3 ms·

WHAT? Are you kidding me? Go read a book on the railroads - that is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about. Nothing Like it In The World by Stephan

WHAT? Are you kidding me? Go read a book on the railroads - that is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about. Nothing Like it In The World by Stephan Ambrose is a quick read and covers my point. The railroads were granted the land tracts by the government - they didn't buy it. That was in the 19th century, what about the 20th century resurection of Conrail in the northeast? We wouldn't have railroads around NYC at all if it wasn't for a government bailout. The internet was invented by the federal government. It was largely expanded by universities - funded by state governments. The toll roads utterly failed in this country, thats why they were nationalized. The interstate highway system was entirely federally funded. Who built the bridges that I commute over everyday to work? Not private investors, in fact even if they were profitable in their own right and people wanted to build them - they never could because land had to be TAKEN from people against their will in order to build something for the common good. NYC would not be what it is today without the tunnels and bridges - but when neighbor hoods were getting cleared for the port authority building, do you think people like you thought it was a good idea?

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Okay, let's take this one at a time. Railroads: founded by a partnership between industry and government. Government's effects, aside from land grants, were dubious at best http://www.jstor.org/pss/3115585 http://www.jstor.org/pss/3115585 Yes, there were bailouts. But that hardly makes modern railroads a function of government intervention. Aside from eminent domain, railroads have been very capable of operating and turning a profit on their own, at least when it comes to freight. Even then, it was deregulation of the industry that brought Conrail back to life (1980 Staggers Act) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Central#Bankruptcy_and_Conrail_merger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Central#Bankruptcy_and_Con... Even now, passenger rail is a money-sink, one that government continues to find worthwhile but the market does not. The internet was "invented" by DARPA as a means to make research more effective. Unless you were at a federally-sponsored university, you didn't have internet access. But the rollout of the internet was very much a commercial thing. Delphi, America Online, UUNet, etc were all commercial players and they were the ones who brought internet to the masses. University participation was great in the early 80s when a small percentage of the population used it, but the "real" internet as we know it today runs on Cisco routers over Verizon cable to a local ISP owned by Sixpack Bob. It has grown and done just fine _without_ government help. Lastly, toll roads are making a come-back, if you haven't noticed. On a recent trip to Florida we saw them everywhere. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/apopka/orl-lid2508feb25,0,1614464.story http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/apopka/orl-lid... Privatization is a current trend, with some commentators worry about the effects on low income drivers http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_19/b4033001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_19/b4033001.... History is a great thing. You can take some event, like the building of the trans-continental railroad, and focus just on government involvement. Then you can look down another layer and see lots of private sector involvement. Push down yet another layer and you'll find legislators pandering to businesses. Push down yet another and you'll find some businesses trying to build something to make a buck. If you're not seeing the entire depth, it can appear to be anything from government saving the day to free market euphoria. In fact, it's a complex mix of interaction that makes things work. Part of that reason is because of the driving factors: politicians are always looking to make things more complicated and businesses are always looking to create something to make more money.
- krschultz 18y ago
  Why do people make a lot of money for starting a successful business? Because they took a risk and have proven that an idea has merit. Once you have a successful proven business growing it is just a matter of grinding through a lot of steps. (Keeping on top is a different matter). If a startup had invented the internet we would trumpet that as the crowning achievement of free enterprise. If a small company had come up with the idea for a transcontinental railroad, we would give them all the credit even if many others profited in their wake. But the government spawns both of these things and you minimize their importance as "just" the seed for it. It was a lot more than land in the case of the railroads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act It was a lot more than just a few networks at DARPA for the internet, and privatizing a road that the government already built isn't all that hard - you are privatizing maintenance not the initial hard part of construction. When a private company can build a new bridge over the hudson I'll eat my words, but I don't believe they ever will do something like that. The bottom line is that the private sector is not good at some things, and our taxes pay for those things. And to say that the government has no impact on the money that you have made or the success you have had is flat BS. All of the people at my startup came through public schools, all of them are of the age where they grew up in those schools when taxes were significantly higher. We shortchange our kids today for our own greed even though we grew up during a time of higher taxes. Thats the bottom line.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Nobody is saying that government isn't good at some things that the private sector is not good at. You are changing the argument. Your statement was that we owe the government "A Good Chunk" for some "things" that cause people to be rich. All of these things were "built on the backs of people paying significantly higher taxes than our selfish generation pays today" I pointed out that your examples are examples of private sector and government cooperation at best, and government mucking around at worst. The private sector is NOT good at some things. Point taken and agreed. However, we have rich people and private sector profitable work all over the globe, in all sorts of governmental conditions. We have businesses that operate without roads or electricity, businesses that work under onerous governmental regulations and no regulations at all. Your thesis -- that rich folks owe the government "a good chunk" is not supported by your examples. Furthermore, countless counter-examples exist. You just can't wave your arms around and say "infrastructure" a bunch of times and make an argument. Infrastructure is not a prerequisite for people to get rich. Even if it was, people should not be indebted to nations for things that their great grandparents did -- the social contract is about here and now, not 50 years ago. Rich people are in no way morally indebted, at least as far as I can tell. Your case is thus: Infrastructure helps people get rich. Rich people live in a environment with infrastructure. The government is the sole provider of said infrastructure. Therefore, rich people owe the government more. If I'm not understanding please correct me, but you're not making any sense at all to me. It sounds like just a slogan you're repeating over and over. I'm going to bow out unless you have something truly useful. It's beginning to sound like we're talking past each other.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Okay, let's take this one at a time. Railroads: founded by a partnership between industry and government. Government's effects, aside from land grants, were dubious at best http://www.jstor.org/pss/3115585 http://www.jstor.org/pss/3115585 Yes, there were bailouts. But that hardly makes modern railroads a function of government intervention. Aside from eminent domain, railroads have been very capable of operating and turning a profit on their own, at least when it comes to freight. Even then, it was deregulation of the industry that brought Conrail back to life (1980 Staggers Act) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Central#Bankruptcy_and_Conrail_merger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Central#Bankruptcy_and_Con... Even now, passenger rail is a money-sink, one that government continues to find worthwhile but the market does not. The internet was "invented" by DARPA as a means to make research more effective. Unless you were at a federally-sponsored university, you didn't have internet access. But the rollout of the internet was very much a commercial thing. Delphi, America Online, UUNet, etc were all commercial players and they were the ones who brought internet to the masses. University participation was great in the early 80s when a small percentage of the population used it, but the "real" internet as we know it today runs on Cisco routers over Verizon cable to a local ISP owned by Sixpack Bob. It has grown and done just fine _without_ government help. Lastly, toll roads are making a come-back, if you haven't noticed. On a recent trip to Florida we saw them everywhere. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/apopka/orl-lid2508feb25,0,1614464.story http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/apopka/orl-lid... Privatization is a current trend, with some commentators worry about the effects on low income drivers http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_19/b4033001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_19/b4033001.... History is a great thing. You can take some event, like the building of the trans-continental railroad, and focus just on government involvement. Then you can look down another layer and see lots of private sector involvement. Push down yet another layer and you'll find legislators pandering to businesses. Push down yet another and you'll find some businesses trying to build something to make a buck. If you're not seeing the entire depth, it can appear to be anything from government saving the day to free market euphoria. In fact, it's a complex mix of interaction that makes things work. Part of that reason is because of the driving factors: politicians are always looking to make things more complicated and businesses are always looking to create something to make more money.

