Should we privatose transport, roads and electrity completely (2 Viewers)

[Lentern]

Loaded question.

You started with the ridiculous narrative with your made up example of companies trying to lock users onto their roads. I thought it was absurd from the begining, but I indulged to show that even if some novel problems do arise, the free market can overcome them, and can do it much better than the government.

My "narrative" makes perfect sense. Explain the flaws or stfu.

Ok imagine you've got a banquet.(and if you don't eat propperly the bouncer will throw you out)(and every other restaurant in town is full and if you don't get your boss something to eat he'll fire you) Jones controls the salads, the breads the forks and the plates, Smith controls the knives, the meats and soups whilst Brown controls the spoons, the bowls and the pasta. Every item would cost 5 cents and costs 3 cents to maintain. Ideally they allow patrons to use each others materials in conjunction, that way Jones can sell more bread because people can cut it with Smith's knives and dip it in the soup thats in Browns bowls.

But Jones isn't really interested in making as much money as he can in the longterm(surprise) and thinks he'll deny any customer who uses any of Smtstuff access to his own. Whilst people can't really enjoy Browns items as much without access to Smiths meats and particular knives they can get by eating pasta and salad with just a fork and bowls. With no access to forks or plates however all people who choose to go with Smith will only really be able to eat soup and thats really not a satisfactory meal on its own. So after a drawn out battle whereby for years nobody can get both salad and meat finally Smith has to call in the final reciever. Smith sells what he has for a desperate price and Jones happilly snaps it up before declaring a similar war against Brown, eventually ending up controlling everything and becomes able to charge people $50 for a fork instead of the 5 cents he used to and all because the hotel management refused to regulate Jones business behaviour.

 

[Uncle]

Privatise the military.

 

[Lentern]

Oh right! I totally get it now. Something similar happened to me at lunch today.

These disastrous things do not eventuate in the real world when we have free markets, and I have provided numerous examples of how they do in fact work, and competitors manage to co-operate quite well.

The amount of outrageously unrealistic assumptions you had to make to prove your point in that story was astonishing.

They don't work that well, the Japanese subway scenario only came about with considerable guidance from the government. I won't disguise how I feel, business' are there to make profits, governments are there to help people, government do help people, business' exploit them.

 

[Uncle]

Privatise the military.

 

[Riet]

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?

but what about for example, residential streets? It would take forever to recoup the inital investment, even if you completely price gouged the residents.

 

[kaz1]

Ever heard of the term Market Failure?
Preliminary Economics ftw.

 

[quik.]

I would be 100% in favour of transparent government spending rather than privatised roads.

This is assuming there is a population informed and assertive enough to maintain their best interests, as well as a culture of government that doesn't revolve around vote grabbing, something I do not believe Australia currently has.

In your example (zimmerman), Company A may not be popular with motorists but if the roads it owns are the most convenient or service a significant enough area/population/whatever, people will use them anyway.

I don't believe essential services should be privatised, at least not to an extent to which the people lack control over them. Yeah people can 'control' private companies by choosing when where and to whom they give their money, but this is a tenuous form of control at best.

The company's interest (to make money) and the individuals (to spend as little as possible whilst having the greatest quality of life, ultimately) are in opposition.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

let us agree that roads in this country are, generally speaking, exemplary. there is no need for privatised roads if the current system is working for summat liek 99.9995% of people. The cost and difficulty of privatising all roads is absurd, and not worth what would either be a minor improvement, or an insane drop in services, with prolly the same basic governance with a different name imo tbh

Privatised "public" transport? I wouldn't be oppposed to it, if it worked.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

They're not disgraceful you angry guy. Go on talkback radio and complain lol. What's a disgrace is public transport. You have said many times, and I agree, that moar public transport is needed. Roads are fine. Build more public transport. Or private. I don't care as long as it works.

Now;

Young people kill themselves via idiocy. Come on man, that's not tha fault of the govt run roads.

How would traffic jams be alleiviated by privatisation? Tbh, it seems a little silly for us to be hypothesising that the design of roads (traffic jam causes etc) is something that the private sector could fix. They're built to best practice yes? Why would they not be? Roads have a limited capacity. We need more public transport. The roads are fantastic.

Agreed about speed limits tbh

Agreed about a minor amount of country roads (probs 0.000001% of state roads though so who gives a fuck)

They'd cost anyone a fortune to maintain.

 

[quik.]

Its a shame that that notion of government is an impossible fantasy. Can you name any example of a government past or present that has had this sort of culture?

