"Does that not also apply to employees in private organisations? If a machine breaks in a company owned by the worker, he fixes it. If the farm is owned by a hedge fund, he has no incentive to fix it. By your own logic, socialism is the better option. The farmer with a direct stake in his farm will run it better than a farmer who's merely an employee."
- The difference is, the decision makers in the organization--the executives--have a direct interest in the outcome of the business.
That is to say that the incentive structure is direct. Failure results in executives being removed from pay and position. Success means both reputation increase and financial reward.
Employees don't have a ton of incentive, true, they've traded share in success or failure for stability.
But the situation is far worse in a government run corporation. When you have politicians in the executive position you have people who've been elected or appointed there and whom do not share in the success or failure of the enterprise. They simply don't care either way, because success or failure has no impact on them.
For reference, might I suggest the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both QUANGOs.