3 ms·

> Sometimes breaking government monopolies may lead to worse outcomes. if the gov't monopoly was receiving tax payer subsidy, then breaking it up means the tax

by chii 2y ago

> Sometimes breaking government monopolies may lead to worse outcomes. if the gov't monopoly was receiving tax payer subsidy, then breaking it up means the taxpayer gets back the cost of the subsidy, and the service being provided returned to private funding model. If you only consider the outcome as the cost paid for service by the end user, then this looks bad - after all, cost was raised. But you have to also consider the savings in the subsidy that is no longer paid. It's not black and white. Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most.

lmm 2y ago
> If you only consider the outcome as the cost paid for service by the end user, then this looks bad - after all, cost was raised. But you have to also consider the savings in the subsidy that is no longer paid. You've got to consider other costs as well - higher road use means direct costs, direct deaths, and pollution. Some things simply aren't easy to isolate the effects of and bill an individual for; some things are natural monopolies, some things are economic lighthouses, and we shouldn't be afraid of administrating things via governments in the many cases where a true free market simply isn't a viable option.
troupo 2y ago
> the service being provided returned to private funding model. They never do. They keep receiving substantial government subsidies. > If you only consider the outcome as the cost paid for service by the end user, then this looks bad No. I view it as "prices went up, service levels have gone down: delays, breakdowns, staff shortages have increased" > Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most. Then there would be no public transport, as its costs are prohibitive
Idesmi 2y ago
> Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most. If you are willing to pay 100€ for a 1h train ride, that is. Subsidies allow public transport for everyone.
bpye 2y ago
> Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most. We don't demand that highways generate direct profits/revenue outside of limited application of toll roads, would you also want every road to be pay-per-mile?

by chii 2y ago

lmm 2y ago

> If you only consider the outcome as the cost paid for service by the end user, then this looks bad - after all, cost was raised. But you have to also consider the savings in the subsidy that is no longer paid. You've got to consider other costs as well - higher road use means direct costs, direct deaths, and pollution. Some things simply aren't easy to isolate the effects of and bill an individual for; some things are natural monopolies, some things are economic lighthouses, and we shouldn't be afraid of administrating things via governments in the many cases where a true free market simply isn't a viable option.

troupo 2y ago

> the service being provided returned to private funding model. They never do. They keep receiving substantial government subsidies. > If you only consider the outcome as the cost paid for service by the end user, then this looks bad No. I view it as "prices went up, service levels have gone down: delays, breakdowns, staff shortages have increased" > Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most. Then there would be no public transport, as its costs are prohibitive

Idesmi 2y ago

> Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most. If you are willing to pay 100€ for a 1h train ride, that is. Subsidies allow public transport for everyone.

bpye 2y ago

> Personally, i would prefer a model of "user pays", as it aligns incentives the most. We don't demand that highways generate direct profits/revenue outside of limited application of toll roads, would you also want every road to be pay-per-mile?