NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does government insist on wasting tax dollars on obsolete or just plain unprofitable ventures that serve very little purpose, specifically in matters of transit? Are there no enterprises which provide these services but do not rely on government funding? I ask this because while at the Minnesota State Fair (where everything is served on a stick and deep fried) I asked a representative of Metro Transit and the Light Rail Transit line how much of the funding for both the buses and especially the $715 million for the new LRT would come from riders. He responded that only about 1/3 of the money to maintain and construct the systems was ever expected to come from people who actually use the service provided and that the majority of the funding comes from motor vehicle sales taxes and the general fund through the state and local governments. I asked him if there were non-state operated buslines which stay afloat by turning a profit and he answered that he believed there were.

Why then do we have to pay for services that we may never use? If there are indeed privatly owned or public comapnies which are not funded by the state but survive through good business practices then what is the state doing wrong?

You will use them soon though, once the price of oil makes car travel too expensive.

You do use the transit system indirectly.

If X% of people use the transit system then that's Y% less roads that have to be built and maintained.

Besides which all roads have a maximum capacity at which they can operate. A transit system greatly increases the maximum amount people who can use a road per time unit whilst greatly decreasing the number of vehicles using the road network.

Adequately designed rail networks can also take freight, which means many HGVs are removed from the road network - thereby decreasing the frequency at which roads have to be resurfaced.


All in all, go play simcity for a bit and tell me what you think is the best way to reduce traffic congestion.


Why then do we have to pay for services that we may never use? If there are indeed privatly owned or public comapnies which are not funded by the state but survive through good business practices then what is the state doing wrong?Consider it this way. If you had to pay an equal toll for each road you used, which road would generate the most tolls. The one quiet street in a residential area, or the main artery of a city? However, that huge road in that takes large amounts of city traffic wouldn't be in use at all were it not for the other roads that feed on to it (most of which, on an individual basis, are unprofitable to maintain).

Absolutely. Public transport is good for the environment and beneficial to people who don't use it.

All in all, go play simcity for a bit and tell me what you think is the best way to reduce traffic congestion.

Well, in classic simcity, the best way is to zone all buildings in huge rectangular blocks and surround each block with a railroad. You don't get traffic congestion cuz you don't get traffic, but the city prospers and everyone is happy riding the train everywhere.

If I wanted my dollars to turn a profit, I'd rather not get taxed and invest them myself.

In fact, that is exactly what I want.

Subsidizing public transportation is basically a type of congestion tax. Those people who choose drive cars pay/subsidize those who choose to use public transportation for the inconveinaces that public transportation imposes, and in return they get less congested streets to drive on.

If I wanted my dollars to turn a profit, I'd rather not get taxed and invest them myself.

In fact, that is exactly what I want.

Relevence?

Public transport is going to become much more popular when it costs a bomb to go anywhere by car. Private 'public transport' ventures are generally crap because they cost too much and don't really go where you want them to at all.

In about 15-20 years, for example, I imagine I'll probably be biking or getting the bus to just about everywhere, and hopefully the mass transit system will be nationalised again (bleddy Thatcher).

Why does government insist on wasting tax dollars on obsolete or just plain unprofitable ventures that serve very little purpose, specifically in matters of transit? Are there no enterprises which provide these services but do not rely on government funding? I ask this because while at the Minnesota State Fair (where everything is served on a stick and deep fried) I asked a representative of Metro Transit and the Light Rail Transit line how much of the funding for both the buses and especially the $715 million for the new LRT would come from riders. He responded that only about 1/3 of the money to maintain and construct the systems was ever expected to come from people who actually use the service provided and that the majority of the funding comes from motor vehicle sales taxes and the general fund through the state and local governments. I asked him if there were non-state operated buslines which stay afloat by turning a profit and he answered that he believed there were.

Why then do we have to pay for services that we may never use? If there are indeed privatly owned or public comapnies which are not funded by the state but survive through good business practices then what is the state doing wrong?

There are expenses to the government beyond the direct cost of subsidies. If everyone who rode mass transit drove a car instead, it would call for more roads, more police, more problems with pollution, higher insurance for drivers, the list could go on for a while. By taxing those who drive, that should serve to encourage those drivers to take mass transit.

