4 ms·

What a joke. There is no incentive for them to reduce costs. Any time some change or obstacle comes up - well, let's spend another $500M, that will take care o

by avalys 5y ago

What a joke. There is no incentive for them to reduce costs. Any time some change or obstacle comes up - well, let's spend another $500M, that will take care of it. And people still think we should place more of the economy under the control of the government?

carlmr 5y ago
Yes, the government is quite inefficient, but infrastructure is a natural Monopoly. Privatization doesn't work here either. Germany tried and failed that. Natural monopolies only lead to rent seeking when in private hands. You'll pay even more than for inefficient government action. There's no incentive for them to lower their prices either. Privatization only works when you consider negative externalities and have a competitive market. For something like this you need a working democratic oversight. The people have to be the incentive to make it work.
- derriz 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s as black and white as that. The original railways in the US and in most of Europe were developed privately AFAIK - then in many cases the infrastructure was later nationalized - and in some cases subsequently privatized! More recently much of the mobile telecoms infrastructure was developed privately. Earlier it seems that much of the fixed line network globally was developed publicly.
  - fransje26 5y ago
    The original railways in the US were giving outrageous rights and huge stretches of land, which quickly led to monopolies and cartel formations. That resulted in the first anti-trust laws in the US. On top of that, the current dire state of railways in the US can be directly linked to the fact that they are privatized. Similarly, the early tracks in Europe were also often privately funded. Most were nationalized in the first half of the 20th century. Some countries tried privatizing tracks again (the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, ..) but quickly found out it didn't work.
- fransje26 5y ago
  Ahhh.. Berlin-Brandenburg... But I agree. Major infrastructure -roads, trains, electricity/energy, water, high-speed communication- should not be privatized, because they should simply work. And be maintained. And get upgraded on time. And they all involve planning time frames that span tens of years.
fransje26 5y ago
The French build their high-speed track at 1/10th of the cost. So no, the problem is not the government. The latest track over there cost 5.4 billion dollars for 250 miles of track.

by avalys 5y ago

carlmr 5y ago

Yes, the government is quite inefficient, but infrastructure is a natural Monopoly. Privatization doesn't work here either. Germany tried and failed that. Natural monopolies only lead to rent seeking when in private hands. You'll pay even more than for inefficient government action. There's no incentive for them to lower their prices either. Privatization only works when you consider negative externalities and have a competitive market. For something like this you need a working democratic oversight. The people have to be the incentive to make it work.

derriz 5y ago
I don’t think it’s as black and white as that. The original railways in the US and in most of Europe were developed privately AFAIK - then in many cases the infrastructure was later nationalized - and in some cases subsequently privatized! More recently much of the mobile telecoms infrastructure was developed privately. Earlier it seems that much of the fixed line network globally was developed publicly.
- fransje26 5y ago
  The original railways in the US were giving outrageous rights and huge stretches of land, which quickly led to monopolies and cartel formations. That resulted in the first anti-trust laws in the US. On top of that, the current dire state of railways in the US can be directly linked to the fact that they are privatized. Similarly, the early tracks in Europe were also often privately funded. Most were nationalized in the first half of the 20th century. Some countries tried privatizing tracks again (the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, ..) but quickly found out it didn't work.
fransje26 5y ago
Ahhh.. Berlin-Brandenburg... But I agree. Major infrastructure -roads, trains, electricity/energy, water, high-speed communication- should not be privatized, because they should simply work. And be maintained. And get upgraded on time. And they all involve planning time frames that span tens of years.

fransje26 5y ago

The French build their high-speed track at 1/10th of the cost. So no, the problem is not the government. The latest track over there cost 5.4 billion dollars for 250 miles of track.