Should we privatose transport, roads and electrity completely (1 Viewer)

[nousernameleft]

It might seem like a radical idea, but if the government was the sole provider of shoes or controlling the airline industry we would also find it hard to imagine private companies doing this.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing the government gives is for free.

besides whether you like it or not, that seems to be where we are headed.

No state can manage its budget.

privatise*

 

[Uncle]

Privatise the military as well.

 

[nousernameleft]

Privatise the military as well.

That's not a bad idea

Read 'The Myth of National Defense'

 

[Freedom_]

I agree with OP .

 

[quik.]

Privatisation of roads will basically result in you paying tolls for each and every road.

Fuck that.

 

[Freedom_]

Privatisation of roads will basically result in you paying tolls for each and every road.

Fuck that.

No it wont.

But I still dont like the idea. I do agree with privatizing transport and electricity.

 

[sirfeathers]

No it wont.

ummm... private companies are going to have to find some way of recovering their costs of production...otherwise there's no incentive at all for them to provide anything!

 

[DavidBenGurion]

I wouldn't be opposed to anything if it worked.

But you see, the problem is that none of that will work.
Transport privatisation fucked up in Melbourne
Privatised roads are a dumb idea.

 

[johony]

i don't believe in the deregulation of essential public services or industries whereby it is only possible for one player to operate in the market. trains and roads in particular. electricity yes, only if there is sufficent competition.

 

[SylviaB]

not roads.

 

[Iron]

not roads.

.

I've made significant concessions to the idea of maximum personal freedom, so long as the Church is left room to fill the moral void, but governments still need to retain an interest in overarching, national works which individuals would otherwise find no incentive in. Why else have a governemnt?

 

[SylviaB]

.

I've made significant concessions to the idea of maximum personal freedom, so long as the Church is left room to fill the moral void, but governments still need to retain an interest in overarching, national works which individuals would otherwise find no incentive in. Why else have a governemnt?

I conceed that roads should remain government run, and you tell me about the importance of the government

 

[SylviaB]

Meh you're probably right actually.
Interesting read.

 

[Lentern]

Haha. I have no idea why some people regard roads as a unique exception.

We already have the technology to toll people for using the roads without having to stop and start all the time. Just attach a beeper to your car and it charges you automatically as you pass.

You could easily afford to pay the fees with the money you save on taxes.

Its so obvious that public roads don't work. Every morning and afternoon, most urban roads, without fail, succumb to major delays and traffic jams. With private tolled roads, you could have congestion charges that reduce this problem, and encourage employers to stagger start times.

Edit: all the doubters of privatized roads should check out this free ebook which describes in great detail how, and why, privatized roads would work:

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

Are you serious? Its not a cost thing its a structural thing. If thirty separate companies were building roads all trying to achieve optimum profits in a competitive market it would become a maze.

 

[Lentern]

Hahaha. Read the book mate.

Look how many providers we have of bank cards for example. Yet they all agree to common protocols so you can use any ATM and use your card almost anywhere.

The road operators would have every incentive to standardize certain things in much the same way. In particular, they would be very likely to use the same payment system, or perhaps agree to have a third party provide it.

They would also be motivated to integrate the system, after all, who would use a road that didn't connect with all the other roads?

The integration would be the problem. People will need to somehow get from point a to point b and it would be financial idiosy for a company to save the peoples trip ten minutes by making two roads integrate rather than making them stay exclusively on their own roads. Money is not the problem I am sure it could be financed but road travel would become a farce.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

omg plz not the roads

take ur libertarian filth elsewhere plz

 

[Lentern]

That's an outrageous suggestion, no company that is that stupid would stay in business for long.

See, there's this thing called mutually beneficial exchange. See although company A looses traffic to company B by integrating, it simultaneously gains traffic from company B as well. They both have an incentive to co-operate and allow users to easily transfer between each others roads.

If one company decides not to co-operate and to try and lock people into their network, and not provide links to others, no one is going to want to use that company's roads.

As I said complex networks run by private companies have been able to integrate very well in many cases such as with financial services, airlines, telecommunications, the internet and public transport.

The Tokyo subway system is perhaps the best example of this. Multiple private companies operate different lines in this complex system. All the providers integrate with each other and allow easy transfers between each others lines, as well as the use of a common payment system. In fact, it is one of the most efficient public transit systems in the world.

Such cooperation would take years to achieve, they are competitors and would be happy to suffer for a few years if they thought it would ultimately mean the collapse of their major competitor in an area.

 

[Lentern]

Why would it take years to achieve? All the incentives I mentioned would operate immediately. If you think I am incorrect about those incentives, you may explain why. But your suggestion here is utterly groundless.

Even if we accept that there would be significant transitional problems, they would only exist because the government has maintained a coercive monopoly for so long.

The most important question is; would private roads ultimately be better?
Barring truly immense transitional costs, if the answer to this question is yes, then we should proceed on the path to privatization.

If your unrealistically poor outcomes looked likely to arise, the government could regulate the industry during the transitional phase. I'm willing to concede that since the government has created such immense problems, it may be beneficial to involve it in gradually fixing these problem.

But so far sir, you have given no reasons why private roads would be a bad idea in the longer run.

What your ignoring is that mutual benefit policies are only enticing if you accept that rival companies are not going to go away. Take the liquor industry at the moment. Take a look at Aldi. Aldi's objective is for its individual stores to run at a loss for its first five years to create customer loyalty and undermine any local competition before rising prices incramentally afterwards. If it meant eliminating portions of the competition there is no reason why road companies wouldn't be happy to run similar short term lossess in order to sink competition and the consumer would suffer non compatible road systems as a result.

 

[Lentern]

The absurd scenario you suggested is in no way analogous to what ALDI is doing.

ALDI is attempting to gain market share and brand loyalty by making temporary losses.

The hypothetical non-integrating road company would actually loose market share and loyalty since customers would view its restrictive behavior very unfavorably. BOTH companies stand to loose by not co-operating since they loose each others traffic which they could have shared. Instead users will turn away from both companies and increasingly use alternative road providers, or public transport.

ALDI's strategy may actually work because it is providing a better service to its customers than the competition by making it cheaper. By not integrating, the road providers would be providing a worse service. They are not going to be able to drive the competition out of business as you suggest, because they are not doing anything better than their competition. If anything, they merely ensure that both companies fail.

I have provided much more analogous real world examples where companies providing similar services do integrate, and do it very well.

And I agreed that if they were all in it for the greater good and willing to put aside their difference etc etc that it probably would produce results but undermining competition in an attempt to eventually eliminate competition is what very often happens, is what is happening at ALDI and will happen if you tried to let private companies be responsible for our road system. It is perfectly comparable it is a business willing to sacrafice its short term profitability to undermine the ability of its rivals to compete.

 

[Lentern]

Ok, let me make it simple for you.

ALDI sells its good cheaper than the competition. It makes a loss, but gains market share because it is better (cheaper) than the competition.

Road Company A refuses to co-operate with Road Company B and allow users to easily transfer between the roads. Both roads become less useful to consumers. Company A looses money and customers. It does not gain market share from company B, because unlike ALDI, it is not doing anything better than the competition. Therefore, Comapny A has no such incentive to do something so obviously stupid.

I WIN.

Can I write a ridiculous narrative and present it as fact before using it as a soul and undisutable reason to claim victory as well?