The problem with private enterprise in these situations is they take the "cream" and refuse to serve the areas that aren't as profitable but more in need of the service. Before the "deregulation" of the early 80's nearly every town had a bus service that would carry passengers to larger cities. Nearly every larger rural town had airline service. That wasn't directly profitable. So they all ended, which means more demand on fuel which means war in the mideast, not to mention more road upkeep, etc. Along with that, the population was forced into the large cities, causing problems with things like water, sewer, schools, and other infrastructure that exits in those rural towns but had to be built in the cities.

Not all costs and benefits come directly.

Public transport is going to become much more popular when it costs a bomb to go anywhere by car. Private 'public transport' ventures are generally crap because they cost too much and don't really go where you want them to at all.

In about 15-20 years, for example, I imagine I'll probably be biking or getting the bus to just about everywhere, and hopefully the mass transit system will be nationalised again (bleddy Thatcher).

Nationalisation = Baaaaaaad.

Public transport, not that I use anything but the trains/ underground if at all possible, is decent enough, and when petrol does become impossibly expensive, I daresay Petroleum companies will put the resources they ought to anyway into finding a replacement.

Well, in classic simcity, the best way is to zone all buildings in huge rectangular blocks and surround each block with a railroad. You don't get traffic congestion cuz you don't get traffic, but the city prospers and everyone is happy riding the train everywhere.I think it was only with simcity 4 that zones had to be next to a road to be able to develop. But even then you can isolate zones types and only have them connect via public transport. But simcity is still a better tool for coming up with government policy than individuals only worried about the cash in their pocket.

Nationalisation = Baaaaaaad.

The privatized rail way system in the UK has a higher government subsidy than it did when it was run by the government

Nationalisation = Baaaaaaad.

Public transport, not that I use anything but the trains/ underground if at all possible, is decent enough, and when petrol does become impossibly expensive, I daresay Petroleum companies will put the resources they ought to anyway into finding a replacement.
We've spent more on bailing out the railways since we privatised them than we would have spent were they nationalised, with no increase at all in the quality of the service.

So the taxpayer gets hit in the pocket for no real good. Whoopety-do.

The privatized rail way system in the UK has a higher government subsidy than it did when it was run by the government

More a fault with the system employed, and the fact that far too many individual companies are employed, than the principle itself.

The same goes for Yootopia's post below for that matter, with the following appendage; the tax payer gets hit more by the cock up and big "come on over for free healthcare" sign that is the NHS than anything else. Why not privatise that then?

More a fault with the system employed, and the fact that far too many individual companies are employed, than the principle itself.So what system would work better then? You can't spring a 'no-true-scotsman' here.

The same goes for Yootopia's post below for that matter, with the following appendage; the tax payer gets hit more by the cock up and big "come on over for free healthcare" sign that is the NHS than anything else. Why not privatise that then?Source that. Anecdotal evidence is only welcome here when it suits my purposes. :p

More a fault with the system employed, and the fact that far too many individual companies are employed, than the principle itself.
*slow clap*

"Privatisation is better because it's a good idea". Yeah. Nice one, Chris. Wouldn't it be great if this worked in the real world?

Anarcho-Communism is a perfectly spiffing idea. Just a shame it's unimplementable, eh?

Pragmatism kicks ideologism's arse. This is a perfect example.
the tax payer gets hit more by the cock up and big "come on over for free healthcare" sign that is the NHS than anything else. Why not privatise that then?
Because if it turns out like privatised mining, transit, electricity, etc. etc. then it'll simply turn out to be only as good, or worse, and just as costly, if not more so?

So what system would work better then? You can't spring a 'no-true-scotsman' here.

Source that. Anecdotal evidence is only welcome here when it suits my purposes. :p

Why source that which is painfully obvious? The NHS has a greater budget than pretty much everything.

As for a system, I'd simply have the various companies amalgamate, dispense with those lines that truly are irredeemably unprofitable, and, as ever, regulate the wages of CEO's and the like.

Relevence?
One of his poll options is that state-operated railways should turn a profit, just like private ones. I think that's silly.

