3 ms·
> Paying directly for something is better than paying indirectly. Because you consider the cost of a resource before you use it. That does not work because it
by the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> Paying directly for something is better than paying indirectly. Because you consider the cost of a resource before you use it.
That does not work because it disadvantages the areas which are underdeveloped.
> In Singapore, they have demand pricing and a lot less congestion at rush hour.
But Singapore is tiny and quote homogenous.
If there were no legal requirements for USPS for instance to operate all over the country then Alaska would not have a mail service at all. There are areas too sparsely populated / too poor to afford infrastructure and (federal) taxes are necessary to finance it.
- rayiner 11y ago> If there were no legal requirements for USPS for instance to operate all over the country then Alaska would not have a mail service at all. There are areas too sparsely populated / too poor to afford infrastructure and (federal) taxes are necessary to finance it. Isn't that just the market saying it's too inefficient for anyone to live in Alaska?
- DrScump 11y agoNot taxes; other USPS ratepayers.
- harryh 11y agoFedEx operates in Alaska without any legal requirement to do so. That doesn't count as mail service?
- stretchwithme 11y agoWhat does homogeneity have to do with it? Does it make you more likely to favor mass transit over sitting in traffic for long periods?