Pork barreling and rent seeking are inherent features of government. Whenever people have the chance to spend other people's money, they will rush to use it to enrich themselves, its just human nature.

No examples, and I have my doubts that it will ever happen. People prefer ignorance for the most part.

I do think the current system can be improved, and that complete transparency would be a major step in doing so. Allows people a greater ability to judge the competence of those in government, including whether they are just improving the condition of a certain demographic/the privileged few.

Well if its convenient and services a wide area, whats the problem. Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but look how horrendous the roads are now. Nearly every major urban road has major traffic jams during peak hour every day. Its a total mess.

Being convenient and servicing a wide area is fine, fracturing a critical aspect of a country (state/council level even) is not. Given enough companies maintaining a similar practise, you end up with a poorly integrated network and overcomplication.

I'm not saying this is any better than the current system, which is obviously flawed, just that privatisation won't necessarily equal road nirvana.

Right. Shall we nationalize the food industry then?

Roads are just a form of transport. In Tokyo, the subway is the main form of transport. It is privatized and is one of the most efficient systems in the world.

Major food products are probably already heavily subsidised, wheat etc. If the gov wanted to start providing nationalised fruit/veg whatever farms, I would support it provided, again, that transperancy was there. Also provided that the current market wasn't hampered. That would of course necessitate that the government would be able to provide a product of equal or better quality for an equal or lesser cost.

Democracy gives us an illusion of control. In reality, you as an individual have only a tiny, insignificant vote. If the majority disagree with you, they can impose their view of things on you, and use your taxes to fund projects you don't like indefinitely.

With private enterprise, you as an individual are empowered to refuse to pay for anything you don't like.

Democracy would work orders of magnitude better if the populations it affected actually cared enough to keep themselves informed. I would have no issues with being in the minority provided the majority provided sound and reasonable argument backed up with evidence. Currently the vocal idiots seem to have more sway.

I already addressed the 'voting with your wallet' thing, but again, it is a tenuous form of control at best. Even in the current market, there are some pretty abysmal companies that are still in business due to either ignorance or ambivalence, despite questionable practises.

Given a market where all onus was put on the consumer to regulate such busiensses, I think they would multiply rather than become an afterthought.

Why are they in conflict?

I assume you accept that free markets are the best way to provide the overwhelming majority of goods and services. Why should roads be regarded as an exception?

Looking for greatest $$ return on investment Vs. Looking for least $$ cost for greatest benefit = conflict

Roads serve an integral role within society, such an important service being controlled by those who are ultimately thinking of the bottom line as opposed to the best interests of society itself is asking for inefficiency and abuse.

 

[quik.]

What do you mean working? They are fucking disgraceful.

Some, yes. A larger amount than is acceptable, definitely.

They are the main cause of death of young people

Lack of proper driver training and education, not roads

They are plagued by constant delays and traffic jams.

As much a function of poor public transport options and culture surrounding the work commute

The speed limits are often arbitrary and unhelpful.

Related to the farce that is the anti speeding campaign, not roads themselves

Many rural and regional roads are in a dangerous state of disrepair.

Agreed

They cost taxpayers a fortune to build and maintain.

I doubt we would pay less for the privilege of using private roads 100% of the time

Their free provision has lead to cars becoming an indispensable part of Australia life. This makes life very difficult for many people who can't drive. It is also a massive contributor to air pollution and greenhouse emissions.

Again, as much a function of poor public transport options and commuting culture

There is a brilliant business in Brisbane that is basically a secure garage facility (with lockers and showers) for bicycle commuters. If this idea were to take off I think it would be great.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Ummm, yeah, because its run by the government.

As opposed to Victorias privatised rail system. Come on man, don't be a douche.

The government monopoly provides no opportunity for experimentation and diversity in policies. What is the appropriate age to allow young people to drive, 15, 20, 25? Who knows. In a free market, different operators could try different rules and see what works best. Read the book I posted earlier, it goes into great detail about this. The same experimentation could apply to speed limits and other rules.

In a non free market the government could run tests, experiments, and focus groups. I'm sure it has done so. I see no reason why it wouldn't have done so already. The age is not set arbitrarily, it is set through science, in that people gain their license to drive typically at the age when development comes to a close. SCIENCE >>> FREE MARKET.

Road space is like any other commodity. It can be rationed by pricing. How often do you go to the supermarket and find you have to line up for hours to get some goods you want. Almost never. Why? Because the market balances supply and demand.