Why source that which is painfully obvious? The NHS has a greater budget than pretty much everything.

As for a system, I'd simply have the various companies amalgamate, dispense with those lines that truly are irredeemably unprofitable, and, as ever, regulate the wages of CEO's and the like.It isn't painfully obvious. Healthcare is expensive. Those hospitals full of doctors don't come cheap unless you brain drain third world countries.

Healthcare costs per capita are cheaper in the UK and Europe than they are in the US. In the UK health care costs are 10% of GDP (PPP), whereas healthcare costs are 16% of GDP (PPP) with costs expected to rise as high as 25%.
US figures (http://www.newstarget.com/020563.html)
UK figures calculated from figures from here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ)and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1935730.stm).

Care to explain that? Or is it just another wrongly employed system with too many corporations involved?

It isn't painfully obvious. Healthcare is expensive. Those hospitals full of doctors don't come cheap unless you brain drain third world countries.

Healthcare costs per capita are cheaper in the UK and Europe than they are in the US. In the UK health care costs are 10% of GDP (PPP), whereas healthcare costs are 16% of GDP (PPP) with costs expected to rise as high as 25%.
US figures (http://www.newstarget.com/020563.html)
UK figures calculated from figures from here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ)and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1935730.stm).

Care to explain that? Or is it just another wrongly employed system with too many corporations involved?

Firstly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine we have a higher GDP than the USA. Given that the costs of healthcare (equipment, medicines etc), will remain an international constant, I would imagine that accounts for much of the deficit.

Moreover, does privatisation necessitate the stagnant halfway house of sorts the USA employs? If not, given that you seem to hold the US as an exemplar of every privatised health system, surely the comparison is more a reflection upon the USA than privatisation in itself?

One of his poll options is that state-operated railways should turn a profit, just like private ones. I think that's silly.

Ah, without that context I was confused to what your point was. Thanks for clarifying. Are you for or against public transportation subsidies and why?

You might be one of those people who drives everywhere,but for us cityslickers,or at least personally,I don't know what I'd do without public transportation.I would have to stay home all day.I take the train and bus all the time.Thousands use the subway everyday.We pay taxes on it.About 20 subway lines,probably over 100 bus lines,commuter lines running as far as Washington DC,ferry's.People are taxed for each bus,train,etc.You may not use your far fewer in number commuter rails and bus lines but we do.If we pay a dime on every line we pay much more than you when you pay your dime on every line.

There isn't really any public transportation around here. The buses don't come out here.

If I lived in a city or something it'd probably be really useful though. But can they even have subways in Florida or would that not work? I know we can't have basements here...

There isn't really any public transportation around here. The buses don't come out here.

If I lived in a city or something it'd probably be really useful though. But can they even have subways in Florida or would that not work? I know we can't have basements here...

Don't know about Florida, but the NYC subways would flood if they didn't have pumps constantly running to remove the water.

none of the poll option reflect my vews and i am too drunk to expound.

none of the poll option reflect my vews and i am too drunk to expound.
Oh come on! Drunk posting is the best way to go. In vino veritas and all that.
Also, it makes for good humour on our part.

Moreover, does privatisation necessitate the stagnant halfway house of sorts the USA employs? If not, given that you seem to hold the US as an exemplar of every privatised health system, surely the comparison is more a reflection upon the USA than privatisation in itself?
ahh...the great last refuge of the idealist:

"It'll work, I telt ya! I know it'll work!"
"Hasn't work in any place ever."
"Well, it didn't work there. Of course it didn't work there (and there and there and there...) because it was done incorrectly/implemented improperly/that place is an aberrant/etc/etc/etc. But if it will work! We just need to keep forcing it until it does!"

In Canada, you have to wait in gray waiting rooms, for medicine dolled out by doctors who could care less whether you live or die. The bureaucracy is enormous, treatment ineffective, and the attempts to put off death only make it that more wanted.
In America, it's the same thing except private. And that's the important thing: our system is better because here someone is profiting from the pain and misery of the populace. That, and the waiting room's magazines are better.

