>And I agree that privatization is a perfect solution for the problem of few rich people being not rich enough. The idea that everything will work better if privatized is ridiculous - as someone here said, plural of anecdote is not data, and quoting a few successful cases doesn't make it a general rule. If government run systems are so bad, and the market is so good, then why aren't the private and government run systems put on the market, on a level playground, and let's see which fares better. If anecdotal evidence is already used, the USPS vs UPS vs Fedex vs DHL would be a good example of such coexistence.
>
>But no, the goal of privatization wasn't in providing the best service - that was the excuse, a mere pretext - the goal was stuffing the pockets of the select few from the endless supply of tax money and public debt. If it wasn't, then we'd have seen parallel systems freely competing. Instead, we've seen vast governmental systems being bought for mere pittances (in countries in so-called transition, maybe at better rates elsewhere) and left to short term concerns of shareholders. When an electric grid in a vast area goes haywire (pun intended) because its knowledge base was fired to increase the profits and look good for sale - you get the effect of short term interests running a long term infrastructure.
>
>(at this point I'm making a personal bet against myself - will let you know who won)

I lost.