# data[].attributes.body
The idea of humans being naturally greedy.
Reference ‘the solitary self’ Mary midley -‘ darwin and the selfish gene’.
Talk about the human self being a natural greedy and is why competition in private firms do much better than state owned.
Examples of state owned on a larger scale is USSR and there rise and fall in a short period of time shows that it is not seen to work on such a large scale but rather causes unnecessary unease for the people.
The ideas of socialism and it being from Karl’s Marx ideas and philosophy and how these are the ideas that state-owned has come from but rather private firms has always been a natural idea created by the people because of our natural ‘selfish gene’.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a variety of advantages when it comes to privatisation. One of them being because of the discipline of free market forces, which then acts as an incentive to promote efficiency within the business ultimately improving the welfare of the economy. Whereas, the state owned enterprises is owned by all citizens who then hire a manager to manage the soe, however due to the backing of the government and the asymmetric information provided to the workers and the managers. Managers would be complacent and deemed to be inefficient and the workers would not know entirely if the manager is doing the job correct and therefore does not complain. This is simply known as the principle agent problem. The managers of the utilities were not required to meet any efficiency objectives of the state, and there was growing criticism because these industries were protected from competition, and hence had become increasingly  x inefficient. The nationalised industries had no power to raise capital on the open market. If needed for funds for investment the government would have to take into consideration other spending departments such as healthcare, education etc possibly resulting in under investment within those SOEs. This leads onto why privatisation is more advantageous. Once a SOE is privatised there is greater profit incentive causing managers to be more accountable to shareholders who want a good return on their investment. This cuts any slack and surplus of workers, therefore those who are employed are more productive.

No political interference from the government in private sectors, causing less corruption and rather than making decisions based on political pressures managers in the private sector will make decisions based on economic and business sense. Also, privatised enterprises are open to raise finance through the stock market.

Another advantage of privatisation is as it is usually accompanied by deregulation, where the gov attempts to increase competition. This just becomes overall much more beneficial for the consumer as the increased competition within the market causes prices to fall and improves the quality of the product/service essentially improving dynamic and productive efficiency. This is achieved through reducing barriers to entry and making them more contestable. In the long run, If the product market continues to have healthy competition and attracts more investment there is macroeconomic implications improving living standards.

Privatisation is a way to sell state-owned assets and generate a windfall for the government. In theory, this could be used to finance long-term investment. Though as a drawback, the government will lose annual profit dividends

# data[].attributes.body
US economy laisser-faire, comes from essentially historical precedent. The culture of the US rooted on the premise of the importance of limited government intervention overall

The US is unique among western nations in having a much more expanded domestic private sector when compared to the rest  Growth in the US is dominated by growth in the private sector.

Dynamic labour and job market that quickly recovers from recessions. Evidence of much quicker recovery with even current recession

High competition and innovation driving growth. Economists calculate that 50% of GDP growth in the US is due to innovation

Real-value added annual growth by industry shows highest growth in service sector and industries such as information, professional & business services

In recent years, government intervention in the US has been through things like contracting or subsidising, rather than nationalising. Where there is a need for the government to correct, it can guide markets if for example, a particular area has low profitability rather than nationalise. This allows for markets to compete and drive growth instead of nasalisation and helps lower problems like the principal agent problem common in state owned enterprise. Important point being  nationalising isn’t necessary. Through the use of policies that include subsidies, the government can interfere in markets where it deems necessary without monopolising it through nationalisation.

# data[].attributes.body
- China has a few of the biggest companies in the world, and also some of the most profitable

-State owned enterprises (SOEs) have been shown to have lower economic performance than private firms.

- China currently  has 124 corporations on the Fortune Global 500

- The top 12 companies are state owned by the State owned assets Supervision and administration Commission. (SASAC)

- Some examples of SOEs in China include: the Bank of China , China tobacco, China post and China Railway Corporation.

# data[].attributes.body
Our argument: Privately-owned firms are better for economic growth than state-owned firms.

- Privately-owned businesses are profit driven, encouraging them to provide more value than their competitors.

- Competition between privately owned firms encourages innovation, which helps to drive growth.(https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/games/off-site/youarehere/pages/pdf/FTC-Competition_How-Comp-Works.pdf)

- Consumers are free to choose which private company they wish to spend their money with. If a company is losing customers, that encourages it to innovate and provide more value to draw consumers back to them.

- If a private company does not offer the level of service a customer expects, they can go to a competitor, whereas if firms are state owned, ultimately there is only one company, the government.

"All 4 companies are competing for the same business within their market sector, and if they want to retain it and grow their clientele, they have to do something better than their competitors, whether that’s offer the same products and services at lower prices or offering better products and services in the first place."