Private ownership of public infrastructure… A doom of inequality

[Clivedurdle]

whole system

Hmm, those little veins in the body aren't doing much and are very inefficient - let's cut them out...

 

[coloradoatheist]

In the states the compelling case for privatization for any public service is that they can be non-union and they can get away with lower pay for their workers.

I would also suspect that the rail line involved in the UK is one with a high level of ridership. A complete rail system has to serve locations that produce lower levels of ridership, which the lines with high ridership subsidize in part. I am sure that the private enterprises that have produced such sterling results on a high ridership line wouldn't want to take over the lower ridership lines. This would leave the government running the low ridership lines as a public service and the private enterprises only running the high ridership lines.

The same thing happened in the US when we deregulated the airlines. It was a smashing success when you look at only the high ridership routes between large cities, but now the government is having to subsidize the smaller city airports and air routes.

For some people, including me, this is going in the wrong direction, we need to raise wages, not to lower them further, we need to lower profits and we need a balanced transport system where the users are paying for the whole system, not just for the profitable routes leaving the government to subsidize the unprofitable routes.

And I see the question as, "Should one group of people subsidize the livings choices of another group of people" They have the choice to live out somewhere that has less access to services but doesn't mean I need to pay for it, and vice versa. And the other issue is what defines efficiency in terms of providing goods. One definition that can be used, is "are the people who use the service required to pay for all the costs of the service/product produced?"

 

[ksen]

wat?

 

[Bronzeage]

And I see the question as, "Should one group of people subsidize the livings choices of another group of people" They have the choice to live out somewhere that has less access to services but doesn't mean I need to pay for it, and vice versa. And the other issue is what defines efficiency in terms of providing goods. One definition that can be used, is "are the people who use the service required to pay for all the costs of the service/product produced?"

I don't think a question can qualify as a definition. It's not just a question of who uses a service, but who benefits from it.

We consider education to be a government responsibility, which is funded by tax dollars. There is always someone who feels they are paying for someone else's government benefit because they have no school age children. Yet, imagine a world where an employer would have to teach arithmetic to a new employee, just so they could make change.

 

[SimpleDon]

And I see the question as, "Should one group of people subsidize the livings choices of another group of people" They have the choice to live out somewhere that has less access to services but doesn't mean I need to pay for it, and vice versa. And the other issue is what defines efficiency in terms of providing goods. One definition that can be used, is "are the people who use the service required to pay for all the costs of the service/product produced?"

You can ask all of the questions that you want to but this question has already been decided. We will provide air and rail service for people who live in small towns and only charge them the same proximate cost that we charge people who live in larger cities. Even if it means that we have to subsidize the service.

You are welcome to run for office on the 'charge more to people who live in small towns or in rural areas' platform. But I don't think that you will find much support for it.

 

[Bronzeage]

You can ask all of the questions that you want to but this question has already been decided. We will provide air and rail service for people who live in small towns and only charge them the same proximate cost that we charge people who live in larger cities. Even if it means that we have to subsidize the service.

You are welcome to run for office on the 'charge more to people who live in small towns or in rural areas' platform. But I don't think that you will find much support for it.

It seems only fair. Our government has pursued a policy of providing them with an all weather surface road for the use of automobiles, for more than 50 years. There has never been a lack of public support for this short sighted and inefficient transportation model.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It seems only fair. Our government has pursued a policy of providing them with an all weather surface road for the use of automobiles, for more than 50 years. There has never been a lack of public support for this short sighted and inefficient transportation model.

And it comes with tradeoffs. Though there is also question about who should actually pay for schools and when.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it hasn't been decided, and it can change at any time. But if you choose to live in a small town you have certain benefits and drawbacks, one of which should be paying more for trains and planes.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems only fair. Our government has pursued a policy of providing them with an all weather surface road for the use of automobiles, for more than 50 years. There has never been a lack of public support for this short sighted and inefficient transportation model.

And it's come at the cost of urban sprawl, pollution, crumbling infrastructure, and our dependance on oil.

