How would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry, "How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It's easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn't regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn't have the money to buy a pair?" I don't agree with Rothbard on a lot of things but he makes a good argument for privatization in his fable of the Shoes.
Railroad to Freedom
So, privatize the Interstates and have them pay real estate taxes like the railroads do.
ontheBNSF appears to be using this rail forum as a sounding board for his ideological, extremist political views.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
ontheBNSFHow would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business
The government is not in the shoe business. Does this have anything to do with anything?
John WR ontheBNSFHow would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business The government is not in the shoe business. Does this have anything to do with anything?
Rothbard was merely saying that shoes are esential and that if the government was running that the person who wanted private shoes would be treated the same way as someone who privatized ATC, postal service etc.
I don't know that they are extremist, they are just uber-libertarian. "just let the market do it". Works pretty well for cheap, fungilble things like shoes. Works pretty lousy for things that are large and expensive, like most infrastructure. We could have competing sewer service, but it would require two sets of sewer lines. Big cost. Benefit of competitive pricing over monopoly pricing won't overcome the extra cost to build two systems, hence regulated monopolies.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ontheBNSF The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02
The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02
The transportation market you mention in Asia and Europe really is more often in the form of public/private partnerships. The common method of building infrastructure is through concessions whereby a private developer finances, designs,builds and operates the road/railway/bridge ect. and recoups it's investment through charging tolls and fees to users but the government still owns the asset.
I am aware that there a sizable part of the passenger rail service in Japan is owned and operated by private railways..do they receive government subsidies?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
ontheBNSFRothbard was merely saying that shoes are esential and that if the government was running that the person who wanted private shoes would be treated the same way as someone who privatized ATC, postal service etc.
The only time I even encountered the government supplying shoes was when I was in the military. Shoes and boots were designed to be functional rather than fashionable. In the military the government did a reasonably good job.
Outside of the military where fashion is a big consideration I don't see the point of even discussing the government supplying shoes. Anyone who wants government shoes might try a war surplus store.
carnej1 ontheBNSF The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02 The transportation market you mention in Asia and Europe really is more often in the form of public/private partnerships. The common method of building infrastructure is through concessions whereby a private developer finances, designs,builds and operates the road/railway/bridge ect. and recoups it's investment through charging tolls and fees to users but the government still owns the asset. I am aware that there a sizable part of the passenger rail service in Japan is owned and operated by private railways..do they receive government subsidies?
You are wrong on that. In Japan the high speed rail does pay for itself and receives no subsidies. In fact the JR Group paid back all the debt owed by JNR. It should also be noted that the JR group is also required to run routes into country areas and JR themselves divert some of their profit from other rail lines to run these services. Japan also has a series of toll highways. Local railways are also privately owned and receive no subsidies as well. Certain city rail lines such as the Tokyo subway remain government owned but those don't receive any subsidies at all, but some city lines are also privately owned such as the Tokyo monorail which receive no subsidies. Hong Kong's Tram system is privately owned as well as the rest of the Hong Kong MRT. Hong Kong's MRT was privatized when the economy was liberalized and utilities privatized. Hong Kong's bus system is also private. Singapore operates a public private partnership where rail operators pay for usage of Singapore's tracks. Singapore also has a variety of private bus services. In Europe Train operators are effectively private corporations but their stock are owned by their respective governments. Swiss Railways operates profitably to my knowledge (though they operate no HSR of their own), Deustche Bahn used to be a money looser but now operates profitably, SNCF has also made money on it's TGV lines, Italy's high speed service operates profitably as, Italy also allows private competition on their tracks, and Russia operates profitable freight service and operates profitable high speed rail lines though their low speed passenger service is a money loosers. Also to be noted is that these companies are forced divert profit from money making services to money loosing services.
oltmannd I don't know that they are extremist, they are just uber-libertarian. "just let the market do it". Works pretty well for cheap, fungilble things like shoes. Works pretty lousy for things that are large and expensive, like most infrastructure. We could have competing sewer service, but it would require two sets of sewer lines. Big cost. Benefit of competitive pricing over monopoly pricing won't overcome the extra cost to build two systems, hence regulated monopolies.
First of all I am not an extremist.This is simply not True New York used to have 3 train systems and a series of competing bus and taxi services The Streetcar System, the Elevated railways, and the subway. Now since the city took over costs have zoomed and fares in terms of inflated dollars have increased. A subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents which in today's dollars is around .89-1.60 dollars a subway ticket today is about 2 dollars but its real cost is closer to 4-5 dollars accounting for full farebox recovery and taxis have become cartelized. Even if one were to obtain a railroad monopoly that railroad would have to compete with the other modes of transportation. Even if there aren't competing highways then the highways have to compete with railways or airports. Before World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated. Early railroad monopolies were created by being granted that status Central pacific is an example. Electrical utility companies also used to be a competitive business as well. If one can gain a monopoly without a government privilege then the company can only gain it by offering a better service at a better price.
ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents
Are you talking about New York City subways? If so, when did they use tickets?
It's certainly possible to put tolls on all of the Interstates by privatising them, or even not privatising them. The government of Ontario did it by selling Highway 407 to a Spanish outfit that collects the tolls by transponders mounted in your vehicle and if you don't have a transponder, they will photograph your license plate as you enter and exit the highway. Our former idiot premier Mike Harris sold the road so he could give everyone a measly, mindless tax cut to ensure his re-election, rather than have the province collect the money from tolls which could have funded maintaining other roads and projects. My point is, sure, collect tolls but the private sector will only take most of the money and put it in their pockets as they have done in this case and the rest of the highways crumble.
I love the story about the coffee cake! We had lots of coffee in the Navy back in the 70s, but I sure don't remember any cake. Maybe the officers got it. Back in 1976 when my ship was in the yards in Philadelphia, we were issued a 20 pound can (HUGE) of coffee ever single week. More than the engine room crew could possibly drink. We had a locker full of the damned things and there being a coffee shortage at the time in the civilian world, every single one of those cans were stolen by the yardbirds but how they did it, no one could ever figure out. They were kind of hard to hide but they did it.
And on it goes down the Ayn Rand track. Pretty loose on the facts as well.
54light15the rest of the highways crumble.
Actually in the US our interstates are crumbling. They are in need of rebuilding but where the money will come from I don't known.
raise the gas tax?
John WR ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents Are you talking about New York City subways? If so, when did they use tickets?
Now that I think about I am not sure. I think today the NY MTA uses tickets but I'm not sure whether it was done back then.
Let's take these one at a time...
ontheBNSFNew York used to have 3 train systems
Each went to and from different locations. Not real competition. Many were built to sell the land they went to. The transit line builder was really in the real estate game and ditched the transit when the land was all sold - or when the equipment and ROW wore out.
A trolley or a cab from Queens to Manhattan as serious competition to a subway line? I don't think so! That's like saying walking is competition for Airtran!
ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents which in today's dollars is around .89-1.60 dollars a subway ticket today is about 2 dollars but its real cost is closer to 4-5 dollars accounting for full farebox recovery and taxis have become cartelized.
Which is why they all went bankrupt! Farebox recovery didn't cover the cost of capital - ever.
ontheBNSFEven if one were to obtain a railroad monopoly that railroad would have to compete with the other modes of transportation
When built, RRs had a considerable monopoly power on routes they operated over. Not until the network was completely built out were parallel line constructed to any extent at all - and that was minor.
ontheBNSFBefore World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated.
Huh? Forcibly? Which ones? Where? Regulation STOPPED consolidation that was naturally occurring.
ontheBNSFElectrical utility companies also used to be a competitive business as well.
Say, what? Maybe when Edison was losing his fight with Westinghouse... but the electrical infrastructure in the US is ALL regulated monopoly. There are not two sets of wires on any street, anywhere. There is some competition on the generating side, but not on the distribution side - it would cost more to build out a second set of wires than anyone could ever save from market pricing!
ontheBNSFNow that I think about I am not sure. I think today the NY MTA uses tickets but I'm not sure whether it was done back then.
Tokens. Every major transit operation used tokens until PATCO started with magnetic tickets in 1968. NYC TA's Metrocard isn't 20 years old. Most transit cards are RFID-based now.
