. The problem is that companies are run by investors who may have little or no buy-in with the industry they invest in. All they care about is the return on that investment or they just take their money and go somewhere else. These investors make or break a company and those that wish for the company to succeed for the 'right' reasons are bound to appease the investors or simply close the doors. It's a money monopoly.

To give an example of how this works, when I worked for a cell phone company, they kept a close eye on the offerings of all the other cell phone companies. At one point, a competitor decided to start charging for incoming texts. There was no question that we had to immediately do the exact same thing, or risk being the "losers" in the real competition: stock market value.

Banks do the same thing. Remember when they used to pay you interest? Then one bank started charging "service fees", thus increasing their profits and their stock market value. Then it was a mad scramble for all the rest of them to start charging service fees too. The sooner the better!

See this stems from the same thing. Those investors. They control interests in all of these companies. When one comes up with a 'good' idea for increasing profits, all the others look at them and say, "Do that or we're taking our money over there." And what is a company to do? Appease them. And hang the consumer. We'll buy cell phones and use banks anyway, right? What can we do?

The worst example I can think of for this behavior is outsourcing. They use cheap and unregulated labor overseas to create product at a fraction of the cost and then they DON'T pass the savings on to us. They just keep it. Its ridiculous and sick.

I can't think of one example of a public service that has been privatized due to the pervasive myth of private sector efficiency that has become cheaper for consumers after privatization. Whether it's a utility or a railroad, the cost to consumers always skyrockets and the quality deteriorates as companies compete with each other to increase their profit margin.

As the economy starts to tank, I think we'll see this sort of corporate greed start to slide off as people simply stop buying garbage. Its our only recourse to this sort of nonsense. I think it will take a much worse crisis to really make any significant changes, but that is likely on the horizon. Consumers are pretty stupid on the whole unfortunately and it takes a lot to wake them up. But it can be a powerful force as well. Consider the popularity of hybrid cars and such. People are trending towards environmentalism and the market is following suit. If we can harness that same mentality towards ending the stranglehold these greedy jack-holes have on us, it won't take long for them to reign this sort of behavior in. Tightening the belt is a tough sell though.

Profit is waste, not efficiency.

Thoughts?

To a certain extent, yeah. Its not supposed to be. Profit is supposed to be a reward for simply being the best. It isn't supposed to be about who buys into your company, its supposed to be a measure of the market's acceptance of your product. It's really been twisted into this numbers game that sort of ignores us. I don't mind a business growing its bottom line so long as its appealing to me as the consumer. I don't like being tricked or coerced. I don't like poor quality. I don't like choosing the lesser of two evils. And this is what corporate greed has done to us.

 

[Reptillian]

Evolution is about increasing genetic diversity, not generating beneficial states of consciousness.

That's a pretty profound statement. I was about to type something similar. The truth of the matter is that capitalism is more akin to natural selection than artificial selection or intelligent design. There isn't some goal, just survival. A constant struggle to stay where you are.

 

[Shermana]

Consumers are pretty stupid on the whole unfortunately and it takes a lot to wake them up.

^ This is the base reason of why things are as they are as well as the end result of a consumer society fueled by gratification.

 

[Revoltingest]

Profit is waste, not efficiency.
Thoughts?

How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?

BTW, there are 2 industries where great evil is wrought against customers...nothing material is
created, the benefit is mere ephemeral gratification, & the perpetrators are overly compensated.
This would be Celtic music performance, & video game design. Government should nationalize
all those businesses, & have civil servants provide the services....or eliminate them entirely.

 

[Alceste]

How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?

BTW, there are 2 industries where great evil is wrought against customers...nothing material is
created, the benefit is mere ephemeral gratification, & the perpetrators are overly compensated.
This would be Celtic music performance, & video game design. Government should nationalize
all those businesses, & have civil servants provide the services....or eliminate them entirely.

If the government nationalized Celtic music and video game design, maybe I could start getting paid again, and have some benefits. I've never been paid better and treated with more dignity than when I worked in the public sector.

Seriously, health care is the most obvious example of an industry where the stark reality of profit being wasteful is crystal clear. In every Western country but the US, essential health care is tax-funded and universal. The result? We're all paying about half your costs or less, and for the most part achieving better outcomes (living longer, lower infant mortality, etc). Where is all that extra money you guys are paying unnecessarily for an inferior product going? Into somebody's pocket, that's where.

US health insurers reap record profits in 2009

The five largest US health insurance companies set new profit records in 2009, while the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression sent millions of Americans onto the unemployment line and into poverty.

The five firms reported $12.2 billion in profits last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, over 2008. At the same time, 2.7 million Americans who had been enrolled in private health plans the year before lost their coverage.

This is a great example because the US maintains the only primarily profit-driven public health care model in the Western world, so the reality and magnitude of "profit = waste" is clearer in this industry than any other.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the government nationalized Celtic music and video game design, maybe I could start getting paid again, and have some benefits. I've never been paid better and treated with more dignity than when I worked in the public sector.
Seriously, health care is the most obvious example of an industry where the stark reality of profit being wasteful is crystal clear. In every Western country but the US, essential health care is tax-funded and universal. The result? We're all paying about half your costs or less, and for the most part achieving better outcomes (living longer, lower infant mortality, etc). Where is all that extra money you guys are paying unnecessarily for an inferior product going? Into somebody's pocket, that's where.
US health insurers reap record profits in 2009
The five largest US health insurance companies set new profit records in 2009, while the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression sent millions of Americans onto the unemployment line and into poverty.
The five firms reported $12.2 billion in profits last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, over 2008. At the same time, 2.7 million Americans who had been enrolled in private health plans the year before lost their coverage.
This is a great example because the US maintains the only primarily profit-driven public health care model in the Western world, so the reality and magnitude of "profit = waste" is clearer in this industry than any other.

