If you mean letting public goods be run with a profit incentive for the purpose of increasing efficiency or such, I think what you’ll find every time is that the service shifts focus to the median user and disregards fringe cases like users with disabilities, remote areas, etc. I would also expect material quality to degrade as those with cheaper up-front costs would be valued over expensive durable ones.
no i meant more in the sense of: instead of the company not being allowed to profit, they can profit but 50% of the profit goes into the communal balance.
it would be easier to implement that because all you have to do is to order that 50% of the company shares go towards the city/municipality.
Alternatively what if it does profit but all the profit goes towards public good? I.e. into the communal balance.
If you mean letting public goods be run with a profit incentive for the purpose of increasing efficiency or such, I think what you’ll find every time is that the service shifts focus to the median user and disregards fringe cases like users with disabilities, remote areas, etc. I would also expect material quality to degrade as those with cheaper up-front costs would be valued over expensive durable ones.
no i meant more in the sense of: instead of the company not being allowed to profit, they can profit but 50% of the profit goes into the communal balance.
it would be easier to implement that because all you have to do is to order that 50% of the company shares go towards the city/municipality.
that’s not the kind of profit of which i spoke. but ok!
yeah it would be easier to integrate into our existing legal system