5 ms·

I don't understand why the state funds airports. If people want airports, there is a demand, and that demand is either big enough to fund an airport and is sati

• MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  The theory that is taken out of the drawer in such occasions is that the airport will have "a positive economical impact on the whole region, so the calculation isn't that simple". Sometimes it works, but in most cases it doesn't.
  • Kenji 11y ago
    If "the calculation isn't that simple" how come the politicians think they can figure out the solution, but the collective hivemind of demand and offer by literally all participants of the economy cannot?
    • losername 11y ago
      They probably don't think that
    • Retra 11y ago
      Why would you believe thousands of people participating in an economy would come to a better solution than a few people making plans? About the only thing large masses of people ever seem to accomplish is throwing fuel into various metaphorical fires.
    • MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
      Economical advancement mean more jobs, more taxes, happier citizens. A privately controlled/financed airport doesn't care about those things, thus the mixed calculation leads to different results for state and private actors. Unfortunately, the numbers projected by the state actors are often unsound.
• cmarschner 11y ago
  Airports are shared infrastructure, just like roads. As such they are serving a common purpose, and don't have to make money by themselves (rather indirectly through enabling business). That's exactly where the government should be involved in. E.g. It makes more sense to have a single airport rather than several competing ones, airports shouldn't go bancrupt and be closed, and building them might require changing laws or evicting/relocating 1000s of people. These are all in the sphere of public responsibility.
  • Kenji 11y ago
    There, I turned your statement around to show you how flawed your reasoning is: The internet is a shared infrastructure, just like roads. As such it is serving a common purpose, and doesn't have to make money by itself (rather indirectly through enabling business). That's exactly where the government should be involved in. E.g. It makes more sense to have a single provider rather than several competing ones, providers shouldn't go bancrupt and be closed, and establishing them might require changing laws or evicting/relocating 1000s of people. These are all in the sphere of public responsibility. Absolutely there should be competition, it's the main driver behind efficiency and quality!
    • justthistime_ 11y ago
      I think you see for yourself where your example falls apart.