That doesnt really answer this question though.

How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?

But our problems with inefficient & expensive health care aren't caused by anyone making profit.
Even figures from the article you post are a tiny fraction of the $2.5 trillion total spent on health
care in 2009. It's a badly designed & regulated system. Moreover, we're dealing with it by using
more & more medical tourism, ie, traveling to countries where the same services are provided by
for-profit hospitals at a far lower cost. Let's not allow hatred of profit to blame it for problems
caused by something else.

 

[Reptillian]

This would be Celtic music performance, & video game design. Government should nationalize
all those businesses, & have civil servants provide the services....or eliminate them entirely.

Oh my goodness, a government designed video game with Celtic music...I can't even begin to imagine how horrible that game would be. I'm picturing the most boring video game ever designed, but with tons of glitches and programming errors. Although, Tetris did come out of the Soviet Union, and that's a fun game...so maybe you're on to something here.

 

[Alceste]

That doesnt really answer this question though.

But our problems with inefficient & expensive health care aren't caused by anyone making profit.
Even figures from the article you post are a tiny fraction of the $2.5 trillion total spent on health
care in 2009. It's a badly designed & regulated system. Moreover, we're dealing with it by using
more & more medical tourism, ie, traveling to countries where the same services are provided by
for-profit hospitals at a far lower cost. Let's not allow hatred of profit to blame it for problems
caused by something else.

Yes the health care example does answer your question. That twelve billion dollars of profit is waste: money your have paid for a service and received nothing in return. And the profit is just the waste that is left over after the overhead of paying for the profit-making infrastructure and administration of all those unnecessary insurance companies. it's not only the insurance companies who are getting the benefit of this waste. There are pharmaceutical companies, for profit hospitals, manufacturers of medical equipment, an entire industry with similarly massive waste leaking out at every stage. Where governments are entirely responsible for the cost of health care, it costs half as much.

If that example doesn't suit you, ask any English person what they think of the railway system before and after privatization. I rode both. When it was public, it was very affordable and effective. After privatization, it cost several times as much, the quality of the trains deteriorated, they were never on time, and you often had to book tickets with several "competing" companies to get from point A to point B. The service was terrible because the staff were no longer paid a reasonable wage, and for a final kick in the nuts, the private companies decided not to maintain the railroads, leaving that to the taxpayer. So they very quickly went from having a world class, affordable public railway system to paying several times as much for a profitable railway system of dramatically inferior quality.

Our ferries are undergoing a similar transformation, and they are not even completely privatized. They are simply being managed on a corporate for-profit business model by private sector businessmen instead of a public interest model, ostensibly to trap the benefit of this mythical "private sector efficiency". Sure enough, prices are skyrocketing and the ferries are becoming less frequent, and because it's a private sector business model, the CEO pays himself a multi-million dollar salary while the ferry company loses money.

I also had front row seats for Ontario's privatization of the public electricity utility. Again, skyrocketing prices and less reliable electricity.

I'd love to hear one of your real world examples of privatization resulting in greater efficiency, or of a private, for-profit service or utility that is more efficient than a comparable public one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes the health care example does answer your question.

No...your OP's complaint was about capitalism & profit in general. Health care is just an easy target because it's so problematic here. You still
didn't make an argument that profit is even a problem. It's a small percentage of the cost, so it cannot account for our far higher expense.
And you still haven't answered my direct question.....
"How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?"
Your examples would illuminate the possible solution of eliminating profit to boost efficiency & service.

That twelve billion dollars of profit is waste: money your have paid for a service and received nothing in return. And the profit is just the waste that is left over after the overhead of paying for the profit-making infrastructure and administration of all those unnecessary insurance companies. it's not only the insurance companies who are getting the benefit of this waste. There are pharmaceutical companies, for profit hospitals, manufacturers of medical equipment, an entire industry with similarly massive waste leaking out at every stage. Where governments are entirely responsible for the cost of health care, it costs half as much.

Our differences stem from fundamentally different values.
You see profit as wrong. I see it as reward for effort, creativity, risk & return on capital investment.
Since I'm libertarian, & you're.....what appears to be socialist.....we'll not reconcile these differences.

If that example doesn't suit you, ask any English person what they think of the railway system before and after privatization. I rode both. When it was public, it was very affordable and effective. After privatization, it cost several times as much, the quality of the trains deteriorated, they were never on time, and you often had to book tickets with several "competing" companies to get from point A to point B. The service was terrible because the staff were no longer paid a reasonable wage, and for a final kick in the nuts, the private companies decided not to maintain the railroads, leaving that to the taxpayer. So they very quickly went from having a world class, affordable public railway system to paying several times as much for a profitable railway system of dramatically inferior quality.

Our ferries are undergoing a similar transformation, and they are not even completely privatized. They are simply being managed on a corporate for-profit business model by private sector businessmen instead of a public interest model, ostensibly to trap the benefit of this mythical "private sector efficiency". Sure enough, prices are skyrocketing and the ferries are becoming less frequent, and because it's a private sector business model, the CEO pays himself a multi-million dollar salary while the ferry company loses money.

I also had front row seats for Ontario's privatization of the public electricity utility. Again, skyrocketing prices and less reliable electricity.

I'd love to hear one of your real world examples of privatization resulting in greater efficiency, or of a private, for-profit service or utility that is more efficient than a comparable public one.

You're still cherry picking dubious examples you like instead of dealing with the generality of your OP.