|Søk i stiler|
Stilen handler om privatisering.
What is the impact of modern privatisation in the modern society? The modern western society is today usually a mix between right oriented and left oriented economy views. Still there are certain countries which leans more to one side than the other. When the right side is more prominent the state in the country have the tendency to withdraw from the market and public services. This process is called privatisation, and it causes the society to be roughly taken over by private entities. Privatisation has brought many negative aspects to the modern society. Still it is argued that it has brought several benefits as well. The scale tips over to the negative side however when the arguments are assessed. Privatisation has tipped beyond its turning point in the economical balance, masked behind good intentions, and therefore should be halted before the scale tips over completely. The state should have a say in every part of the society, though the concept of free trade is a good one, there should be on a certain leash on the private entities.
First of all there are several arguments for privatisation that has emerged throughout the last decade which has helped push the privatisation process forward. Arguments like better quality and lower prices as well as better exploit of resources, together with more market freedom and to make choice available for the everyday layman are found in this selection. Of course the negative sides of these arguments are if they are in their purest for, which means full privatisation. One of these arguments is that with more competition the more effective use of resources, as well as lower prices. The lower prices however ironically come with a price. When the private companies lower the price to compete with the other companies, the human factor wanes, and the standard for working environment and employee care decrease. It is all a balance, and since the main objective for private entities is to make most profit, the other expenses of the company have to pay. Therefore the lower prices and more effective use of resources do not justify heavy privatisation of society. Another argument is that with increased competition there will be development of new and better products which will better the modern society in several ways. It is true that new products are a benefit that follows the privatisation process. However, it also causes a pressure to buy what is new and modern, when old products might serve the same purpose. It creates a society that revolves around having more and more, thereby only feeding the negative course that has been around since the roaring twenties called consumer culture. Then there is the argument that with the competition come the availability of choice. A person can choose between several products of the same kind, or in some cases is called the “free choice” principle. Free choice however is not equal to everyone. A mentally handicapped person for example does not fall under the same category as the everyday layman, and does not have the so called “free choice.” In this case the state must step in and provide and advise the mentally handicapped with what is best for their life quality. When the private sector runs the process, the person in the equation becomes less and the profit becomes more. The individual becomes less important and the profit all that matters. The mentally handicapped would be unable to choose freely what is best, and would be pressured to choose the most expensive alternative.
Secondly, there are strong arguments against privatisation, and they point out all the negative sides with privatisation. The main problem with privatisation as that all becomes a question of profit. The best for the individual comes in second place if it decreases the profit. This makes a market run by the private sector, a market that focuses on the most basic negative power in the world called greed. Those who need the support of a state to make it in the world will be worse of as they cannot provide payment for the services they are in need of to have a relatively normal life. When the services are run by the private sector there are no regulations on how for example a school is run. In an institution as important as the school, the follow-up on each individual student is very important so that the education is somewhat adapted to the individual student, so that each student to fulfil their potential to a certain degree. If the school is run by the private sector however, the school would cost money, as well as being very profit oriented and would be very reluctant to provide students with the material they need to learn if the profits were low. The school would be run as a student factory taking in raw products and process them to be educated citizens. Therefore the system would be never changing and equal to everyone so that it would be unrewarding to those of a higher level and they would find it too easy, while those on a lower level would struggle constantly through their entire education, and would have problems getting in on their higher education, they might even fall as low as through the safety-net and to the bottom of society. With a pure private sector there would not even be a safety-net to land in. This is because the more the society becomes privatised the less taxes it would be, and that would sound marvellous at first, but with lower taxes the less money does the state have to run public services as well as support to cultural nurturing. Welfare would be out of the question, and if a person was so unlucky to land in a hospital, then if they were without insurance then they would be left for dead if it was surgery they needed. The term “every man for himself” comes into play, and the world would become a dog eat dog world. In the private sector, only the strongest survive, and sometimes when a company becomes too strong and is without regulations then it would compromise the free competition the privatisation supporters are speaking so warmly about, resulting in that the large companies would control the market by lowering their prices to the point where other companies are no longer able to compete and runs out of business. If a strong company is allowed to grow uncontrollably, they would eventually usurp the entire market and have somewhat a monopoly on that certain product or products they provide. This has also resulted in large multinational companies which have larger economical power than certain states. This compromises democracy as some states relies on the multinationals for their economic balance. The multinational then have the power to control governments, which makes the principle of democracy into a grand hypocrisy.
The conclusion is that privatisation brings a certain progress in modern society, but if not held on a leash the private entities would run out of control. The competition would make the society be nothing but a single system of greed where all means would come into play to make the most profit. Therefore there should be a healthy mix where a person is able to make his or her own private business, but be bound to public regulations. This would raise the taxes to a certain degree, but that pays off with free public services as well as the private sector kept under state control would keep the a healthy competition as well as a larger focus on the needs of the individual. This would staunch the consumer culture to a certain degree as well, and give the common citizen the voice to decide on both products and upkeep the democracy as it has been developed to this day as well as mayhap improve it. To sum it all up, it is very important to keep the golden median.
Kommentarer fra brukere
Ingen har lagt igjen kommentar til denne artikkelen - bli den første!
Obs! Meldinger som ikke omhandler oppgavens innhold slettes. Det samme gjelder meldinger uten stor grad av saklighet.