Public ownership and public health

The 1990s and 2000s were years in our country when the concept of privatization was frequently debated. It was a period during which state-owned economic enterprises, briefly known as KİT, were rapidly privatized on the grounds that they were inefficient and loss-making.

The operation of these KİTs was carried out by the public, and their ownership ultimately belonged to all citizens.

Factories and enterprises established by the state since the early years of our Republic were projects implemented to ensure our economic independence. These factories, which Atatürk referred to as fortresses, were intended to reduce foreign dependency, produce, and feed and clothe the public.

The Sümerbank Nazilli Printing Factory, which deserves much discussion, is one of the finest examples of these.

Although there are still enterprises of this nature today that are publicly owned, their numbers have dwindled.

Even though arguments such as the enterprises being inefficient, uncompetitive, or employing more staff than necessary were put forward, these problems could actually have been resolved with proper management. However, that was not the preferred path. By highlighting bad examples, the true objective was kept behind the scenes. The goal was the transfer of assets created by the public, which could have been extremely profitable if managed properly.

Among these publicly owned enterprises, the telecommunications company was sold for merely the price of its real estate assets. When the oil refinery was privatized, the privatization price paid was equal to the enterprise's 6-month profit and 2-year turnover.

When discussing privatizations, one cannot fail to mention Mümtaz Soysal and the struggle he waged.

The disposal of these enterprises, which could have been operated quite efficiently if desired, for almost next to nothing was not just an economically wrong decision. Areas such as oil refineries, telecommunications companies and their infrastructure, port operations, and mining are also matters of national security.

In the USA, where free trade and private property are sanctified, it is highly unlikely for an owner of capital originating from, for example, the People's Republic of China, to acquire ownership in the areas I listed above.

You can bring people with flashy titles before their names onto screens, have them give examples from around the world, and explain why the public should not operate in various fields and how private property creates added value in these areas.

However, the reality will not change.

What is actually being done is wealth transfer. It is handing over a value belonging to the public to private ownership.

The issue is not just about the transfer of values that belong to all of us or national security.

Public health is also under threat.

Those who purchased the alcoholic beverages division of Tekel, which was privatized in 2004, for 292 million US Dollars sold it to a foreign-capital partnership for 810 million US Dollars a few years later.

As can be clearly seen, the alcoholic beverage market was a profitable field nearly 20 years ago as well. Today, demand for alcoholic beverages is not decreasing due to the growing population, rising income levels, and other reasons. Although the heavy tax burden on alcoholic beverages serves as a regular and prepaid tax for the treasury, it makes it difficult for citizens whose purchasing power is falling every day to access these products.

The reason behind the poisoning and death cases caused by the consumption of counterfeit alcoholic beverages, which we have heard about frequently recently, is the high price of alcoholic drinks.

The state will certainly not encourage alcohol consumption, but it must make regulations by taking into account the health problems caused by high taxes on alcoholic drinks. Options such as lowering tax rates for low-alcohol beverages and introducing relatively cheap products to the market in various drink categories could be considered.

Even if there are measures that can be taken and conveniences that can be provided through legislative changes, the implementation still remains at the discretion of the private individual who owns the production facility. In an enterprise subject to private ownership, the sole goal will be profitability, and public health will not be among the objectives.

However, by planning production with the means of alcoholic beverage production owned by the public;

*Combating alcohol addiction,

*The treasury obtaining income and tax in the most efficient way,

*Protecting public health,

could have been ensured in a balanced manner.

Accidents occurring as a result of inadequate occupational safety in a privatized coal mine or the state's complete withdrawal from alcoholic beverage production also create a public health problem.

Being a merchant and calculating profit and loss is certainly important, but the common good of the public and public health are not issues to be left to the conscience of the market.

It is worth repeating, just as the Roman senator Cato ended every speech, relevant or irrelevant, with "Carthage must be destroyed"; everything in life is political.