2 ms·

Here is something I don't understand. There may be some subsidizing, but if the city had previously granted monopolies, isn't a bit of help to newcomers require

Here is something I don't understand. There may be some subsidizing, but if the city had previously granted monopolies, isn't a bit of help to newcomers required to undo the effect of the monopolization? I mean, if there is a huge infrastructure built via a monopoly subsidy, including existing leases on the right of ways etc, which the former monopoly will fight to keep exclusive, doesn't this provide unfair advantage resulting from the city's previous subsidy? If on the other hand they provide a bit of a leg up, to jumpstart competition, and help reduce the overwhelming advantage they previously caused, isn't that just undoing/fixing the mistake?

sausman 14y ago
And it's not as if the government has any resources it doesn't take from its citizens. When we let the government make buying decisions for us through subsidies, consumers inevitably lose. This is a perfect example. Instead of consumers voting with their dollars, a portion of their vote is confiscated by politicians. The money is then put towards the interests of politicians, not those of consumers. Best-case scenario: politicians choose exactly what serves consumers best. Worst-case scenario: politicians serve special interests and don't choose what's best for consumers. Not only is the best-case scenario extremely unlikely, it is exactly what would have happened absent any government subsidies.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Evbn 14y ago
  You are not showing an understanding of right of way and how infrastructure projects require large-scale coordinated action. It is not possible to build anything with only 75% right of way purchased from inviduals.