4 ms·

In those countries with better infrastructure there isn't as strong of a government-is-always-awful ideology as we have here. Our "conservative" politicians thi

by guelo 8y ago

In those countries with better infrastructure there isn't as strong of a government-is-always-awful ideology as we have here. Our "conservative" politicians thinks of their job as destroying government. So we get bad government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

rayiner 8y ago
Except infrastructure is awful in solidly blue states as well as red states. What "conservative politicians" are to blame for the NYC subway falling apart? I think you've got the causation backward. There's a bigger "market" for anti-government rhetoric in the U.S. than in Europe because the governmental units closest to the people here are so awful.
- aplusbi 8y ago
  The NYC subway is a poor example, since its funding is dependant on the conservative (but not for much longer) state government.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Calling the New York state government “conservative” is laughable. Democrats have controlled the governor’s seat for 32 of the last 43 years. They have controlled the Assembly (which has primary responsibility for tax and spending bills) for all of the last 43 years. New York state has one of the highest levels of taxes and public expenditures in the whole country.
- philipps 8y ago
  Democrats in the US would be considered center right in many European countries. The highest income tax rate in Denmark is around 80%. If you want excellent public infrastructure, you need to be willing to invest into the commons (not hand it over to the private sector - there is no example I am familiar with where that has led to better outcomes in the long run).
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That’s not really true either. Tax rates are higher outside the U.S. (but also flatter—VAT taxes which are pervasive in Europe would be considered a right-wing attempt to shift the tax burden to the middle class here.) But infrastructure isn’t more “left” in Europe, and it’s often more “right.” The Danish telecom operator owns all the copper and almost all the cable and is a fully private company. And Denmark got rid of its telecom regulator recently. The Danish rail operator is a for-profit government owned company that is in the process of being privatized. Deutsche Bahn is organized as a for-profit company. (The Japanese rail operators are all for-profit companies.) Stockholm’s dark fiber provider is organized as a for-profit company. Whereas De Blasio has turned fiber in NYC into a social justice issue, the Stockholm fiber provider built out its network based on demand and revenue generation (e.g. businesses first), and charged high initial hookup fees (approaching $1,000). The British commuter rail system is run by private companies. While London’s subway is run by the city, it pays for itself with fares (while half the costs of the New York subway come from the government). Nobody in Europe has anything like our Universal Service Fund, which shifts billions of dollars a year from urban areas to rural areas. It goes on and on. Europe was late to the deregulation game, but ran with it in the 1990s and 2000s. Case study: the U.K. The U.K.'s telecom infrastructure is almost entirely owned by a single private, for-profit company: BT. British telecom law imposes an open access requirement, requiring BT to lease access to competitors. However, because British regulators are sane, these leases are made at rates that leave BT with similar profit margins to Comcast. BT, unsurprisingly, has invested in upgrading its copper network. The U.S. had a similar requirement for DSL, but the FCC set the rates so low (at cost) that it basically killed investment in the copper network. The idea of the government owning and running rail, power, or telecom infrastructure these days is solidly left of center compared to Europe.
    - philipps 8y ago
      The key point is that you need tax revenue to manage (build, own, operate, or regulate) public infrastructure well. Expecting great rail, road, or internet service without paying high taxes and strong government involvement hasn’t worked out. Nothing in your post contradicts that. In many cases, public funding was even required to put in place the core infrastructure and conditions for privately operated companies to succeed. That’s certainly the case for high speed rail in Germany.
- berlinstartup 8y ago
  Uh, earth to clueless, New York has plenty of republicans in government. Including the mayor, usually.

by guelo 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

Except infrastructure is awful in solidly blue states as well as red states. What "conservative politicians" are to blame for the NYC subway falling apart? I think you've got the causation backward. There's a bigger "market" for anti-government rhetoric in the U.S. than in Europe because the governmental units closest to the people here are so awful.

aplusbi 8y ago
The NYC subway is a poor example, since its funding is dependant on the conservative (but not for much longer) state government.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Calling the New York state government “conservative” is laughable. Democrats have controlled the governor’s seat for 32 of the last 43 years. They have controlled the Assembly (which has primary responsibility for tax and spending bills) for all of the last 43 years. New York state has one of the highest levels of taxes and public expenditures in the whole country.
philipps 8y ago
Democrats in the US would be considered center right in many European countries. The highest income tax rate in Denmark is around 80%. If you want excellent public infrastructure, you need to be willing to invest into the commons (not hand it over to the private sector - there is no example I am familiar with where that has led to better outcomes in the long run).
- rayiner 8y ago
  That’s not really true either. Tax rates are higher outside the U.S. (but also flatter—VAT taxes which are pervasive in Europe would be considered a right-wing attempt to shift the tax burden to the middle class here.) But infrastructure isn’t more “left” in Europe, and it’s often more “right.” The Danish telecom operator owns all the copper and almost all the cable and is a fully private company. And Denmark got rid of its telecom regulator recently. The Danish rail operator is a for-profit government owned company that is in the process of being privatized. Deutsche Bahn is organized as a for-profit company. (The Japanese rail operators are all for-profit companies.) Stockholm’s dark fiber provider is organized as a for-profit company. Whereas De Blasio has turned fiber in NYC into a social justice issue, the Stockholm fiber provider built out its network based on demand and revenue generation (e.g. businesses first), and charged high initial hookup fees (approaching $1,000). The British commuter rail system is run by private companies. While London’s subway is run by the city, it pays for itself with fares (while half the costs of the New York subway come from the government). Nobody in Europe has anything like our Universal Service Fund, which shifts billions of dollars a year from urban areas to rural areas. It goes on and on. Europe was late to the deregulation game, but ran with it in the 1990s and 2000s. Case study: the U.K. The U.K.'s telecom infrastructure is almost entirely owned by a single private, for-profit company: BT. British telecom law imposes an open access requirement, requiring BT to lease access to competitors. However, because British regulators are sane, these leases are made at rates that leave BT with similar profit margins to Comcast. BT, unsurprisingly, has invested in upgrading its copper network. The U.S. had a similar requirement for DSL, but the FCC set the rates so low (at cost) that it basically killed investment in the copper network. The idea of the government owning and running rail, power, or telecom infrastructure these days is solidly left of center compared to Europe.
  - philipps 8y ago
    The key point is that you need tax revenue to manage (build, own, operate, or regulate) public infrastructure well. Expecting great rail, road, or internet service without paying high taxes and strong government involvement hasn’t worked out. Nothing in your post contradicts that. In many cases, public funding was even required to put in place the core infrastructure and conditions for privately operated companies to succeed. That’s certainly the case for high speed rail in Germany.
berlinstartup 8y ago
Uh, earth to clueless, New York has plenty of republicans in government. Including the mayor, usually.