3 ms·

Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit? It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. The o

by tayo42 1y ago

Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit? It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. The only thing is this funding situation for this government is dumb. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

tbrownaw 1y ago
> Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit? Er, to avoid it being used as leverage during government infighting?
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  That will save you for 15 minutes until the infighting goes after the company providing services because it’s not owned by the right oligarch.
krisoft 1y ago
> It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. I don't understand this part of your reasoning. It sounds like you are saying it is a service provided to the public therefore it is a natural fit for being run by the government. Do I understand your reasoning right? Because if so: A lot of services are provided to the public. For example baking bread. Should every baker be a government employee?
- Tiktaalik 1y ago
  The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control and there's zero choices so a market structure doesn't make sense. With bread, maybe I only like certain types of bread. Maybe I don't want bread. It makes sense for there to be a market with diverse offerings. If bread inputs get expensive maybe everyone pivots to eating potatoes. In contrast if you want to fly out of a major city there's one major airport, and you need air traffic control. It's a uniform service that is required. The same sort of market structure is not really viable.
  - krisoft 1y ago
    > The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control This is very much not true. People who don’t own or operate aircraft don’t need air traffic control. > and there's zero choices Probably what you are saying here is that air traffic control is a natural monopoly. You can’t have two (or more) paralel systems issuing clearances at the same time in the same airspace. That would be madness. But what I’m saying is not that we should have some crazy capitalist system where rival air traffic controllers compete with each other in the same airspace. What I’m talking about is a system where air traffic control services are provided by a private company. A private company which is funded by service charges to aircraft operators, and one whose operations are regulated by the government. You can argue why that is not possible, but this is exactly how Canada’s air traffic control is organised. There the air traffic controllers are employed by a non-profit corporation which is funded by service charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada Similarly air traffic controllers in the UK are employed by the NATS which is a public-private partnership. Germany has a similar structure with Deutsche Flugsicherung, or switzerland with Skyguide (formerly known as Swisscontrol). When you are arguing why it cannot work, you are arguing against all these examples.
    - Tiktaalik 1y ago
      Yea that's the point I'm making that it's a natural monopoly. And yea the examples you provide are another way to handle a monopoly, though it's not really clear to me what the comprehensive benefits actually would be. Other than to create an appearance of arms length from government. Would have the upside of not being shutdown due to the USA's crazy government shutdown nonsense, tho possibly you still have the shutdowns of a union strike. Kind of reminds me about how people slip up and occasionally call BC Ferries a crown corporation, and are corrected that no, actually BC Ferries is an independent, company, simply one with the sole monopoly contract to provide ferry service that is 100% owned by BC Ferry Authority, which is... owned by the Province and whose board is 44% selected by the Province (another 44% by municipalities, who are creatures of the Province). (boy sure does sound like a crown corporation...)
      - 1y ago
- tayo42 1y ago
  Maybe there's a better word for it. I'd put it in a class of things like firefighters, police departments, life guards. Utilities should be there.

by tayo42 1y ago

tbrownaw 1y ago

> Why would it be better to have this job be driven by profit? Er, to avoid it being used as leverage during government infighting?

actionfromafar 1y ago
That will save you for 15 minutes until the infighting goes after the company providing services because it’s not owned by the right oligarch.

krisoft 1y ago

> It's a service provided to the public. Seems like a natural fit for being run by government. I don't understand this part of your reasoning. It sounds like you are saying it is a service provided to the public therefore it is a natural fit for being run by the government. Do I understand your reasoning right? Because if so: A lot of services are provided to the public. For example baking bread. Should every baker be a government employee?

Tiktaalik 1y ago
The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control and there's zero choices so a market structure doesn't make sense. With bread, maybe I only like certain types of bread. Maybe I don't want bread. It makes sense for there to be a market with diverse offerings. If bread inputs get expensive maybe everyone pivots to eating potatoes. In contrast if you want to fly out of a major city there's one major airport, and you need air traffic control. It's a uniform service that is required. The same sort of market structure is not really viable.
- krisoft 1y ago
  > The difference here is that everyone needs air traffic control This is very much not true. People who don’t own or operate aircraft don’t need air traffic control. > and there's zero choices Probably what you are saying here is that air traffic control is a natural monopoly. You can’t have two (or more) paralel systems issuing clearances at the same time in the same airspace. That would be madness. But what I’m saying is not that we should have some crazy capitalist system where rival air traffic controllers compete with each other in the same airspace. What I’m talking about is a system where air traffic control services are provided by a private company. A private company which is funded by service charges to aircraft operators, and one whose operations are regulated by the government. You can argue why that is not possible, but this is exactly how Canada’s air traffic control is organised. There the air traffic controllers are employed by a non-profit corporation which is funded by service charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada Similarly air traffic controllers in the UK are employed by the NATS which is a public-private partnership. Germany has a similar structure with Deutsche Flugsicherung, or switzerland with Skyguide (formerly known as Swisscontrol). When you are arguing why it cannot work, you are arguing against all these examples.
  - Tiktaalik 1y ago
    Yea that's the point I'm making that it's a natural monopoly. And yea the examples you provide are another way to handle a monopoly, though it's not really clear to me what the comprehensive benefits actually would be. Other than to create an appearance of arms length from government. Would have the upside of not being shutdown due to the USA's crazy government shutdown nonsense, tho possibly you still have the shutdowns of a union strike. Kind of reminds me about how people slip up and occasionally call BC Ferries a crown corporation, and are corrected that no, actually BC Ferries is an independent, company, simply one with the sole monopoly contract to provide ferry service that is 100% owned by BC Ferry Authority, which is... owned by the Province and whose board is 44% selected by the Province (another 44% by municipalities, who are creatures of the Province). (boy sure does sound like a crown corporation...)
    - 1y ago
tayo42 1y ago
Maybe there's a better word for it. I'd put it in a class of things like firefighters, police departments, life guards. Utilities should be there.