Many Americans react with little alarm as news reports of more and more government control over the private sector roll in. Far from being upset, many act as if government control is just another acceptable way of doing business. But I fear that they are in for a lot less than they are bargaining for.
Many feel that the ongoing debate over government takeovers between politicians, pundits, economists, financiers and businessmen is over their heads. But by analogy I can show that if the public knew what it was headed for, it would demand a return to the economic principles of capitalism that made this country what it is.
Consider what would happen if restaurants began to go bankrupt and the government bailed out the big restaurant chains. Soon after, the government would begin to control the restaurants.
For a restaurant, the big five factors are location, price, menu, quality and service.
Under the capitalist system, businesses are located near its customers, but if politicians ran restaurants, they would place the businesses where they think they should be.
Maybe they’ll pick a depressed area where nobody would voluntarily locate, or maybe they’ll choose a location near big political donors, but bottom line: They’ll place them wherever they want them, not where it’s convenient for the customers. Now, you determine where a restaurant is because you can stop eating there, and the owners would respond to that by being where you want them. Imagine a politician decreeing that the distribution of restaurants in your town needs to be corrected.
What about prices? A normal business must have competitive prices, but a government-run industry can place an arbitrary price on its services because they can always subsidize them or legislate the competition out of business. If the prices are set too low, everyone and his brother will be waiting in line, causing a shortage. If they are too high, people can’t afford to eat there. In a private restaurant, profits would provide immediate feedback to the owner, who can make the necessary adjustments. In a government restaurant, who would care? If you want to see what I mean, go to a post office and complain to a supervisor that the price of stamps is too high.
Consider the menu in a government-run restaurant. Instead of being based on consumer preferences, the surgeon general and the secretary of agriculture might determine what to serve. If the subsidy on potatoes resulted in a surplus, then look for many interesting potato dishes on the menu. If a new government-funded study shows that Americans consume too much sugar, the desert menu will be in for a beating.
If the chairman of the Senate sustenance committee were from Florida, look for lots of dishes that contain oranges, whether you like it or not. Not getting enough fiber? Don’t worry, look out for a lot of bran.
The government has a duty to protect the people, and that protection would extend to diet too. Say goodbye to unhealthy good-tasting foods.
Suppose a sector exceeds its monthly allotment of one hamburger per person per 20 days? Then that sector would not receive any more hamburger in its government supply shipment.
If the occupants of a particular sector suffer from food-related health issues, then it would be prudent to adjust the food selections available in that sector until health statistics are satisfactory.
As for quality, currently restaurants make every effort to maintain the highest sanitary standards because if people get sick, that restaurant is out of business.
The private sector’s desire to satisfy the customer shows up in the quality of the food it purchases. But with government restaurants, food that never would have made it in the door would be “good enough for government work.” So if the incoming meat is not the freshest ever seen, so what? Why should a government restaurant care? Besides, can you imagine the paperwork involved in rejecting a shipment?
And there wouldn’t be many good chefs around, because they would have very little freedom to create; they would be constrained by bland menus dreamed up by a bureaucrat in Washington. Why should the government pay for an accomplished chef when a run-of-the-mill cook will do? Who (that matters) is going to complain, and to whom will they do it?
Private restaurants have the most selfish of reasons to keep you happy with your meal – their livelihood. Imagine the quality of food if there were no other game in town?
Forget about service. It’s over with. Don’t even bother. Think of the last time you went to the DMV for license plates. Now replace the clerks with waitresses and the license plates with plates of food. Got the picture? You already know how much good it will do to complain about service at the DMV; well, that’s about the same good it’ll do you to complain at a government restaurant when your food is burned, spoiled, late or cold.
If the government, which can’t be sued or put out of business, gives you lousy or even dangerous service, who you gonna call?
The bottom line is that consumers are served very well by private businesses that exist at our pleasure. We have the ultimate power to control who stays open and who goes belly-up. That’s why restaurants do everything they can to please us.
That’s the key – our system works so well because buyers and sellers are free to do business with whomever they want, and that empowers both parties.
So the next time you hear about the government exercising power in the private sector, think of going to a hospital where the doctor makes the same amount no matter what he does and can’t get fired or be sued and has no competition. Imagine laptops, MP3s or houses made by the government. If you want a clear picture of what we could face, research classic Russian cars.
Chris W. Bell is a freelance writer who lives in Michigan. His work can be seen on WorldNetDaily, the Intellectual Conservative and the Christian Science Monitor.
