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.
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.
if it is necessary the industry behind it should not be allowed to profit and should be run and owned by the working public.
Alternatively what if it does profit but all the profit goes towards public good? I.e. into the communal balance.
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.
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.
that’s not the kind of profit of which i spoke. but ok!
yeah it would be easier to integrate into our existing legal system