I also don’t see how any effort to improve customer service sits logically with the idea in this video that government run organisations don’t care about customer service.

I may be in danger of protesting too much here, as I’m no fan of government involvement in business, but we need to use better examples than these of government ineffectiveness or people less sympathetic to libertarian causes will find this stuff very easy to dismiss.

“…CitiBank…the “H” is silent”.

Reading comprehension. It’s a good thing.

If ‘libertarian school’ taught you to sidestep any discussion with the words ‘competition will fix that’ then I’m glad I bunked those classes.

I don’t like to have to caveat my arguments with the apparently obligatory ‘government intervention is a giant waste of money that will rapidly make things worse’ because it’s not relevent to this particular discussion.

The key question appears to be whether government owned services should or shouldn’t care about customer experience. I have no idea the answer, but I do know that you can’t logically have it both ways.

If I’ve missed the point and the actual purpose of the comment thread is to parrot textbook libertarian ideology and dress down naysayers then you have my apologies.

I don’t know what will happen at Citibank, but I feel pretty sure it won’t work in my favor when they learn that their survival depends more on keeping politicians happy than on keeping me happy.

And regards to the DMV – I’ve been to the DMV twice in Minnesota in just the last year and I’ve maybe a grand total of 20 minutes in line and getting my requests fulfilled (replacement license and tabs) so I have a hard time buying into the DMV horror stories. How ’bout not going during lunchtime?

@Bernard#5: I noticed this disconnect too and began writing about it, but noticed I had gone on long enough. You really can’t have it both ways. Either complain about the customer service at government run things or complain about them spending money to have good customer service. Of course we could argue about whether the government SHOULD run stuff, but that’s beside the issue. If the government is going to run stuff that directly serves the public, it should do so efficiently and with a service ethic in its staff. If they have to hire an outside consultant so be it, assuming the contracting is done ethically and transparently.

@Dakota#6 YES. Government supported monopolies are the worst. There is just no accountability. We can’t go somewhere else and we cannot vote them out of office. Utilities yes, but even smaller services. I remember when there was one water taxi in Baltimore and it sucked. The city was forced to open its piers to competition and suddenly the old operation discovered they could run on time if they had to.

I guess I should have mentioned this doesn’t mean I support nationalization of banks. It’s just this particular complaint doesn’t resonate with me and at worst may even serve as a distraction from some of the more important issues related to nationalization. For example:es the government even have the power to do so.

The post office, eh, it’s 50-50, my current one sucks pretty badly, but in other areas I’ve lived they were fine.

I think I agree with Dakota. Those de facto monopolized businesses give you the worst of both worlds. All the stereotypical inefficiency of a government agency, but without even the recourse to go to anyone for real redress.

If so I may have to re-think my position on the nationalization of banks.

Because last time I personally spent US$1 trillion I made sure I defined what the hell I expected to get in return. And that’s how I got my fancy title as a Prince of Nigeria.

Oh…the government is an unfair competitor and “fair” competition is pretty much the only way you get good customer service. That and Americans have crappy customer service because Americans deserve (put up with) crappy customer service.

People seem to complain about banks regardless of who owns them.