4 ms·

I think if you want a high-quality train service, you should pay for it through higher fares. Saying you would pay higher taxes is sly language for saying you w

I think if you want a high-quality train service, you should pay for it through higher fares. Saying you would pay higher taxes is sly language for saying you want to others to subsidize you.

ckocagil 6y ago
How are you going to privatize infrastructure? There can be no competition in big infrastructure projects. What's a competitor to do, lay a new railroad next to the existing one? This is also why fiber lines should be owned by cities and leased to ISPs.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  > This is also why fiber lines should be owned by cities and leased to ISPs. In Vietnam, even in smaller cities, there are at least three different ISPs with citywide GPON FTTH. The fact that they weren’t forced to share a government lowest-common-denominator physical layer means that we are now seeing some competition around improvements to that physical layer, with one ISP offering much faster speeds made possible by incrementally improving their physical network. The others will be encouraged by competitive pressure to do the same, or maybe even do better.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
We tried this "subsidise nothing" approach in britain in the 1800, people had to pay for being in jail, and for being judged. There was no public police, investigation or fire service. It was miserable, corruption was massive, streets were dangerous, and whole towns burned to the ground. Penatly for the smallest crime was death, and it didn't help. Either you accept that civilisation needs infrastructure to function, or you live like a medieval peasant.
- GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
  Do you happen to know where I can read more about how that came to be the situation, or is it more that it’s the default and anything else is gravy?
  - SnowProblem 6y ago
    Seconded, sounds interesting. I don't accept the either-or statement at the end, but I would love to learn more about Britain's history of funding infrastructure.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Saying you would pay higher taxes is sly language for saying you want to others to subsidize you. And per the IMF there are huge subsidies to fossil fuels in the US: * https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-f... I think if you want to pollute the air and cause climate change, you should pay for it without those of us who use public transit subsidizing it.
- SnowProblem 6y ago
  No, I don't accept IMF's re-definition of subsidy, nor yours. Subsidies are not negative externalities. We can talk about a carbon tax to address externalities. I agree there should be one. We can talk about eliminating energy subsidies. I agree there should be none (in the US renewables get more subsidies per kWh). But asking me to pay for your luxury train rides is not OK.

I think if you want a high-quality train service, you should pay for it through higher fares. Saying you would pay higher taxes is sly language for saying you want to others to subsidize you.

ckocagil 6y ago

How are you going to privatize infrastructure? There can be no competition in big infrastructure projects. What's a competitor to do, lay a new railroad next to the existing one? This is also why fiber lines should be owned by cities and leased to ISPs.

_-___________-_ 6y ago
> This is also why fiber lines should be owned by cities and leased to ISPs. In Vietnam, even in smaller cities, there are at least three different ISPs with citywide GPON FTTH. The fact that they weren’t forced to share a government lowest-common-denominator physical layer means that we are now seeing some competition around improvements to that physical layer, with one ISP offering much faster speeds made possible by incrementally improving their physical network. The others will be encouraged by competitive pressure to do the same, or maybe even do better.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

We tried this "subsidise nothing" approach in britain in the 1800, people had to pay for being in jail, and for being judged. There was no public police, investigation or fire service. It was miserable, corruption was massive, streets were dangerous, and whole towns burned to the ground. Penatly for the smallest crime was death, and it didn't help. Either you accept that civilisation needs infrastructure to function, or you live like a medieval peasant.

GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
Do you happen to know where I can read more about how that came to be the situation, or is it more that it’s the default and anything else is gravy?
- SnowProblem 6y ago
  Seconded, sounds interesting. I don't accept the either-or statement at the end, but I would love to learn more about Britain's history of funding infrastructure.

throw0101a 6y ago

> Saying you would pay higher taxes is sly language for saying you want to others to subsidize you. And per the IMF there are huge subsidies to fossil fuels in the US: * https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-f... I think if you want to pollute the air and cause climate change, you should pay for it without those of us who use public transit subsidizing it.

SnowProblem 6y ago
No, I don't accept IMF's re-definition of subsidy, nor yours. Subsidies are not negative externalities. We can talk about a carbon tax to address externalities. I agree there should be one. We can talk about eliminating energy subsidies. I agree there should be none (in the US renewables get more subsidies per kWh). But asking me to pay for your luxury train rides is not OK.