Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

This is the type of completely-missing-the-point idea that has infected the left. Claims to know basic economics, doesn't care because feelings.

They believe the desire to build a car is the same thing as the building of a car. They believe that if we all just agreed that cars should be built and distributed to all, they would be. Meanwhile, science is telling them it doesn't work that way.

[OngBonga]

They believe that if we all just agreed that cars should be built and distributed to all, they would be.

Huh? I think we should be making less cars. Find another bad analogy.

It should be noted that probably the biggest reason for horrible traffic is zoning.

Wrong. A few days ago I had to go out with a friend to get some weed. Like idiots, we left at 5.30pm and hit the rush hour traffic. It gets a nightmare here in Kidderminster because we have two very close smaller towns, and the three bascially form a mini city. People work in Kidderminster but live in Bewdley or Stourport. Of course, there's plenty of busses, but people insist on driving. Even though it takes just as long as the bus in rush hour. Even though finding a parking space in Kiddy is difficult. As we were waiting, we were noting that nearly every car had one stressed looking person in it.

The reason that traffic is so stupid is because people refuse to use public transport.

So... make driving more expensive, while making public transport either free, or at the very least much cheaper and easier than driving during rush hour.

[Renton]

The reason that traffic is so stupid is because people refuse to use public transport.

And because people insist on driving to work alone, there are significantly more cars on the roads than needs be.

These are both true because there isn't enough motivation for people to deviate from their behavior. This is a classic consequence of a freely-shared public good. If people had to pay to use roads, they would obviously be a lot less likely to commute alone, and they would be a lot more likely to use mass transit.

[rong]

These are both true because there isn't enough motivation for people to deviate from their behavior. This is a classic consequence of a freely-shared public good. If people had to pay to use roads, they would obviously be a lot less likely to commute alone, and they would be a lot more likely to use mass transit.

Bare in mind in the UK they already have to pay for the car(+ tax), MOT costs(+ tax), plus road tax (tax for having a car) regardless of whether they use the car , but even when they use it they pay for fuel (++++++ tax), parking (+ tax) and wear and tear costs/ servicing (+ tax). So in the current tax environment there is a large additional cost to deciding to drive to work. Yet still tonnes of people do it.

Why is that? Clearly it really matters to people and they find it important. As someone who has both used public transport and a personal car for commuting I for one fucking hate using public transport.

So we have ths something that loads of people really hate, and your argument is to increase the price of the solution so they hate that financial cost even more than they hate public transport. Way to make the masses happy.

[Renton]

Bare in mind in the UK they already have to pay for the car(+ tax), MOT costs(+ tax), plus road tax (tax for having a car) regardless of whether they use the car , but even when they use it they pay for fuel (++++++ tax), parking (+ tax) and wear and tear costs/ servicing (+ tax). So in the current tax environment there is a large additional cost to deciding to drive to work. Yet still tonnes of people do it.

Why is that? Clearly it really matters to people and they find it important. As someone who has both used public transport and a personal car for commuting I for one fucking hate using public transport.

So we have ths something that loads of people really hate, and your argument is to increase the price of the solution so they hate that financial cost even more than they hate public transport. Way to make the masses happy.

It's actually likely that with free market roads most people would be paying less than they do now. As I mentioned before, the taxes don't really work because they aren't invested into new roads, they're often just spend on whatever the state wants to spend them on. They are also assessed in such a way that costs are flat. Someone driving twice as much doesn't pay twice as much as the average driver. Someone driving during rush hour doesn't pay more than someone who drives to work at 6am. The taxes are by and large a terrible disincentive for road overuse.

Also wouldn't roads create quite a natural monopoly? I mean once a company owns a bunch, there isn't much you can do to compete with them. There's only so much space to build competing roads. Also say building another big road connecting 2 cities, knowing there is only really enough traffic to support one (albeit with investment required to the existing one) isn't particularly smart either.

True monopolies are MUCH harder to create than the conventional wisdom suggests. There are almost always alternatives for any good or service in the economy, and where there aren't alternatives, there often are substitutes. There's simply never going to be a situation where a huge percentage of the people will not be able to afford to go to work, because there would be a huge profit in store for the entrepreneur who solves that problem.

Yes, roads are different from most services in that there are fewer distinct and different ways for them to exist. As for your example about the road connecting two cities with not enough traffic to support an additional road, that's simply impossible in a state of price gouging. The monopolist owner cannot raise his price past a point where it would attract a competitor to build an alternate road. As he gouges the price higher, there would necessarily be enough traffic for another road, because the amount of traffic on a road fluctuates based on the price of driving on that road.

In this way, we actually need to reevaluate our definition of monopoly. It is not simply the state of there being only one provider of a good or service. The criteria is more strict:

1) The monopoly is the only provider. (ex. it's the only road between A and B)
2) The monopoly prevents others from providing the same service. (ex. there are no other feasible places for roads nearby)
3) The monopoly prevents others from providing substitutes for that same service. (ex. no subterranean or superstructure can feasibly be built, no other modes of transportation are possible)

Even in the case where all three of these criteria are satisfied (this is unbelievably rare), the monopolist still can only gouge to a certain point because he must maximize his profit. This is like in poker when you're value betting the river with the nuts. You bet the maximum amount that will get called the highest percentage of the time such that the EV is maximized. Getting a 1/3p bet called 100% of the time is more profitable than getting a 3x pot bet called 10% of the time.

[rong]

It's actually likely that with free market roads most people would be paying less than they do now. As I mentioned before, the taxes don't really work because they aren't invested into new roads, they're often just spend on whatever the state wants to spend them on. They are also assessed in such a way that costs are flat. Someone driving twice as much doesn't pay twice as much as the average driver. Someone driving during rush hour doesn't pay more than someone who drives to work at 6am. The taxes are by and large a terrible disincentive for road overuse.



True monopolies are MUCH harder to create than the conventional wisdom suggests. There are almost always alternatives for any good or service in the economy, and where there aren't alternatives, there often are substitutes. There's simply never going to be a situation where a huge percentage of the people will not be able to afford to go to work, because there would be a huge profit in store for the entrepreneur who solves that problem.

Yes, roads are different from most services in that there are fewer distinct and different ways for them to exist. As for your example about the road connecting two cities with not enough traffic to support an additional road, that's simply impossible in a state of price gouging. The monopolist owner cannot raise his price past a point where it would attract a competitor to build an alternate road. As he gouges the price higher, there would necessarily be enough traffic for another road, because the amount of traffic on a road fluctuates based on the price of driving on that road.

In this way, we actually need to reevaluate our definition of monopoly. It is not simply the state of there being only one provider of a good or service. The criteria is more strict:

1) The monopoly is the only provider. (ex. it's the only road between A and B)
2) The monopoly prevents others from providing the same service. (ex. there are no other feasible places for roads nearby)
3) The monopoly prevents others from providing substitutes for that same service. (ex. no subterranean or superstructure can feasibly be built, no other modes of transportation are possible)

Even in the case where all three of these criteria are satisfied (this is unbelievably rare), the monopolist still can only gouge to a certain point because he must maximize his profit. This is like in poker when you're value betting the river with the nuts. You bet the maximum amount that will get called the highest percentage of the time such that the EV is maximized. Getting a 1/3p bet called 100% of the time is more profitable than getting a 3x pot bet called 10% of the time.

This is just wrong. I'll explain why when I get a chance today.