5 ms·
> The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise. For what
by humanrebar 8y ago
> The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise.
For what it's worth, local governments in the U.S. don't feel all that obligated. Just because something is public doesn't mean that it looks out for the little guy all that well.
- dfee 8y agoExcellent generalization about the 89,004 local governments in the US. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb12-161.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/government... Also, is your comparative perspective based on time living under multiple local UK governments, too?
- ChristianBundy 8y agoRethink this.
- dfee 8y agoNo. I’ve actually lived in both. Also, it appears(?) the parent comment to my initial comment was adjusted.
- dzhiurgis 8y agoHoly cow, it means 89 thousand different bus orders.
- emodendroket 8y agoLocal governments often fail their poorest citizens, but unlike for-profit companies, they in principle exist to serve all of their citizens, not to line the pockets of their owners. Private companies neither have nor pretend any such mission.
- dnautics 8y agoHow do you enforce that principle?
- emodendroket 8y agoWhile it's far from flawless, that is the point of having a democratic process.
- chibg10 8y agoRight it's such an effective system it produced Donald Trump to take the role as the world's most important person.
- emodendroket 8y agoWhat's your point? Would you prefer to be ruled by Jeff Bezos and the Walton family without the semblance of checks on their power?