Because you have a civic duty to pay taxes. Everyone has the right to travel anywhere they want. You libertarian schmucks are the first to cry about the right to travel and such.

of COURSE the government operates at a loss. That's the point of the government.

The free market will only do what is profitable. As such, a free market economy will inherently lack those things that are not profitable. However there are many things that are of great benefit to society but are not profitable. It is thus up to the government to provide them for society.

if they were profitable, we wouldn't need the government to do it, because private industry would be willing.

If government was capable of being run at a profit we wouldn't need a government.

Because you have a civic duty to pay taxes. Everyone has the right to travel anywhere they want. You libertarian schmucks are the first to cry about the right to travel and such.
It's not that I'm obejecting to taxes, I'm objecting to government wasting my taxes on unprofitable ventures which do not seem to serve that many people. The Minnesota LRT system is never even expected to pay for more than about 30% of its costs. AmTrak is another example, its never turned a profit and is never expected to. Are there no private or public rail companies which do not rely almost entirely on government subsidies?

And why the double standard? Lot's of people complain about corporate welfare when it comes to oil or drug companies so why does mass transit is get a free ride?

If there is a way to run government in the black then why intentionally spend so far into the red that accountants start writing with the blood of their victims (accountants are, like ginger kids, not unlike vampires)? It seems that every budget session in Minnesota the special interest groups come crawling out of the woodwork demanding more money and there is usually someone in the legislature willing to feed the fattening cats.

Mass transit gets a free ride for a number of reasons. First, there are positive externalities produced by public transportation. Traffic congestion is reduced, fewer pollutants are produced, and fewer lives are lost from traffic accidents. Second, many of the users of public transportation are poor. The increase in rates to make a line profitible or the cost of an automobile would leave the them worse off. Many people find this outcome unpalatable. Third, Tradition. Public transportation hasn't been profitable in most countries for decades. It'd be hard to overcome the historical inertia to make it profitble.

A big problem with government run systems is that there is little to no incentive to improve. Bureaucrats care little if the customer is well served where as a private company wants to attract as many customers as possible.

A few years ago they allowed privately run buses to use public bus stops and service became far better - better routes, better times, better service all around. The transit authority did still have to approve routes and coordinate the buses, but the privatization meant better buses and service to areas previously unserved. This was because private companies wanted to convince people to take their buses rather than drive.

Of course, even though private business started up to offer service to more areas, more often, with more pleasant buses to ride in, and can turn a profit despite having the 'competition' of a heavily subsidized government entity, the public transit authority still whines about how they cant be expected to turn a profit and need even more subsidies.

It's not that I'm obejecting to taxes, I'm objecting to government wasting my taxes on unprofitable ventures which do not seem to serve that many people. The Minnesota LRT system is never even expected to pay for more than about 30% of its costs. AmTrak is another example, its never turned a profit and is never expected to. Are there no private or public rail companies which do not rely almost entirely on government subsidies?

And why the double standard? Lot's of people complain about corporate welfare when it comes to oil or drug companies so why does mass transit is get a free ride?

If there is a way to run government in the black then why intentionally spend so far into the red that accountants start writing with the blood of their victims (accountants are, like ginger kids, not unlike vampires)? It seems that every budget session in Minnesota the special interest groups come crawling out of the woodwork demanding more money and there is usually someone in the legislature willing to feed the fattening cats.

The government spends a shitload on highways that could be withdrawn or moved to AmTrak. Either option will allow rails to be privatised a bit. There's no market in rails because the highways are kept up and subsidized. Also, would you really like to pay $5 at every toll booth?

A big problem with government run systems is that there is little to no incentive to improve. Bureaucrats care little if the customer is well served where as a private company wants to attract as many customers as possible.

A few years ago they allowed privately run buses to use public bus stops and service became far better - better routes, better times, better service all around. The transit authority did still have to approve routes and coordinate the buses, but the privatization meant better buses and service to areas previously unserved. This was because private companies wanted to convince people to take their buses rather than drive.

Of course, even though private business started up to offer service to more areas, more often, with more pleasant buses to ride in, and can turn a profit despite having the 'competition' of a heavily subsidized government entity, the public transit authority still whines about how they cant be expected to turn a profit and need even more subsidies.

