← Back to context

Comment by WhyNotHugo

1 day ago

> "Publicly-owned" would be expensive and low quality, and would make the people running the operation filthy rich.

By publicly owned, I mean “owned by the public”, not “owned by a publicly traded company” (which is, ironically, private property). You’re thinking the latter, which counts as corporate-owned.

I used a bad choice of words. In most of the world “public owned” means the former, whereas in the US it means the latter. The exact opposite, ironically.

No, I really did mean "owned by the public". Which means that the company is actually 100% owned by the state and they would have a monopoly, assuming that you'd want to ban commercial operators. This is the usual interpretation of "public ownership".

This would be extremely bad compared to a situation where there's a dozen of companies competing in the same market.