ontheBNSF carnej1 ontheBNSF The fundamental problem with ANY government run mode of transportation is that there will always be conflict. You either end up with a one size fits all solution. Imagine if the government was in the shoe business people would always be in conflict over what kinds of shoes are produced, what materials they are made from, and what size etc. vs. buying shoes today on the market where there is no conflict and people simply choose the shoes they find desirable. IF the government ran shoes and either maintained a monopoly on shoes or semimonopoly then people would have to vote for shoes and the majority would get what it wants. Or you vote for politicians who think will produce the kind of shoes you want. With the government being transportation it ends becoming a political football and only the majority ever gets what they want. Either that you vote for people who think have your interest in mind People always fight argue over the merits of one mode of transport or another rather than simply choosing the mode that they find has the most merit. Eminent domain only serves to make this worse. Markets aren't utopian ideas you deal with them almost everyday and without conflict. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and to lesser extent Europe have more of a market for transportation than we do and as such have less conflict than we do. Would I privatize sidewalks or city streets? Not in the traditional sense but I would make property owners, residents upon streets, or HOA's the owners of such properties or retain ownership of them by cities and simply require that if you use them you pay for the full cost of using them. Just my .02 The transportation market you mention in Asia and Europe really is more often in the form of public/private partnerships. The common method of building infrastructure is through concessions whereby a private developer finances, designs,builds and operates the road/railway/bridge ect. and recoups it's investment through charging tolls and fees to users but the government still owns the asset. I am aware that there a sizable part of the passenger rail service in Japan is owned and operated by private railways..do they receive government subsidies? You are wrong on that. In Japan the high speed rail does pay for itself and receives no subsidies. In fact the JR Group paid back all the debt owed by JNR. It should also be noted that the JR group is also required to run routes into country areas and JR themselves divert some of their profit from other rail lines to run these services. Japan also has a series of toll highways. Local railways are also privately owned and receive no subsidies as well. Certain city rail lines such as the Tokyo subway remain government owned but those don't receive any subsidies at all, but some city lines are also privately owned such as the Tokyo monorail which receive no subsidies. Hong Kong's Tram system is privately owned as well as the rest of the Hong Kong MRT. Hong Kong's MRT was privatized when the economy was liberalized and utilities privatized. Hong Kong's bus system is also private. Singapore operates a public private partnership where rail operators pay for usage of Singapore's tracks. Singapore also has a variety of private bus services. In Europe Train operators are effectively private corporations but their stock are owned by their respective governments. Swiss Railways operates profitably to my knowledge (though they operate no HSR of their own), Deustche Bahn used to be a money looser but now operates profitably, SNCF has also made money on it's TGV lines, Italy's high speed service operates profitably as, Italy also allows private competition on their tracks, and Russia operates profitable freight service and operates profitable high speed rail lines though their low speed passenger service is a money loosers. Also to be noted is that these companies are forced divert profit from money making services to money loosing services.
My sentence about Japanese railways ended with a question mark,so I was asking you about subsidies rather than making a statement.(and you answered).
I did find an interesting article on-line which back up your points:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/
"In Europe Train operators are effectively private corporations but their stock are owned by their respective governments"-True, and those operations are somewhat like Amtrak in that regard.
I was certainly not wrong about the system of infrastructure concessions common in Europe, your reply is partly an explantion of how that works.
ontheBNSFI think today the NY MTA uses tickets but I'm not sure whether it was done back then.
Today the MTA uses what it calls Metrocards. Plastic cards which you can buy with a certain amount of fare money encoded on them and add money to as they become depleted. You slide them through a machine that deducts your fare and also allows you to pass through a turn style. They are sort of like tickets but you don't buy one and have it collected like a traditional railroad ticket.
Then again Amtrak issues what looks like the tickets they used to use but they are not collected either. They are scanned with a reader. So I guess maybe the definition of "ticket" is evolving in this electronic age.
Again your wrong.
oltmannd Let's take these one at a time... ontheBNSFNew York used to have 3 train systems Each went to and from different locations. Not real competition. Many were built to sell the land they went to. The transit line builder was really in the real estate game and ditched the transit when the land was all sold - or when the equipment and ROW wore out. A trolley or a cab from Queens to Manhattan as serious competition to a subway line? I don't think so! That's like saying walking is competition for Airtran! Many today opt away from taking the subway in favor of the bus systems and taxi. Yes it is competition. A trolley is definitely competition in the true sense. ontheBNSFA subway ticket used to cost 5-10 cents which in today's dollars is around .89-1.60 dollars a subway ticket today is about 2 dollars but its real cost is closer to 4-5 dollars accounting for full farebox recovery and taxis have become cartelized. Which is why they all went bankrupt! Farebox recovery didn't cover the cost of capital - ever. Actually the elevated rail lines were quite profitable. They only went away when the NY government forced them out in favor of their own subways. The streetcars disappeared because of the national city lines conspiracy which happened because of the Public utility holding company act of 1935 and the city regulations that were harsh. ontheBNSFEven if one were to obtain a railroad monopoly that railroad would have to compete with the other modes of transportation When built, RRs had a considerable monopoly power on routes they operated over. Not until the network was completely built out were parallel line constructed to any extent at all - and that was minor. But again the railroad monopolies were granted that status in California it wasn't until Santa Fe was allowed to compete with central pacific did it end. Railroads did compete with canals for a short time and competed toll roads. ontheBNSFBefore World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated. Huh? Forcibly? Which ones? Where? Regulation STOPPED consolidation that was naturally occurring. You are also wrong on this the anti-trust laws benefited railroads and made it harder to get in the business. Railroads were consolidated in WWI and nationalized for the war effort and then denationalized. Many competing services were eliminated as part of nationalization. ontheBNSFElectrical utility companies also used to be a competitive business as well. Say, what? Maybe when Edison was losing his fight with Westinghouse... but the electrical infrastructure in the US is ALL regulated monopoly. There are not two sets of wires on any street, anywhere. There is some competition on the generating side, but not on the distribution side - it would cost more to build out a second set of wires than anyone could ever save from market pricing! This is false modern utility companies are granted monopoly status by governments. As for wires a neighborhood could own them. Maybe in the future personal electrical generation will become possible.
