5 ms·

"Do people really believe that infrastructure is not the purview of the government?" I don't think anyone is arguing that the government shouldn't be responsib

"Do people really believe that infrastructure is not the purview of the government?" I don't think anyone is arguing that the government shouldn't be responsible for certain infrastructure, it's the degree to which the government should be involved, and what its role should be. If I put on my more conservative hat for a minute to make an argument, I think the idea is that the government should be somewhat of a last resort for things, and that less is more when it comes to government involvement. Part of the reason for that is that once the government is involved, it changes the incentive structure quite a bit. Using other infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, etc) for examples that others have pointed out, they're a great way to raise taxes earmarked for those projects, but then that's when politicians start to play games and move money around to their own projects, and now the roads are falling apart, so we need to raise taxes to pay for the roads! It's also somewhat tricky because once something is a government project, it's basically that forever. It's fairly rare for something to go back to the private sector once it has become a government program. What is more likely is that the solution is more government involvement, and that's something that conservatives tend to view as a bad thing. Obviously I'm not speaking for all conservatives, and this isn't even necessarily my own viewpoint, but I wanted to push back against the idea that "conservatives just want what's worst".

pjc50 9y ago
> once something is a government project, it's basically that forever Hardly. In my lifetime the UK government has privatised electricity, water, gas, telephones, British Aerospace, British Steel, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce, Rover, British Airways, railways, coal mining, and Royal Mail. Experiments have been made with roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills: https://www.ft.com/content/ef488dc0-9168-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0 https://www.ft.com/content/ef488dc0-9168-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb... BAe and BA are still in business. British Steel were owned by Tata for years and the few remaining sites are now spun off and trading under the original name. BP are making a profit except when they spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The railways are a mess. Rover were looted by their directors who narrowly escaped jail.
- wooter 9y ago
  Your examples illustrate perfectly how government regulation establishes monopolies and cronyism
  - neuromantik8086 9y ago
    And Standard Oil, Alcoa and Carnegie Steel/U.S. Steel demonstrate how lack of government regulations establish monopolies and cronyism...
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Not "regulation" in this case, but actual state owned enterprises?
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills That kind of thinking absolutely kills infrastructure investment. To use British Telecom as an example. After privatization, BT kept its monopoly on the last mile, but rates were set to ensure that it was quite profitable. (About as profitable as say Time Warner in the US.) That ensures that BT had the incentive to invest and keep pushing fiber deeper into its network. Today, broadband speeds in the UK are significantly faster than in say France. But it also results in huge political backlash. “BT makes 20% profits while people can’t pay their utility bills!”
  - mrunkel 9y ago
    Except that Profits = income - Expenses (in simplified form). So, that 20% Profit you mention is money NOT spent on infrastructure investments.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Sure. But it’s money that motivates BT to spend money on infrastructure investments. No matter how you structure your infrastructure markets, ensuring adequate investment is the single most important thing. You can do this with markets or quasi markets, or you can do it through government agency decision making. With the former, you need to ensure attractive returns on investment. Not merely bare profit, but enough profit so that the billions of dollars don’t get invested elsewhere. Having the government make the decisions doesn’t magically eliminate the issue of ensuring adequate investment. It makes it even harder! With the government is on the hook for making investments, you’re always subject to pressure from other priorities. There is a reason roads and bridges and water systems in the US are crumbling. We’ve dramatically underinvested.
blacksmith_tb 9y ago
Isn't the obvious objection in this case that the incentive structure at the moment is terrible? Hence the lack of competition in most markets? Without needing to endorse one philosophy or the other, I'd say the telecom system in the US is a failure (for ordinary customers, it's been a ringing success for the telcos), and municipal broadband is worth a try (being less terrible than Comcast & Co is a fairly low bar...).

pjc50 9y ago

> once something is a government project, it's basically that forever Hardly. In my lifetime the UK government has privatised electricity, water, gas, telephones, British Aerospace, British Steel, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce, Rover, British Airways, railways, coal mining, and Royal Mail. Experiments have been made with roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills: https://www.ft.com/content/ef488dc0-9168-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0 https://www.ft.com/content/ef488dc0-9168-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb... BAe and BA are still in business. British Steel were owned by Tata for years and the few remaining sites are now spun off and trading under the original name. BP are making a profit except when they spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The railways are a mess. Rover were looted by their directors who narrowly escaped jail.

wooter 9y ago
Your examples illustrate perfectly how government regulation establishes monopolies and cronyism
- neuromantik8086 9y ago
  And Standard Oil, Alcoa and Carnegie Steel/U.S. Steel demonstrate how lack of government regulations establish monopolies and cronyism...
- pjc50 9y ago
  Not "regulation" in this case, but actual state owned enterprises?
rayiner 9y ago
> Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills That kind of thinking absolutely kills infrastructure investment. To use British Telecom as an example. After privatization, BT kept its monopoly on the last mile, but rates were set to ensure that it was quite profitable. (About as profitable as say Time Warner in the US.) That ensures that BT had the incentive to invest and keep pushing fiber deeper into its network. Today, broadband speeds in the UK are significantly faster than in say France. But it also results in huge political backlash. “BT makes 20% profits while people can’t pay their utility bills!”
- mrunkel 9y ago
  Except that Profits = income - Expenses (in simplified form). So, that 20% Profit you mention is money NOT spent on infrastructure investments.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Sure. But it’s money that motivates BT to spend money on infrastructure investments. No matter how you structure your infrastructure markets, ensuring adequate investment is the single most important thing. You can do this with markets or quasi markets, or you can do it through government agency decision making. With the former, you need to ensure attractive returns on investment. Not merely bare profit, but enough profit so that the billions of dollars don’t get invested elsewhere. Having the government make the decisions doesn’t magically eliminate the issue of ensuring adequate investment. It makes it even harder! With the government is on the hook for making investments, you’re always subject to pressure from other priorities. There is a reason roads and bridges and water systems in the US are crumbling. We’ve dramatically underinvested.

blacksmith_tb 9y ago

Isn't the obvious objection in this case that the incentive structure at the moment is terrible? Hence the lack of competition in most markets? Without needing to endorse one philosophy or the other, I'd say the telecom system in the US is a failure (for ordinary customers, it's been a ringing success for the telcos), and municipal broadband is worth a try (being less terrible than Comcast & Co is a fairly low bar...).