0
Because the private sector has to be more efficient, because if they're not, they'll go out of business.
Before jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, you might ask yourself this question: Over the last 110 years, how come we've had 22 recessions, two of which were depressions? Mathematically, that's an average of one every five years, isn't it? Does that sound efficient to you? And who do you think comes to the rescue when a recession occurs? And who do you think demands to be helped?
The second answer above is irrelevant and misleading. The answer is about the performance of the economy, while the question is about the performance of private sector firms. The efficiency of firms has little to do with recessions. But since you brought it up ...
A recession is a completely natural part of the business cycle. The economy cannot expand ALL the time. Sometimes it has to contract. Leave it alone, and it will rebound in short order. But when the government tries to do something about it, it just makes things worse.
The 2 depressions, in fact, were direct results of government interference in the free market. The Great Depression of the 1930s began as a recession, caused by problems in foreign nations, beyond the control of US firms. It did not turn into a "depression" until the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act stifled foreign trade. Business leaders of the day begged the President to veto this Act, and he was personally inclined to do so, but ended up bowing to pressure from his own party and signing it. Of course, the foreign nations retaliated with their own tariffs against US-made goods, and US businesses, especially farms, started going under. Then FDR got elected, and enacted all kinds of (essentially Socialist) legislation to try to end the depression. And, rather than end the depression, this socialist agenda just prolonged it.
The current economic crisis (if that's what you're calling the other depression) was caused by the government forcing banks to issue home loans to people who were not able to pay the loans. Liberals try to blame it on the shenanigans that the banks pulled, first to try to comply with government regulations, then to try to get these risky loans off their books, but they wouldn't have had to do this if they hadn't been forced to make the loans in the first place. (And it really didn't matter who had the loans when they were defaulted on - someone was going to take it on the chin, and whoever it was, it was going to kill the financial sector as well as the real estate sector.) The availability of loans to low-income home buyers resulted in a huge demand for homes, but the supply was not there, at first. So home prices sky-rocketed, well above what was reasonable. So banks started offering "no down payment", "interest-only", and "adjustable rate" loans to those who couldn't afford large down payments and large monthly payments. If they hadn't made these moves, they would not have been able to comply with government orders to increase loans to minorities. Meanwhile, the home construction industry was catching up to the demand, and taking advantage of the outrageous home prices. And right about the time they caught up, home buyers started defaulting on their loans. Then banks stopped loaning money. So now you have a whole bunch of new homes out there, but no one can buy them because no one can get a loan. So the prices of homes plummeted. Construction firms went under. Banks lost assets, big time. Insurance companies who were insuring home loans failed. The Stock Market started falling. Unemployment started rising. All because the liberal do-gooders thought it would be a good idea to make credit more available to low-income home-buyers, and used the power of government to make that happen.
It is yet to be determined whether the current economic crisis will be prolonged by more government interference in the free market.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoNothing. It is not more efficient. The public sector by its nature is more expensive than the private sector. We should use the public sector only for those areas that require extra scrutiny and public awareness because of the importance of the task.
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoBecause Private companies earn more benefits from the government
Wiki User
∙ 14y agothe public sector is not profit driven
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Where might one find secretarial employment with the government?
One might look for secretarial employment in the government sector on a site called Indeed. A person can also apply in various governmental public sector offices.
What is the difference between Public admimistration from business administration and public management?
The difference between public administration and business administration is that the study of the latter focuses on for-profit, private sector management while the former is the study of non-profit and government management. The term "public management" might be viewed as analogous to "public administration".public administraion means to administor the government organizations and private administration means to administor the private sector organization inother words it also called business administration.
Vietnam veteran wants a car loan is there help?
The US government used to not help vets out in those things. They primarily help out with: Medical, Educational, or Housing. The private sector (car sales companies) might have veteran assistance programs.
For the government to put a dollar into the economy don't they have to take a dollar out of the economy in order to spend it?
There is more than one way to answer the question, depending on what you mean by 'economy' and 'dollars'. I'll begin by answering the literal translation of the question: No, because the government is part of the economy. It is not taking money out of the economy. Only bankruptcies and write-downs can do that. But government does redirect money within the economy. If you meant to say 'private sector' rather than 'economy', then the answer is a very qualified yes. Whether through taxation or borrowing, those dollars are being redirected out of the private sector. But only for a very short while. Large sums of government money go to private sector enterprises fairly directly. However, even the money that goes to government workers or entitlement recipients goes straight to the private sector (except for the taxes they pay). This is because government workers and entitlement recipients depend on the private sector for the vast majority of the goods and services they consume. They gladly give up their dollars for those goods and services. The reason it appears dollars are being taken out of the private sector is because of what dollars represent - access to goods and services. A portion of the goods and services produced by the private sector is consumed by government workers and entitlement recipients. Thus, it might appear that if they weren't consuming what they were then there would be more for everyone else. However, unless government workers and entitlement recipients were to be imprisoned or killed, they would consume those resources anyway. In that respect, they do not cost anything more to the economy than if they were working in the private sector. The only thing the government can take from the economy is productivity. However, it can also aid in productivity - such as the differing roles it played in the development of transportation infrastructure (primarily railroads and highways) and the like. Whether government's overall impact on economic productivity is currently positive or negative is always a subject of much, often impassioned, debate. Finally, when the government borrows dollars in order to spend them, it opens the door to a process called 'monetizing the debt'. The debt must first exist to be monetized. Monetizing government debt is one of the ways money is created in our economy. Thus, it is possible that some of the dollars government spends exist solely because the government spent borrowed dollars in the past.
Why might a government wish to create jobs?
In a country if people are suffering from lack of employment and the private sector is finding it difficult to provide them with jobs due to their lack of experience,low skills then the govt may wish to employ them by giving jobs with less incentive in the public sector so as to reduce the level of employment.If more people are employed and they work efficiently so the sales go higher and the profit in the economy will also increase which will again be beneficial fot the government and public.
What might a efficient do?
an efficient character would do things that he/she is good at and what their familiar with
Why do governments fulfill some of society's needs such as education health-care or mass transit?
Some governments fulfill some of society's needs such as education, health care, and mass transit so that all members of the society can participate. These are public services and the private sector doesn't always provide them. It is often not profitable for the private sector to provide these services, so governments step in. For example, some bus routes might not have enough passengers to make a profit, but people still need it. A company won't want to run a loss making service, so the government does it instead, or will at least subsidise the service to encourage private operators to do it.
What might a efficient character do?
an efficient character would do things that he/she is good at and what their familiar with
List 4 examples of organizations that might hire a biologist?
university or college federal government hospital private company
Did Barack Obama sit on your board?
I don't know which board you are asking about, but generally, presidents of the United States do not sit on any boards while they are still in office. After they leave office, they might return to the private sector and serve on a board, or they might be on the board of directors for a charity.
How can oxygen be efficient for space discovery?
Oxygen is used in the launch of space vehicles to make discoveries.
What is the difference between a job in the public sector as opposed to in the private sector?
# MANAGEMENT-Leadership is a part of Management and not the other way. Its because Management is a broader term ,it is managing everything. It is the art of getting things done from others. So to do this u need to have many skills and leadership is one such skill. == == Management is the art of getting things done from others. Management is a universal phenomenon and it exists in all the sectors. In case of private sector the management is very transparent. The goals are properly defined and all the employees are very well aware of their goals and are rewarded well for hard work. In case of public sector, theres not that much transparency.
