5 ms·

What those utilizing the transportation network are willing and able to pay to use the network will be directly proportional to how critical the usage of that t

What those utilizing the transportation network are willing and able to pay to use the network will be directly proportional to how critical the usage of that transportation network is to economic function. So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of transportation is what can cause economically non-viable transportation services to grow in usage, and in doing so, burden the economy with loss-making transportation.

CharlieDigital 3y ago
> So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. Let me reframe your statement: > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the education system from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of education is what can cause economically non-viable education services to consume greater amounts of resources, and in doing so, burden the economy. Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work? Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized. >Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs. As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... >Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA. I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control: https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-... These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.
  - dendriti 3y ago
    Libertarianism has been exposed as bullshit over and over again. To dismiss these well-documented concerns as "ideological defense mechanisms" is just sad. FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    > As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. The evidence, an example of that which I provided, shows that they are. May I ask if you or your relatives are in a union? If so it may be hard for you to be objective about this. >As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block. The unions that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that mandate the employer - which in the case of the public sector, is the government - to engage in collective bargaining with them, to the exclusion of all other parties. This provides them with an extreme barrier to competition from other workers, which in turn allows them to extract economic rent.
      - fzeroracer 3y ago
        No, I nor are any of my relatives are in a union. That will not be an avenue of argument for you. Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action. Additionally teachers are not required to join a union; the fact that teachers join the union and engage in collective bargaining is a result of their natural collective power. If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization. I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that. Given your post history, that seems to be where you actually lie.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Not everything needs to be done for purely economic purposes - that includes the creation and maintenance of transportation networks. Societies are free to have broader sets of objectives.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Of course. I was pushing back against the claim in the original post, which argued for socializing transportation costs on economic grounds: >Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function. Transportation is not amongst the subset of goods/services where having individual market actors pay for its production leads to economically sub-optimal under-production. Whether transportation should be subsidized for other reasons is an entirely different subject.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    I am a bit less convinced about the "optimalities" in practice, because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >>because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge. I don't understand, could you elaborate?
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        For example: corporations have a lot of secondary objectives beyond profit such as limited volatility of profits that can suppress beneficial activities. State actors can take different risks and absorb such volatility by funding activities and then recovering via taxes (simplistically). In the financial markets this gets often arbitraged away, but in slow and high cost markets, those arbitrageurs aren't necessarily forming. Similarly, time preferences can stop long-term beneficial activities by corporate actors. In the end, it is about bridging different preferences. There are also issues of resource pooling and coordination, but those are easier to overcome.

CharlieDigital 3y ago

> So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. Let me reframe your statement: > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the education system from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of education is what can cause economically non-viable education services to consume greater amounts of resources, and in doing so, burden the economy. Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.

ETH_start 3y ago
>Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work? Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized. >Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs. As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... >Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA. I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control: https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-... These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.
- dendriti 3y ago
  Libertarianism has been exposed as bullshit over and over again. To dismiss these well-documented concerns as "ideological defense mechanisms" is just sad. FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  > As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. The evidence, an example of that which I provided, shows that they are. May I ask if you or your relatives are in a union? If so it may be hard for you to be objective about this. >As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block. The unions that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that mandate the employer - which in the case of the public sector, is the government - to engage in collective bargaining with them, to the exclusion of all other parties. This provides them with an extreme barrier to competition from other workers, which in turn allows them to extract economic rent.
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      No, I nor are any of my relatives are in a union. That will not be an avenue of argument for you. Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action. Additionally teachers are not required to join a union; the fact that teachers join the union and engage in collective bargaining is a result of their natural collective power. If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization. I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that. Given your post history, that seems to be where you actually lie.

RandomLensman 3y ago

Not everything needs to be done for purely economic purposes - that includes the creation and maintenance of transportation networks. Societies are free to have broader sets of objectives.

ETH_start 3y ago
Of course. I was pushing back against the claim in the original post, which argued for socializing transportation costs on economic grounds: >Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function. Transportation is not amongst the subset of goods/services where having individual market actors pay for its production leads to economically sub-optimal under-production. Whether transportation should be subsidized for other reasons is an entirely different subject.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I am a bit less convinced about the "optimalities" in practice, because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >>because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge. I don't understand, could you elaborate?
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      For example: corporations have a lot of secondary objectives beyond profit such as limited volatility of profits that can suppress beneficial activities. State actors can take different risks and absorb such volatility by funding activities and then recovering via taxes (simplistically). In the financial markets this gets often arbitraged away, but in slow and high cost markets, those arbitrageurs aren't necessarily forming. Similarly, time preferences can stop long-term beneficial activities by corporate actors. In the end, it is about bridging different preferences. There are also issues of resource pooling and coordination, but those are easier to overcome.