And the poor were priced out and the buses never came at night when some people need them. There can be incentive to improve if people start thinking for the community instead of for themselves. It's not only possible, but the natural instinct.

uhhh, another Ron Paul nut who wants to put a 'for sale' sign on every country.

The main thing here is that these kinds of services aren't really calculated in monetary profit/loss terms. To accurately measure the benefits of a project like this, you'd also have to calculate the benefits from shorter, easier commutes, better air quality, the economic boost to areas serviced by the system, and so on.

It's sort of like a public park. A public park will never be profitable, but the benefits in terms of air quality, attractiveness, land value, advertising and quality of life are all more than enough reason to justifying building parks. The same is true of public universities, libraries, cultural institutions, and various other facilities that aren't necessarily for-profit, or even revenue generating, but nonetheless provide a very important service to the community.

Now, mind you, this doesn't justify "bridges to nowhere" or similarly useless projects. In this case, you're simply estimating the value of all the benefits of the project and comparing it to the cost.

Firstly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine we have a higher GDP than the USA.
And wrong is exactly what you are.

$44,190 is the US GDP, although it does vary state-by-state, that's the pan-US average.

$39,213 is UK GDP, and again, that does vary from country to country, but that's the average.
Given that the costs of healthcare (equipment, medicines etc), will remain an international constant, I would imagine that accounts for much of the deficit.
Not really true.

The drug companies charge what they can. The UK is a wealthy state, so they'll wring our every penny if they can. The NHS, as strange as this may sound, does actually have limits on what it's willing to pay for drugs.

The private sector is going to get bogged down in a whole load of lawsuits, because people are becoming increasingly Yankish about the whole thing, and if things get bad enough, then the companies are going to need bail-outs from the government, and administrators brought in so that people can receive healthcare from that particular organisation.

Which is just going to lead to a beaurocracy-choked, ineffecient and expensive morass. A bit like the NHS, then.
Moreover, does privatisation necessitate the stagnant halfway house of sorts the USA employs? If not, given that you seem to hold the US as an exemplar of every privatised health system, surely the comparison is more a reflection upon the USA than privatisation in itself?
The only place that privatised healthcare "works" is in the super rich states like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (as long as you're a sheikh, all is well).

Europe has tried privatised healthcare, and thought better of it. The way we deal with the problem varies from state to state, but every country has some level of socialised healthcare, be that subsidies, or a British-y system of pretty much fully government-supported healthcare.

Don't know about Florida, but the NYC subways would flood if they didn't have pumps constantly running to remove the water.

Ok. Thanks.

Firstly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine we have a higher GDP than the USA. Given that the costs of healthcare (equipment, medicines etc), will remain an international constant, I would imagine that accounts for much of the deficit.No, silly, of course the UK doesn't have a higher GDP than the US - mostly because the UK is a fifth the size of the US in terms of population.

What I think you mean is GDP per capita. But GDP per capita for the US is $43,800, whereas for the UK it is $31,800 (all in terms of PPP). So in purely dollar terms the US healthcare system costs $7,000 per capita, whereas the UK systems costs $3,180 per capita. Making the US system over twice as expensive in dollar terms.

Moreover, does privatisation necessitate the stagnant halfway house of sorts the USA employs? If not, given that you seem to hold the US as an exemplar of every privatised health system, surely the comparison is more a reflection upon the USA than privatisation in itself?You haven't explained why or how the US system is a 'stagnant halfway house'.

However, it is quite clear that hospitals in the US are privately run and that healthcare insurance is mostly privately run, ergo the US is a good example of privatisation of the healthcare system.

Ah, without that context I was confused to what your point was. Thanks for clarifying. Are you for or against public transportation subsidies and why?
In principle I would prefer private firms doing it.

In practice I think a well-administered public transport system is a tolerable evil. Too often though, state-operated companies turn out to be great big money sinks because they're not run will restrictive guidelines and their managers always know that they'll be bailed out no matter what.

You haven't explained why or how the US system is a 'stagnant halfway house'.