krschultz 18y ago
Why do people make a lot of money for starting a successful business? Because they took a risk and have proven that an idea has merit. Once you have a successful proven business growing it is just a matter of grinding through a lot of steps. (Keeping on top is a different matter). If a startup had invented the internet we would trumpet that as the crowning achievement of free enterprise. If a small company had come up with the idea for a transcontinental railroad, we would give them all the credit even if many others profited in their wake. But the government spawns both of these things and you minimize their importance as "just" the seed for it. It was a lot more than land in the case of the railroads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act It was a lot more than just a few networks at DARPA for the internet, and privatizing a road that the government already built isn't all that hard - you are privatizing maintenance not the initial hard part of construction. When a private company can build a new bridge over the hudson I'll eat my words, but I don't believe they ever will do something like that. The bottom line is that the private sector is not good at some things, and our taxes pay for those things. And to say that the government has no impact on the money that you have made or the success you have had is flat BS. All of the people at my startup came through public schools, all of them are of the age where they grew up in those schools when taxes were significantly higher. We shortchange our kids today for our own greed even though we grew up during a time of higher taxes. Thats the bottom line.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Nobody is saying that government isn't good at some things that the private sector is not good at. You are changing the argument. Your statement was that we owe the government "A Good Chunk" for some "things" that cause people to be rich. All of these things were "built on the backs of people paying significantly higher taxes than our selfish generation pays today" I pointed out that your examples are examples of private sector and government cooperation at best, and government mucking around at worst. The private sector is NOT good at some things. Point taken and agreed. However, we have rich people and private sector profitable work all over the globe, in all sorts of governmental conditions. We have businesses that operate without roads or electricity, businesses that work under onerous governmental regulations and no regulations at all. Your thesis -- that rich folks owe the government "a good chunk" is not supported by your examples. Furthermore, countless counter-examples exist. You just can't wave your arms around and say "infrastructure" a bunch of times and make an argument. Infrastructure is not a prerequisite for people to get rich. Even if it was, people should not be indebted to nations for things that their great grandparents did -- the social contract is about here and now, not 50 years ago. Rich people are in no way morally indebted, at least as far as I can tell. Your case is thus: Infrastructure helps people get rich. Rich people live in a environment with infrastructure. The government is the sole provider of said infrastructure. Therefore, rich people owe the government more. If I'm not understanding please correct me, but you're not making any sense at all to me. It sounds like just a slogan you're repeating over and over. I'm going to bow out unless you have something truly useful. It's beginning to sound like we're talking past each other.