4 ms·
That was unfortunate. But another side of the issue in Chicago was that the city blew through the cash in record time. Even if the meters had been sold off at a
by btcoal 15y ago
That was unfortunate. But another side of the issue in Chicago was that the city blew through the cash in record time. Even if the meters had been sold off at an above market price, the disfunction in the local government would have resulted in the squandering of the proceeds.
From your well made point I infer that we should make a dispassionate evaluation of the value of public assets during good times so that they won't be sold for a song during bad times.
Things usually go, "No we will not sell off pieces of our nation" (during good economic times) so nobody actually evaluates the options for doing so --> "We need cash now!" And we become subject to market forces when leveraging public assets.
- nate_meurer 15y agoSome large Amercian cities -- San Fran comes to mind, Chicago maybe just as much -- are microcosms of countries like Greece. Enormous government payrolls locked up in union contracts, massive social regimes from which a large part of the population either draws upon or derives job security, and a corrupt and labyrinthine tax system.
- nradov 15y agoNot really. San Francisco and Chicago are governed just as badly as some third-world kleptocracies, but those cities fortunately have relatively little general obligation debt (proportionally much less than Greece). Eventually they will probably declare bankruptcy and repudiate their ridiculous union contracts.
- _delirium 15y agoThe lesson I take from it is that we shouldn't sell off public assets, because their long-term ownership is likely to provide more value to the public than the one-time money from a sale does, especially given the high likelihood that the one-time proceeds will be squandered by politicians. Better to keep the meters, and allow meter revenues to trickle in a little bit every year, rather than receive and waste 99 years of meter money in a lump sum.