However, it is quite clear that hospitals in the US are privately run and that healthcare insurance is mostly privately run, ergo the US is a good example of privatisation of the healthcare system.
I think he might mean this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533172

And wrong is exactly what you are.

$44,190 is the US GDP, although it does vary state-by-state, that's the pan-US average.

$39,213 is UK GDP, and again, that does vary from country to country, but that's the average.

Not really true.

The drug companies charge what they can. The UK is a wealthy state, so they'll wring our every penny if they can. The NHS, as strange as this may sound, does actually have limits on what it's willing to pay for drugs.

The private sector is going to get bogged down in a whole load of lawsuits, because people are becoming increasingly Yankish about the whole thing, and if things get bad enough, then the companies are going to need bail-outs from the government, and administrators brought in so that people can receive healthcare from that particular organisation.

Which is just going to lead to a beaurocracy-choked, ineffecient and expensive morass. A bit like the NHS, then.

The only place that privatised healthcare "works" is in the super rich states like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (as long as you're a sheikh, all is well).

Europe has tried privatised healthcare, and thought better of it. The way we deal with the problem varies from state to state, but every country has some level of socialised healthcare, be that subsidies, or a British-y system of pretty much fully government-supported healthcare.

Why the fuck does the north have to exist? It really does bugger up politics for us tory's down south you know?:D

I've never suggested fully privatised healthcare. I would prefer to see emergency services, essentially transportation to casualty andthe services deemed immediatly necessary there, remain under a degree of state supervision, whilst all other services would be covered by private insurance. Said insurance would be regulated so as to ensure it is affordable, whilst it would be subsidised for the elderly.

As for people getting Yankish, it's hardly my fault they've got no honour. Directing judges to disregard law suits from such materialistic bastards would be effective. And save everyone the pain of those bloody "accident lawyers for you" adverts.

of COURSE the government operates at a loss. That's the point of the government.

.

You should suggest the state of Alaska share that sentiment when they distribute the oil checks to their good citizens. :rolleyes:

The point of government has nothing to do with profit or non-profit, silly.

There are MANY private firms which turn a profit which overlap government. Security, fire protection, transportation, roads, postal, etc.

The question is - does privatization encourage efficiency where the government does not - or is government the end-all be-all of efficiency?

The answer can be found, I believe, in my next point;

If the government (and the people) REALLY wanted to do something about automobile efficiency and emissions then they would stop wasting time and money on public transport, higher fuel standards etc. and instead do what these guys say;

http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnline/index.asp?DISPLAY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=072005&ARTICLE_NUMBER=1075

National Traffic Signal Report Card

Proactive Management F
Signals Operation in Coordinated Systems D-
Signal Operation at Individual Intersections C-
Detection Systems F
Maintenance D+
Overall Score D-

If resources were provided to support traffic signal operations at an "A" level, the nation would enjoy the following benefits:

* Reductions in travel delay from 15-40%
* Reductions in travel times up to 25%
* Reductions in stops from 10-40%
* Reductions in fuel consumptions up to 10%
* Reduction in harmful emissions up to 22%

So - the government (and therefore the people) really have little interest in actually doing anything about emissions and fuel. They waste everyone's time trying to impose standards upon one another with no real regard for the goal - only their ulterior motives.

If the people really wanted to conserve fuel and reduce emissions they would simply DEMAND that their government actually take care of their responsibility and maintain the items which they set up in the first place!!! IE - the government isn't doing their JOB.

No business around would stand for inefficiency like that - it would kill their bottom line; yet the people of the US have completely ignored waste like this from their government.

Because you have a civic duty to pay taxes. Everyone has the right to travel anywhere they want. You libertarian schmucks are the first to cry about the right to travel and such.

As a libertarian schmuck, I say that I do want the freedom to travel, the problem is that I want it paid for without money forced from the populace so I can get a ride somewhere in one o' them 'cities' you people keep talking about. And it is pretty hard in reasonable countries of any political persuasion to impede the freedom of travel, in its strictest interpretation (the right to move as I choose).

uhhh, another Ron Paul nut who wants to put a 'for sale' sign on every country.

Uhh... Andaras Prime...