Obvious when everyone can use the roads for free, there is no rationing, everyone just packs on and we get huge traffic jams. People have already been forced to pay for the roads through taxation, they may as well use them.

Its amazing what can be achieved with existing infrastructure if it is used efficient. Did you know that the one bus lane on the harbour bridge carries more commuters across it each morning than the other 7 lanes combined? In a free market incentives could be adjusted so that driving in peak times becomes very expensive, and people actually have a real incentive to use buses, which could be allocated more lanes.

As an interesting example: Time of day tolling has had somewhere between no effect and an inconclusive effect on traffic volumes on the Harbour Bridge.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/todtolling/tod_janmay0809.pdf

I see that traffic volumes in the rationed peak hour have dropped, but the biggest drop occurs at the time of lowest pricing so who the fuck knows what's going on there. I thought it was cool to see an example of rationing in progress where nothing much seems to be going on, although to be honest, the financial crisis probably has much more to do with it than anything else at the moment.

All motorways in Sydney, tolled motorways, are packed during peak hour (dickheads that use them tbh). On the other hand, free roads are not. Example: The M5 is more expensive yet suffers from greater traffic congestion and volumes than Cantebury Road. Why? Probably has a lot to do with the capabilities of each road. Rationing clearly has nothing to do with it.

Rationing roads is silly, imo. Sydney is set out now in such a way (radial) that people need to use roads to get around until a time when public transport can move people around as effectively as roads. This is not now. What you are proposing through rationing is an artificial bottleneck which will strand people. Outrageous for Sydney. Absolutely outrageous.

Now see here. I have no problem with using a free market, supply and demand, whatever, to determine how Sydney manages its traffic. Nor do I have a problem with the government doing that. Ideology is no longer important to me. What works is what matters. If one works better than the other let's go with that. The problem I have with what you're suggesting is that it is hapharzard and reckless. You've showed no sense of restraint and have suggested a complete overhaul of what is not a "fucking disgraceful" system. What's more is that Sydney's transport (developed by the government) up until the last ten, twenty years or so has been fantastic. The entry of privateers into Sydney's infrastructure market has been full of failures: cross city tunnel, airport link, lane cove tunnel. ra ra ra. Maybe fully privatised infrastructure will work (evidence suggests otherwise to me, meh), but ffs, let's show some restraint and gradually work up public transport through what we have at the moment and then phase in some more tests of privatised transport. If they fail, as they have been tbh, they fail and they can gtfo.

 

[quik.]

Basically it didn't work because it wasn't expensive enough. The toll was still only $4 each way. A train ticket actually costs more. Of course it wasn't going to deter many people.

It would work if the prices where set correctly. If at certain times it cost $20 each way to drive to work, I'm sure many people would seriously consider public transport, or pressure their bosses to let them start earlier or later.

Would private roads remedy this? Companies would encourage people to use their roads as much and as often as possible, they would be competing with public transport.

If I've misunderstood this point somewhere, let me know. I'm not disregarding all your previous points either, just reading up

 

[Serius]

Hmmm well the transport system in NSW is pretty shit and maybe people think that when governments handle transport it always turns out shit, but even just say QLD have far superior transport to NSW in just about every way, and thats government run too. There are plenty of success stories of government run stuff. I guess i am a bit of a socialist at heart and i like the idea of governments controling certain areas, e.g with transport i beleive we have a right [or should have] to easy access and use of transportation systems and roads, people should be allowed to travel freely throughout our country....

Now if that means that we have toll roads and private run options thats fine, as long as free/cheap alternatives exist and are provided by the government, even if these roads are less maintained and take longer, more congested etc.... as long as those options still exist and i can conceivably travel to anywhere in our country via free roads than i am happy to see the private industry compete.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

How can a privately run mass transit system possibly compete with roads that are provided for free by the government?

Wat? Why can't it compete? Road and rail compete elsewhere.

My other beef with Victoria's rail system is that it's sloppy, inefficient and poorly maintained.

Basically it didn't work because it wasn't expensive enough. The toll was still only $4 each way. A train ticket actually costs more. Of course it wasn't going to deter many people.

It would work if the prices where set correctly. If at certain times it cost $20 each way to drive to work, I'm sure many people would seriously consider public transport, or pressure their bosses to let them start earlier or later.

It was actually a long rant about privatisation of transport, comrade Zimmerman.

I'm sure that a privatised harbour bridge would not, by any means, desire to charge that type of price. They would make it cheap. Dirt cheap. Evidence? Current privatised toll roads. The most expensive ones make it up through moronic government subsidies. The rest are cheap. Cheap cheap cheap.

Cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap.

Some other niggles...

Sure private companies would encourage users to use their roads, but they would have to charge road users quite a lot to make a profit.

Nah nt rly. You're advocating privatising every road aren't you? The only cost would be maitanence. Road maitanence, unless I'm mistake, is pretty damn cheap in the scheme of things (just look at where the NSW govt has to spend its money, and compare infrastructure spending to health spending).

The end result would be that the cost of using the roads is much higher under privatization, so public transport, cycling, car sharing and living closer to work all become comparatively more attractive options to consumers.

Ok, wait up a minute here. This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would a private company charge a price that would drive consumers to an alternative product? The roads in your society would be in competition with the transport. There would be no equilibrium between the two: People prefer to travel by themselves in their car in equal circumstances. The thought that companies would deter people from roads doesn't add up, imo.

Common thread to what I'm saying: You need to give this more thought, Mr. Slash and Burn.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Why is being able to drive around the country easily such an important right?

Should the government make sure everyone can afford cars too?

Ease of transport in a society seems like a sensible right and a sensible way to run a society. Movement of labor and wealth is a great thing.

Although I'm unsure why that must be by road.

 

[Serius]

Why is being able to drive around the country easily such an important right?

Should the government make sure everyone can afford cars too?

I havent given it a lot of thought like you have, people far smarter than me hold this position and i kind of agree with them.

I guess i see some things that we should have a right to, our government providing us with unhindered and free transportation options seems like one of them. This isnt the middle ages, we shouldnt have to pay every baron and lord a tithe to pass through their area of influence, we shouldnt have to pay bribes for safe passage, government provides corridors of land that you can travel down without trespassing on private property and it makes sense to pave them and make it easier to travel this way.

our government is in control of our entire land mass, citizens of governments such as these are historically provided with unhindered and free passage.....I guess the underlying reasons are ecconomical, an unhindered population is more productive... Really its just as hard to pin down any number of human rights to a particular reason other than its what the population wants, its historically been done and it follows an existing code of morals

 

[Serius]

People far "smarter" than you or I also hold the opposite position. This is utterly irrelevant.



No one would stop free travel under privatization. Its just transport would just be more expensive. Of course we pay for it anyway with taxes, you can also think of it as being able to afford relatively more of everything else.

As I said, where do you draw the line once you regard transport as a right? Do you provide subsidies to people who currently can't afford cars and thus cannot make use of the roads? What about people who can't drive for medical reasons?

Heh you sure taught me, you make some really interesting points, i am still not convinced but i cant see a good way to counter what you are saying... i guess i should just wait to see what smarter people who hold an opposing view argue with you and take notes.

Until then though i am wondering if you believe we should have a right to free travel or not...for example if our society was small enough and you could walk everywhere would you consider privatising pathways and sticking tolls everywhere?

The point of the railway system is the government wants to get people from their homes to their jobs, the government wants a nice hard working society that it can tax, and it tries to make transport as easy and as cheap as possible so people can work and trade.

I dont think we should provide people with cars because the government all ready provides public alternatives, e.g trains and buses but your point is well made. Sometimes people need to contribute taxes towards services they dont individually use because they benefit society as a whole, e.g your disabled person might not drive, but they still might catch buses, taxies, trains, the food they buy from supermarkets is transported on these roads and so on. I guess thats the heart of socialism and if we disagree on that fundamental point i cant think of a whole lot of places to take this debate... It will be interesting to see what others say.

 

[quik.]

So you are basing your claims about an effective public system on a notion of government which you admit is unrealistic.

I'm basing them on a transparent system, which is not unrealistic. It would allow those assertive enough to take action access to information and to publicly call into question poor decisions etc

This would translate to all areas having representation, as there are individuals in all communities who take it upon themselves to be informed and assert themselves.

What exactly is secretive about the current system?

Even with perfect information, its impossible to calculate if people are getting their fare share of the roads budget. People will naturally campaign for better roads in their particular areas, and those who campaign most effectively, or live in marginal electorates will gain disproportionally.

The current system is hardly transparent in any great sense of the word. I’ve just spent at least a half hour in an attempt to find maintenance costs for the M4 alone. The private group who owns it has an overall report but this encompasses all assets and no detailed breakdown is provided.

They do however conveniently display the various toll increases that have occurred over the M4’s history on its website, generous.

Government media is no better, general statements and buzz words.

Granted this is without calling or contacting the companies involved.