 

[Bronzeage]

And it comes with tradeoffs. Though there is also question about who should actually pay for schools and when.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it hasn't been decided, and it can change at any time. But if you choose to live in a small town you have certain benefits and drawbacks, one of which should be paying more for trains and planes.

- - - Updated - - -



And it's come at the cost of urban sprawl, pollution, crumbling infrastructure, and our dependance on oil.

There is no question about who should actually pay for schools. That has been decided. A few selfish people want to escape their responsibility, but they too benefit from living among an educated population. There is no way to deny that, without outright mendacity.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is no question about who should actually pay for schools. That has been decided. A few selfish people want to escape their responsibility, but they too benefit from living among an educated population. There is no way to deny that, without outright mendacity.

I don't think it's that simple and there is a lot of difference of opinion when it it comes down to education. And because something has been done one way for a while, doesn't make it right.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think it's that simple and there is a lot of difference of opinion when it it comes down to education. And because something has been done one way for a while, doesn't make it right.

I will be happy to listen to any complications you can offer.

Do you believe education should be supported only by people who have school age children? If not this particular group alone, who else should be on the list?

Or, should some people be denied access to education? If so, who and why?

 

[Bronzeage]

So how is this any different than sewer, storm, or combined storm/sewer or water?

Are you aware of how many billions of dollars need to be spent to update the aging utility infrastructure in the US? Do you think that privatizing water and sewer will automatically lead to massive innovations for digging trenches and directional boring?

It's not any different and don't think anything in my post suggest it would be.

As for updating our infrastructure, competition between the construction contractors who do this kind of work has led to massive innovations in the techniques of the work. Very little government owned infrastructure is built by government workers. We(as in we the people) pay for this work. The builders cash the check and we own the product of their work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not any different and don't think anything in my post suggest it would be.

As for updating our infrastructure, competition between the construction contractors who do this kind of work has led to massive innovations in the techniques of the work.

Just how much innovation is there with copper water pipe and sewer lines? Meanwhile, in innovation land.

Very little government owned infrastructure is built by government workers. We(as in we the people) pay for this work. The builders cash the check and we own the product of their work.

What saves money is the bidding process (though going low bid definitely carries some risk), not nearly as much by innovation.

 

[Bronzeage]

Just how much innovation is there with copper water pipe and sewer lines? Meanwhile, in innovation land.
What saves money is the bidding process (though going low bid definitely carries some risk), not nearly as much by innovation.

You've lost me here. What are you going on about?

 

[lpetrich]

No wonder people in small population states are leary for big government interference. the government also gave Anaconda, the worlds largest copper mining company special rights in Montana resulting in much ill feeling still out there about government, big Railway and big Copper. Imagine if your bottom land became slag piles for a copper company, your city was collapsed by excessive mining, moved to the slag piles when open pit mining became the vogue, not to mention being given complete absolution from responsibility to clean up or mitigate the killer chemicals left from destroying the richest mountain in the world.

The big question is how one would make a mining company behave itself. How would one do that without a government? Vigilantism?

 

[Bronzeage]

The big question is how one would make a mining company behave itself. How would one do that without a government? Vigilantism?

Vigilantism is not very good at constructive actions. A mob can shut a mine down, but can't do much to make one operate as a responsible corporate entity. The solution is government, but in this case a government with safeguards to prevent those with concentrated wealth from having disproportionate influence.

 

[fromderinside]

The big question is how one would make a mining company behave itself. How would one do that without a government? Vigilantism?

Cut the railway lines from the mine. People are already suffering so how much more would that cause?

 

[fromderinside]

Vigilantism is not very good at constructive actions. A mob can shut a mine down, but can't do much to make one operate as a responsible corporate entity. The solution is government, but in this case a government with safeguards to prevent those with concentrated wealth from having disproportionate influence.

If things are fair, shutting down the mine would prevent owners from making money.

Unfortunately the government, since it doesn't have safeguards against the monied, would side with the corporations and bring in the national guard toot sweet.

Whew. At least 20 pretty bad posts to just upgrade to this.