3 ms·

"Public rail is a money-losing venture" So are public schools, public hospitals and national defence. But they are enablers of everything else that we do and t

by rswail 8y ago

"Public rail is a money-losing venture" So are public schools, public hospitals and national defence. But they are enablers of everything else that we do and the actual purpose of government and taxes. Public transport needs to be as efficient as it can be while providing the services needed. There are additional benefits like providing a training environment for trades, ensuring that a heavy engineering skillbase is maintained, social cohesiveness and equality of opportunity to remote populations etc.

taneq 8y ago
So you're saying that a publicly funded utility should provide some kind of beneficial service to the public? Like it's some kind of public service?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
The government should not be engaging in money losing ventures to provide services that private companies will provide at no cost (other than point of service cost) to taxpayers. If they want to run a jobs program then fine, run a jobs program. Don't pretend your jobs program is an infrastructure program though. I have no problem with the government spending tax money on things, that's kind of its job, but resources are not infinite (eventually you run out of other people's money). I know this is a much hated opinion among the HN demographic and I won't win internet brownie points for saying it but government should not be spending taxpayer money on services private entities are willing to provide. Government should spend its money on things private industry won't do (like social safety nets, education and funding R%D for things private industry doesn't care about).
- black_puppydog 8y ago
  > services that private companies will provide at no cost to taxpayers Like the private train companies that run around handing free rides to everyone?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Like the private train companies that run around handing free rides to everyone? Well good for them that they've found an alternate way to be profitable. If said profitability comes from a poorly spec'd out contract that somehow lets them screw the government out of money instead of charging people for the service then that's a corruption and integrity of public officials problem
- Silhouette 8y ago
  I have no problem with the government spending tax money on things but resources are not infinite (eventually you run out of other people's money) and in lieu of that they should not be spending taxpayer money on services private entities are willing to provide. What if private entities are willing to provide an essential service, but due to effects like lack of effective competition or economies of scale, most/all people wind up paying more direct to the profit-making private entity than they would via tax to a publicly funded service?

by rswail 8y ago

taneq 8y ago

So you're saying that a publicly funded utility should provide some kind of beneficial service to the public? Like it's some kind of public service?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

The government should not be engaging in money losing ventures to provide services that private companies will provide at no cost (other than point of service cost) to taxpayers. If they want to run a jobs program then fine, run a jobs program. Don't pretend your jobs program is an infrastructure program though. I have no problem with the government spending tax money on things, that's kind of its job, but resources are not infinite (eventually you run out of other people's money). I know this is a much hated opinion among the HN demographic and I won't win internet brownie points for saying it but government should not be spending taxpayer money on services private entities are willing to provide. Government should spend its money on things private industry won't do (like social safety nets, education and funding R%D for things private industry doesn't care about).

black_puppydog 8y ago
> services that private companies will provide at no cost to taxpayers Like the private train companies that run around handing free rides to everyone?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Like the private train companies that run around handing free rides to everyone? Well good for them that they've found an alternate way to be profitable. If said profitability comes from a poorly spec'd out contract that somehow lets them screw the government out of money instead of charging people for the service then that's a corruption and integrity of public officials problem
Silhouette 8y ago
I have no problem with the government spending tax money on things but resources are not infinite (eventually you run out of other people's money) and in lieu of that they should not be spending taxpayer money on services private entities are willing to provide. What if private entities are willing to provide an essential service, but due to effects like lack of effective competition or economies of scale, most/all people wind up paying more direct to the profit-making private entity than they would via tax to a publicly funded service?