|
False. Absolutely false. This is one of the problems with private provision of goods and services. There has to be a rather high minimum return before the market will supply them. A trigger level, if you will. Of course, this is one of the good things about markets - the highest returning investment is the most desirable, therefore efficient allocation of resources etc. The market fixes this by matching investors to their return on investment expectations. As long as we live in a diverse economy, there will always be someone willing to provide goods and services in demand. Competition tends towards lower prices and higher quality. There is little competition in the provision of government services, therefore the profit motive does not operate to improve these services. But if it can't/isn't counted on the balance sheet (ie the benefits to everyone of an educated and non-destitute population) then it won't be provided by private enterprise. What you are suggesting is that people aren't willing to pay willingly for education and income insurance, so we must all be forced to pay through taxation. Education and income insurance services are provided by the private sector and they are forced to compete with a state sector that has the unfair advantage of legislative backing. Why would people pay for health, education and income insurance, when the state is already forcing them to? You *might* raise the living standard of the most feckless individuals in society, but you lower the opportunities for advancement for the most able. Government services condemn everyone to lower standards and eliminate some of the motivations for people to improve themselves in order to afford better services than they can currently afford.
| 
