4 ms·

>infrastructure is something that is inherently in the public interest and therefore best managed by the public (through government.) By this idiot "argument",

>infrastructure is something that is inherently in the public interest and therefore best managed by the public (through government.) By this idiot "argument", government should go back to the 1950s through 1970s and start nationalizing railroads, power companies, and oil companies again. How did that work out again?

leot 16y ago
Yes, because it worked out so well when governments divested themselves of their local transit systems to private businesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Apples and oranges. On the one hand, you are talking about a program to privatize a previously-public program. That has nothing to do with the question of whether public entities should enter markets that are already serviced by corporate entities. Indeed, if anything, it seems to me that your example argues against government getting into business, because of the danger of it being corrupted or subverted, as in your example.
gergles 16y ago
I don't know, let's ask California how their energy prices are doing now that they've been radically deregulated. Let's take a train on our efficient, safe, and inexpensive national rail system there to ask them.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Sigh. The brownouts a couple years back were because the State deregulated only one side of the market, leaving the sellers of electricity in an untenable position. Essentially, they had to compete to sell on the one hand, but were forbidden from competition on the purchasing side. The problem was entirely (and it's not often one can point a finger at one single cause, but here it is) the fault of ham-fisted State regulation. The federal rail system is not inexpensive, it's heavily subsidized. Don't start with the per-passenger-mile comparison to highways, because it's wrong: the study failed to account for capital cost in the railway, while counting for it against roads. On the topic of rail, the network of rail in the US was subsidized and built using eminent domain -- yet all of those railroads failed or were merged into others. The one exception, the one railroad that stood on its own without federal strongarming others into supporting it, is the only one that managed to survive until the present day.
iujyhgtfhj 16y ago
No it should move forward and privitize the roads. Particularly it should sell them to different car companies and arrange for them to have a monopoly. So the interstate is usable by anyone who pays but the local roads are GM only and the off ramp where you work is owned by Toyota.

leot 16y ago

Yes, because it worked out so well when governments divested themselves of their local transit systems to private businesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Apples and oranges. On the one hand, you are talking about a program to privatize a previously-public program. That has nothing to do with the question of whether public entities should enter markets that are already serviced by corporate entities. Indeed, if anything, it seems to me that your example argues against government getting into business, because of the danger of it being corrupted or subverted, as in your example.

gergles 16y ago

I don't know, let's ask California how their energy prices are doing now that they've been radically deregulated. Let's take a train on our efficient, safe, and inexpensive national rail system there to ask them.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Sigh. The brownouts a couple years back were because the State deregulated only one side of the market, leaving the sellers of electricity in an untenable position. Essentially, they had to compete to sell on the one hand, but were forbidden from competition on the purchasing side. The problem was entirely (and it's not often one can point a finger at one single cause, but here it is) the fault of ham-fisted State regulation. The federal rail system is not inexpensive, it's heavily subsidized. Don't start with the per-passenger-mile comparison to highways, because it's wrong: the study failed to account for capital cost in the railway, while counting for it against roads. On the topic of rail, the network of rail in the US was subsidized and built using eminent domain -- yet all of those railroads failed or were merged into others. The one exception, the one railroad that stood on its own without federal strongarming others into supporting it, is the only one that managed to survive until the present day.

iujyhgtfhj 16y ago

No it should move forward and privitize the roads. Particularly it should sell them to different car companies and arrange for them to have a monopoly. So the interstate is usable by anyone who pays but the local roads are GM only and the off ramp where you work is owned by Toyota.