I have provided several examples of complex networks integrating and working well; airlines, efpos and other electronic payment systems, the Tokyo subway. Please explain why roads are different, and the free market will not be successful in this case, even though it has worked well in others.

Electronic systems and networks are a completely different and largely irrelevant comparison as it involves easily manipulated, understandable and known variables, as opposed to a road system available to individuals with independent thought. Airlines do not hold a candle to the volume of people carried on roadways, and utilise a vastly different system of regulation (being that they fly and do not need roads). The Tokyo subway is a success story that I would love to see emulated in Australia.

Not true. The vast bulk of our food is not subsidized in any way.

Fair enough.

That's irrelevant. The point is we have a free market for food now. Although it is an essential good, more so than roads, the free market actually works well. This dispels your initial claim about essential goods.

Irrelevant? You asked.

The free market functioning well with regards to food is debateable, Cadbury’s recent switch to ‘fair trade’ has resulted in less product of lesser quality (switch to vegetable oil) for the same or more cost to the consumer. Rural areas are charged a greater amount than suburban (I understand this relates somewhat to transport costs).

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item...odeId=6347a6bfcdad107f1de7541a4039577b&fn=230

“[FONT=&quot]For a basket of 28 everyday fruit and vegetables, the survey showed that Woolworths were charging between 51% and 402% higher prices at Greystanes than they were charging for the same items in Fairfield which is less than 4km away.”[/FONT]

you admitted earlier that this is unlikely to happen. you're just fantasizing now.

Unlikely but not necessarily an impossibility (I admit that pigs will probably fly first, though). I think it is something worth working towards, if only for the fact that the result will be a MORE informed population.

Such as?

Most of them are only in business due to government bailouts and/or protectionism or preferential treatment.

"Most Wanted"

Obviously to be taken with a grain of salt, and some of their ‘crimes’ are debateable but I’m sure you’ve come across other examples yourself over the years.

Why?

This is just a restatement of your claim about "essential" goods and services, which I largely dispelled with the food example. My other examples such as the Tokyo metro system also remain ignored, while you continue to repeat yourself.

The food example was poor, the Tokyo metro system is a great success in a completely different culture to our own. Whilst it is an amazing system, it is doubtful it will ever be reproduced here. Despite its huge success roads also still suffer an amazing amount of congestion, levels that are not seen in Australia, it has not been a miraculous cure.

http://www.itls.usyd.edu.au/downloads/seminars/2006/rossc.pdf

This is a presentation by Maquarie Infrastructure Group, it states:

“Approx. 85% of revenue from tolls is used to service capital”

“As the risk of the tollroad declines over time, the value of the toll road increases, and the rate of return increases”

Maintenance costs aside, public ownership will encourage the reduction of the cost to the user over time. That isn’t to say it can’t be at a level where it generates a profit (which can then in turn be rolled over into other areas as needed). With private ownership I cannot see this (reduction in tolls due to increased rate of return) happening.

 

[quik.]

Is it possible that most people aren't particularly interested in the detailed costings of various road projects, and this is why the information is not widely available, not because of some conspiracy?

Are you aware we already have the Freedom of Information Act which provides for access to government documents and would enable you to find this information with a little bit of extra effort?

It appears transparency is not really the problem. People don't really care about the big picture, they just want all the best stuff in their local area.

I never said the private sector was perfect, although I don't regard companies charging more in certain suburbs as a bad thing. The point is that food (a necessity) is provided by the free market and we don't have problems with supplying enough of it, its a very efficient market and basically everyone (in Australia) has enough to eat.

I don't have time to go into everything that's wrong with that corporate "most wanted" list.

I never cried conspiracy?

I'm not familiar with the Freedom of Info Act beyond knowing it exists, the details are not ones I am aware of. If it only pertains to Government documents then that is not very helpful as the government itself doesn't build the roads. In the case of the M4 it doesn't maintain them either, the M4 won't be handed over to government ownership until next year.

Transparency is a part of the problem (in my opinion), ignorance is a whole other issue which I have also said from the start. Of course people want the best for their area, a transparent system will go a ways to preventing discrimination, however. If people can clearly see that suburb A is getting x whereas suburb B with an equal or greater need is not, red flags will be raised.

I would be interested in hearing your justification for a 50-400% price difference between suburbs 4km or less apart. The free market provides food, not necessarily good food. Healthy, nutritious foods are becoming more and more expensive relative to processed foods.

I admitted the evil korporashuns list was not the best reference however it makes some valid points amongst the crap and, again, I doubt that you have failed to come across a business or corporation that has operated with questionable integrity.