So you propose a false dichotomy and then assert the answer. To be clear, nationalisation is a highly regulated monopoly. The economics don’t magically change because of public ownership. Moreover, the interests of the politicians ultimately controlling the public service very often are not aligned with the users of the services. If a politician decides roads are best then what hope to rail users have?
The point about supermarkets absolutely is pertinent. Why is nationalisation good for some things but not others? My view is it’s good for very little as it’s been implemented in the UK in the past (they’ve basically become cabals run by union bosses that successive governments end up fighting). Perhaps other countries do it better, in which case, it was an honest question as to how they’ve managed it.
