Printable View
Essentially, private companies had the US covered in the greatest mass transit system in the world. Ford Motor company saw an opportunity to have the US covered in the greatest number of Ford motor vehicles in the world and so they hatched a plot. Buy up and dismantle all the privately owned public transit then petition the gov't to build them sweet-ass roads.
I can't decide if it's a bad thing or a good thing, just that it's a thing.
Share a thought if you have one.
Private ownership of public utility is almost never a good thing. Before we forget, all the governments people hate are really just private property. This doesn't mean that private property is bad, it just means that it shouldn't be taken too far
As far as I'm concerned, there are certain things that should be run by any government, those being, utilities, healthcare and public transport.
So without looking into this issue in any detail I would guess I am against it.
What sort of arbitrary distinctions did you use to formulate that list?Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
A loud crack rang across the Welkins. "A fine shot, sir. I'd wager he's 14 points at least!"Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeaces86
"16," ilikeaces smirked cooly as he passed his high powered rifle to the club's complimentary gun-steward, "16 points."
Perched high atop his Ivory Tower, ilikeaces86 had every advantage over his mark. It was as easy as it was satisfying, he knew.
I know right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeaces86
Well, if the internet is going to think in stupid, I may as well prove it.
Barriers to entry and therefore effect on competition. Level of importance with regard to economic success. Value to individuals irrespective of income.
And I left education and defence off the list.
Mine was a crack at ILA. He's taking pot-shots from his tree-stand. It's on him to offer up what he thinks before you offer up why you think you're right.
meh, I stand by my opinion and am happy explain it if challenged and to change it if proven wrong.
You should see the other guys hand after showing yours, is all.
According to stars that only applies if you lose.
We've gone too far.
Well the right way to start would be: only the premise that all humans have the same rights (instead of just rights for special humans) and that economics results should be built on the same principle (instead of just for benefiting the special) is arbitrary
It's not like we don't already know how these things work. We know for a fact that healthcare functions the best when universal, but the debate has become ideological in that some believe (often inadvertently) that the starting premise shouldn't be what I laid out in the post above. Instead they tend to believe Social Darwinism and Ayn Randian ideologies that are based on the principle of special rights instead of equal rights
I've sort of turned into an anarcho-capitalist over the past year or so, but one of the things I am having trouble envisioning the private sector handling is transportation. I think there's probably a way to do it and they'll figure it out but I just don't have the imagination to foresee it. It's such a huge cost, requires so much land, and so much planning by relatively few people. We can all agree that the benefits of easy transportation are more than worth the mammoth costs, I just am not sure if the average person would voluntarily kick in his dime to get it done without force from the state.
I'm kind of in a similar boat as you. I have trouble imagining a purely free market solution to transportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
At the very least though it doesn't make a lot of sense for transportation to be handled at the federal level. City and state governments would have a better understanding of what sorts of transportation projects are good for their area. It's like Mcdonalds corporation running a store out of dubuque iowa from the federal office. Local management should have a much better understanding of how to make the best decisions for the store.
I think the governments gigantic investment in the car industry by creating roads and highways was terrible mal-investment. This was essentially a government subsidy for people to buy cars despite other options being much more economical. If you look at it from an extreme point of view, imagine if the government gave away cars for free. You would have people who have very little use for them, like people in big cities or who live so close to their work they can walk, getting cars for the government. The resources used to make that car, parts, labor, etc. would've been used much more usefully, say to pay for housing for a homeless person, if the government did not create that car. This is not that dissimilar to the situation now. By providing free roads you create an incentive for people who do not need the car to get one, even though those resources would serve a better purpose used elsewhere.
What functions of healthcare are best when universal? Surely health care resources are used less economically in a government paid system.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The data from every modern country today says otherwise, even the US. Use of resources in Medicaid and Medicare is much better than our private insurance. Healthcare costs in the US are nearly double every other countries' due to distortions in the private market that increase costs like tax breaks coverage and kicking sick people off insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Many complain about the ACA turning our system into socialized medicine, but the truth is that we already have socialized care, just not socialized coverage. And it's this Emergency Room Socialized Medicine system that has driven costs up so much more than every other example in the modern world
Besides, healthcare doesn't even have to be government run, it just has to be universally covered and smartly regulated. The Heritage Foundation would love the ACA if they thought of it first (oh wait they did)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Well, you'll be happy to know there's another one of these things with respect to mass transportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
The US Postal service originally subsidized air transport and demanded planes large enough for commercial passenger service under the 1930 McNary-Watres Act which forced the consolidation of private companies into an oligopoly capable of supporting the development of what would become the DC-3.
One of the companies created in this process was Boeing.
And Boeing had a problem. Everytime it endeavored to create a new aircraft, it was betting the farm. It was a decade+ life cycle where you would take massive losses from negative cash flow for 6 years, then breakeven maybe 12 years later.
The solution was for the federal gov't through the arm of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to artificially set airfare prices high. This forced private airliner companies to put in large orders for newer, greater aircraft to justify the high cost of airfare or else risk failure for delivering a service that can't justifiy its price.
This lead to an enormous boom of technological advances in the aero industry. In 20 years, we went from 28 people DC-3s to the Boeing 707. Another decade and we had the Boeing 747.
Cool stuff, imo.