Many today opt away from taking the subway in favor of the bus systems and taxi. Yes it is competition. A trolley is definitely competition in the true sense.
Actually the elevated rail lines were quite profitable. They only went away when the NY government forced them out in favor of their own subways. The streetcars disappeared because of the national city lines conspiracy which happened because of the Public utility holding company act of 1935 and the city regulations that were harsh.
But again the railroad monopolies were granted that status in California it wasn't until Santa Fe was allowed to compete with central pacific did it end. Railroads did compete with canals for a short time and competed toll roads.
You are also wrong on this the anti-trust laws benefited railroads and made it harder to get in the business. Railroads were consolidated in WWI and nationalized for the war effort and then denationalized. Many competing services were eliminated as part of nationalization.
ontheBNSFAs for wires a neighborhood could own them
Some do - particularly in the south. It was how electrification got done. It is STILL a monopoly. I can't opt for a different distribution supplier.
As for the rest of your stuff... Wow... You have a "unique" way of looking at history. I'll leave it at that.
oltmannd ontheBNSFAs for wires a neighborhood could own them Some do - particularly in the south. It was how electrification got done. It is STILL a monopoly. I can't opt for a different distribution supplier. As for the rest of your stuff... Wow... You have a "unique" way of looking at history. I'll leave it at that.
how is my entepretation "unique"
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads USRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy north American streetcar scandal
I am wrong on the elevated rail lines. http://marketurbanism.com/2011/01/02/elevated-rail-vs-road-and-monorails/
ontheBNSFnorth American streetcar scandal
I'm with you here. General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons.
It is true that in the 1930's a lot of people stopped riding street cars to work and preferred to drive there cars. But streetcars, which are powered by electricity, are still more efficient than diesel buses and we would be better off if we used them rather than buses.
Trolling....trolling.
John WR ontheBNSFnorth American streetcar scandal I'm with you here. General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons. It is true that in the 1930's a lot of people stopped riding street cars to work and preferred to drive there cars. But streetcars, which are powered by electricity, are still more efficient than diesel buses and we would be better off if we used them rather than buses.
IT should be noted that GM and the like were able to do what they did because of the Public utility holding company act of 1935 that forced utility companies to sell off assets such as streetcar systems.
schlimm Trolling....trolling.
Yup.
John WR General Motors and its fellow conspirators are not the only reason our streetcars were replaced by buses but they are one of the big reasons.
The old "National Cities Conspiracy Theory" rears it's head again. Fun to believe, but probably not a big reason. A minor reason and sometimes the death-knell, but a mostly a cause-celeb for the "we was robbed!" crowd. The real issue was transit is pretty much a fixed cost operation and if the ridership base erodes, you can go from thin profit to big losses in a hurry. If you aren't earning cost of capital, you can survive only until you've run the wheels off your existing equipment or need to do track replacement - then it's game over.
The ridership base was evaporating as people abandoned urban living for suburban life in the late 40s and 50s.
The advantages of buses were huge. No huge capital in track and wire to maintain. Easy detours. Double parked cars don't jam up route. Easy to get failed vehicles back to the barn. Easy to change/combine/launch routes as needs change. Lower cost to acquire. Transit companies trying to hang on pretty much had to go to buses or just quit.
The cleanliness and energy cost advantage of trolleys is just too small to overcome their capital ROW needs vs. bus. Where trolleys hung on typically was where there was private ROW/tunnel operation.
Trolley operation has become viable again because the huge capital expense are largely covered by the Feds from the gas tax. The "inherent goodness" of rail comes with the dark underbelly of very high capital costs.
ontheBNSF how is my entepretation "unique" http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads USRA
You had said, "Before World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated."
After WWI, the RRs were "forcibly" unconsolidated and control was given back to their owners.
This has nothing to do with the consolidation (2-8-0?) in the industry that had been going on, was greatly slowed by regulation, and then restarted after Staggers in 1980.
oltmannd ontheBNSF how is my entepretation "unique" http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-takes-over-control-of-nations-railroads USRA You had said, "Before World War I their used to be more railroads they were forcibly consolidated." After WWI, the RRs were "forcibly" unconsolidated and control was given back to their owners. This has nothing to do with the consolidation (2-8-0?) in the industry that had been going on, was greatly slowed by regulation, and then restarted after Staggers in 1980.
I meant to say *During WW1. Service in many areas was reduced as a way of increasing efficiency.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.