in my perspective, nationalization is absolutely preferable to privatization

in the cost perspective, government helps to lower costs by using economic of scale, which is the
changes in the price production per goods when more goods is produced. they are also a natural
monopoly, which they use cooperation and the wealth of resources and labor to innovate and cut cost.

in the other hand, privatization is more prone to monopoly, which will forces customer into buying a
product at a supernormal profit.

they also have to waste resources into advertising their own products and the companies develops their
product separately, so they will be likely to have less innovation, less scale, which brings up the cost
significantly.

although some pro-monetarist will argue that privatizations bring choices and quality, but the
government already have choice and quality, only in the smaller range, which is fair, considering
government will try to narrow the gap of inequality, which leads to poor people who have nothing to
spend and rich people who have too much to spend, both of which are a target of privatization.

also, choice and quality also affect the efficiency of the products, as companies have to diversify
resources to many products, whereas governments only need to focus on a single product.

moreover, too much choice is also a tactic companies use to sell deceptive product that trick consumer
into buying more. this is because, consumer need to have perfect knowledge about the market to make
good decision, which most couldn’t do. for example, most individuals don`t even know how electrical
work, as not everyone is engineer. these things make consumers vulnerable to scams. nationalization
minimizes these problems as they only have little products. as such, consumer could also spend more
time studying the product and give his/her choice. the government is also very public, which make
researching info even easier.

the nationalization also has a case for their superiority in innovations. government does have reason to
innovate as they are using ceiling prices, subsidies and prices reduces to improve equity, there would be
a limited amount of money to spend, so government must be efficient and therefore innovative to
increases the efficiency and reduces the burden of those subsidies, or they will not get the trust of
consumers and lost their position to other people. in contrasts, the businesses only care about profit
and demand, so often manipulate the people’s ideas of innovation. the first kind of innovation they
manipulate is technical innovation. technical innovation is innovation that helps to improve a
fundamental part of a product ex: light bulb gets brighter and more efficient. companies sometimes
actively stop technical innovation. this is because sometimes the improvement is too big, the consumer
will take it for granted, so they are not able to raise prices as much, which make a less efficient model
for profit maximization. they also intentionally broke their products consumer is forced to throw away
the broken and buy new one example: printer machine always broken and companies will stop
insurance once the consumer started tingling with the internals to improve. the next manipulation is
about the dynamic innovation, which is innovation that only changes the asthetic or don’t change any
fundamental things.
companies are famous for creating trend and new design that make the older products feel outdated so
more people buy and the product’s prices become inelastic, companies have excuses to raise the price.

They could also just become a monopoly and force everyone to buy with supernormal price, as whether
they innovate or not, consumers are forced to buy their products. Private companies also sacrifices
every factor to increase profit, fire workers, slave and child labor, almost no wage, bad working
condition is he situation of most factory before government.

Government suffer less AS

The price already subsidies so in order for the government to gain a profit or get more subsidies is to
improve it and scale it, as an improve would have much more impact because only the government
( also it is public and anyone is free to research) is doing it so less easy to hide, and people will be more
elastic.

In the case of Reduce Public borrowing, it Look fine at first, but only applicable when the government
actively losing money AND there is no one worthy to vote for (not common) AND the private is also
equitable and beneficial. It is also hard to bargain between 2 such big forces, which causes huge transfer
cost and many People have difficulty adopting.

Finally, THE INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET that pro-monetarist praise about. However, they also have
numerous negativities. They actively punished everyone that could buy at the equilibrium price, which
make HUGE equity problems. They also because externalities as the business don't care to the
consequences as they don't affect profit and the invisible hand don’t care about negative externalities, it
is all about the DEMAND AND SUPPLY. The invisible hand also only good when people could actually buy
from the equilibrium price, which most can’t as they don’t have enough knowledge to consider the REAL
prices, which leads to manipulation of prices. The invisible hand is also useless when used against
monopolies, they just couldn’t bite you back because in real life, there are essentials that people
couldn’t just say ”OH I DON’T LIKE THE PRICE SO I DON’T BUY IT”

The private also have problem in exploitation and shady businesses practices

SOMETIMES Exploit consequences they do ( like sell plastic then up down a companies for cleaning up)

They create problem and sell the product

Cause others problem in search of profit (meth is VERY profitable, but it leads to numerous social
problem, but almost no one that sells those cares about other user)

Equity in low resources area ( as they get no funding)

And exploitation in high resources area ( get scammed and exploitation from businesses that need more
profit, example companies place factory on other low income country to better exploit people)

The government is just harder to exploit workers, as they are trying to IMPROVE the conditions and
improve equity, they are also needed to not create externalities since the products they already sell at a
lost( imagine you go coal mining, which create problem for the environment government, and they have
a limited amount of tax, remember the laffer curve, the revenue from taxes is going to reach a cap)

So if people are able to create a good nationalization and government, then nationalization is the way to
go!

I THINK I TRIED TOO HARD.