Even in an ideal world where there's no fundamental difference in the cost of producing 1000 units or 5000, companies aren't going to be able to sell 5000 at the same price as they could 1000 when doing so exceeds their current capacity. Expanding that capacity means more staff and equipment, which costs money that has to be paid for somehow. It also takes time, which means that it cannot act as an immediate solution to the cost problem and also that there's substantial risk involved - by the time the extra capacity is there, the demand may not be. In order to justify taking on this risk there needs to be the expectation of substantially higher profits.

Also, commercial airlines in particular are an industry with a history of over-optimistic expansion followed by cut-throat competition on pricing and then bankrupcy, and I'm pretty sure everyone in the industry knows this by now which is why there's not a huge rush to expand massively.

I personally think airline tickets need to be taxed heavily so that travelers pay for every ounce of carbon emitted to be captured.

Government do get into the business of keeping markets competitive. That is one of the drivers for regulation. You will note, Qantas isn't the only domestic airline in Australia.

Airlines are also highly capital intensive. It costs a lot of money to own and maintain a plan

>the people should band together, put aside the market system, and produce all 5000 units. More people are served.

You just described a command economy, which have a poor track record historically.

I didn't suggest government should dictate production levels or prices.

I am suggesting governments should consider putting together not-for-profit, but self funding organizations, with fair and reasonable salaries for all employees, to produce good and services for its people.

Then you allow the free market to compete against that baseline profitable business.

If for profit companies can't produce a better or cheaper product, they should just not exist.

Australia's ABC is a good example of what I am talking about. There are commercial offerings, but there is a baseline keeping standards up.

Of course gets a lot more complicated when your state sponsored factories can't compete on quality or price and is not selling any widgets at all. At what point do you decide the market is working to your satisfaction and you should shut it down.

How much of a loss do you allow? How much is it worth to a country to be able to build x widgets or offer x service?

How good would it be if we still had the ability to manufacture things here in Australia? How do you put a dollar value on that?

>I am suggesting governments should consider putting together not-for-profit, but self funding organizations, with fair and reasonable salaries for all employees, to produce good and services for its people.

What specifically does this entail? Is the government providing starting capital? Or is it in charge of creating the organization and letting them handle the rest?

>If for profit companies can't produce a better or cheaper product, they should just not exist.

>Australia's ABC is a good example of what I am talking about. There are commercial offerings, but there is a baseline keeping standards up.

According to wikipedia ABC receives more than a billion dollars per year from the government. How can you say with a straight face that companies that can't compete with that "should just not exist"?

>What specifically does this entail? Is the government providing starting capital? Or is it in charge of creating the organization and letting them handle the rest?

In my imaginary utopia, they are public servants paid salaries and benefits directly.

The government already provides heaps of starting capital for business it wants to get get off the round.

>According to wikipedia ABC receives more than a billion dollars per year from the government. How can you say with a straight face that companies that can't compete with that "should just not exist"?

Every Australian pays just a few cents a day for our ABC, and I can say it with a straight face, because there are profitable commercial channels here in Australia that it directly competes with.

Aussie post is similar, there is a nationalized option, and there is commercial competition. I believe Aussie posts runs a profit as well, ABC is pure expenditure.

I'm not an expert in any of this, just think its fun to muse about when it pops up here on HN.

>In my imaginary utopia, they are public servants paid salaries and benefits directly.

Oh also, these millions of jobs the government is providing. You could think of these as a UBI. Fairly easy to get. You can move around between them fairly easy until you find one you like with people you enjoy spending time with.