Are you arguing that the public sector has a monopoly on foresight?
It's ore complex than that.
1. The not-so complex part: Most professional organizations that specialize in a particular field and are credentialed, etc., likely have more information on which to make predictions than the average individual. If you are well versed in that field, you may as an individual know more than the organization...sure. But the average person off the street, even if they are of above the organizations "intelligence", given that most of us only know a few fields well, simply could not have access to the same information as a matter of efficient use of our time. But a private organization can also have that information, being public doesn't necessarily change that. So this is a secondary issue perhaps, and for the sake of argument we can ignore it.
2. As to what the best course of action is, yes indeed, the system itself can change the way we behave. If you and I have access to similar information, depending on what that information is, we may still choose to be selfish vs a better outcome if we cooperate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
The prisoner's dilemma (or prisoners' dilemma) is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so
Yes, even if it appears we have access to the right information, if the system doesn't promote cooperation, we may end up with bad actors. A lot of selfish acts are simply illegal. Insider trading, fraud, theft, extortion, etc. *most* individuals attempt to look for win-win situations (cooperate), and cooperate long-term is the winning strategy (that benefits the players the most).
Prisoner's dilemma shows how good guys may finish last every time...but when applied to reality, the system may in fact foster cooperation and punish selfishness under the right circumstances. But it's also possible to have a system that lets selfish win, and clearly under certain circumstances it's a winning strategy. In all sufficiently large private markets we use the public sector to develop and maintain the system. It's theoretically possible to use private for that...but what's the advantage? When you include the referee IN the game, interesting things happen. You can have a situation where two players benefit cooperatively, but they betray the referee, or the wider public. Collusion.
Perhaps when we use public systems to referee, and they are prohibited (hopefully) from being able to act in collusion with private players, it's the ideal scenario. If the watchdog is also private, two common things can occur. The private watchdog only exists ultimately at the pleasure of the big companies they are supposed to be watching and thus have no real power to referee and promote cooperation. Second, they too can be brought INTO the game, and given money or perks such that if they themselves betray the public, and instead cooperate with the private company/individual (similar to collusion), then they win and we lose. That's a breakdown of the system.
Since we want to foster a system that makes it less likely for that to occur, we use public systems. This is also likely why the public sector compensation, ethics rules, etc., are shaped to keep a wall between public/private for the betterment of both. Of course anyone who can profit from selfish behavior would love those walls to come down, private industry takes full advantage of the revolving door on public/private employees, etc. But overall I think the system is designed that way because you must separate the referee from playing the same game. I hate public pensions and long-term job stability from the private perspective (Why can't I have that too?!), but perhaps it serves a very specific purpose that's better for everyone.
