Very doubtful.

Remember Michael Douglas saying "Greed is good"

What have we learnt since the GFC - nothing. The corruptible are still out there learning bigger and better ways how to make a buck at someone else's expense.

Privatisation on the other hand simply means making a profit at any cost so to do that someone has to suffer and that means the socio-economic gap just keeps on widening.

If a private company makes multiple billions of dollars profit and pays the minimal required tax in the country they operate because the profit goes to their head office which is in a country where they pay no tax, they are not breaking the law, as it stands, but is it ethical when those billions of dollars in unpaid tax could create jobs to reduce the socio-economic gap.

I'm assuming that privatization here is defined as a government contracting with a private company in order to provide government services. It also might reasonably be seen as private equity, but I think the first interpretation is more to point.

It first must be said that privatization is not comprised of either black nor white. It's advantages and usage always colors us gray. So the question is not whether privatization can save us, but under what circumstances is it possible for privatization to save us.

Total privatization would be a single corporation running the entire machinery of government. Zero privatization would be the government owning and operating all the means of production.

It is unclear that there would any practical difference in the societies organized at either of these extremes. We should also understand that any such organization whether government or corporate would be a rather disastrous form of tyranny. This can be seen as a point in favor of my assertion that use of privatization must be mixed with government regulation and control. Our founders understood much of this and as always were concerned with developing checks and balances. Jefferson warned of the dangers of corporations in this fashion:

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Our government is defined as of the people, by the people, and for the people. So, any use of privatization must be balanced by some voice from the people. Jefferson asserted that there must exist some check to balance the power of corporations for our democracy to survive. Another point in favor of my assertion that privatization must be mixed with government regulation.

But where does that voice opposing privatization come from? Jefferson warned but did not say.

"If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.—Abraham Lincoln

In the economy, labor unions are intended to balance the interests of private industry. These two entities are highly antagonistic toward one another and will each seek to submerge the interests of their enemy. This conflict will result in alternating fortunes for business and labor.

We are currently in a situation where corporations are waxing supreme. That is a obviously a situation where privatization is on the rise. And, what do we observe happening to the income gap between rich and poor as more public money goes toward paying private interests to supply the functions of government? The income gap between the rich and poor increases...

It increases with privatization, because private interests are gaining in power and the push of competition is seeking the most efficient profits seekers. This naturally reduces the number of corporate entities as the strongest rises to the top while consuming less vigorous competitors through competition, mergers and acquisitions.

The natural chain of this logic leads us to a corporate run state and violates the understanding that privatization must be some mixture government regulation and private interest.

This logic leads us to the answer to the question posed.

Privatization can only save us when labor has gained too much power.

In our current state we are dominated by corporate interests, we require less privatization not more; and acting through unions will balance the power of business with the voice of regulation coming from "we the people"

As we achieve balance between these two forces corruption will naturally decrease, because corruption itself is required to shift and maintain an unbalanced system.

Not in the USA. The term privatization in the USA refers to corporations rather than sole-proprietorships doing government held jobs. Since this is the case one would only be trading one evil for another.