Economics 102

[Art Vandelay]

They are becoming more popular, as putting in a freeway costs a gazillion dollars, which has to be paid somehow, and if it is paid with taxes, then taxes go up. I can see the sense in it, it just struck me as strange the assumption that, or course, it is easy to limit road use, just stop the poor using them. I mean, why not left handed people, methodists or type O blood group people instead?

What you're missing is that the intent is not to prohibit poor people from using the roads. That is merely an effect of capitalism. I don't think you're going to learn the principles of economics from a message board, especially if you don't even grasp that the reason the poor get less is because the poor are defined as being the ones ones who get less. That's like asking why fat people weight more. Plus, you don't seem genuine interested in understanding capitalism. But if you really want to learn, one concept of capitalism is that it is crucial for the proper distribution of resources that society have succifient information as to what that distribution is. The way this is done in capitalism is through money, and no one has come up with a better way than that. If you have a better idea, you're welcome to present it.

A toll forces people to tell the government how much the road is worth to them. Things like opinion polls simply don't hae the accuracy of just charging a fee. With a poll, you don't have to respond, but with a fee, you do: either you pay it or you don't. And witha fee, people have a stake in accurately figuring out how much the road is worth to them, as opposed to a poll, in which people just guess.

And most of all, a toll forces people for whom the road is worth less than the fee to not use the road. As an extreme, suppose the use of the road is worth $10. And say someone has a job that pays $18. He drives to and from work and gets $18, while society loses $20 in the round trip. So there's a net loss of $2 of value. Basically, society is taking $20 and giving $18 to the worker as charity, and the other $2 is going up in smoke (or exhaust). Now, maybe you think society should be giving this charity away. But even if this is so, it doesn't make sense to spend $20 to give $18 worth of charity. If done properly, fees decrease total societal loss. How this savings is distributed is another matter entirely. The government could use the money to increase the tax-free income bracket, for instance. If they choose not to do so, it is that choice you should be berating, not the fee itself.

Tmy

The latter doesnt really make sense cause the traffic wont dissappear. Itll just move to other roads, making them worse.

Presumably, the higher traffic on higher roads will cause some people to decide that driving isn't worth it, lowering traffic.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Economics 102

And, of course, if roads were private, there's always the possibility of an alternate route being managed by someone else, resulting in competition.

Sure, let's just have people build roads where they want to. That'll solve all traffic problems...

 

[Earthborn]

Don't be ridiculous, Claus. People will only be able to build roads on their own land, not someone else's. Also nobody would be able to force someone else of their land just make a road straight.

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't be ridiculous, Claus. People will only be able to build roads on their own land, not someone else's. Also nobody would be able to force someone else of their land just make a road straight.

I'm not saying that people will be able to build roads on other people's land. But we can't have a society where people just build roads if they want to. We'll have a chaos without comparison.

Manhattan is a great example: Downtown is a labyrinth. Some New Yorkers don't even dare venture there, because they'll get lost. I'm not kidding. But you can't possibly get lost in Midtown.

Who laid out Midtown? Private companies? No, the public sector.

This idea that somehow, everything will take care of itself, is a naive fantasy.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Economics 102

I agree wholeheartedly. If humans are incapable of building and maintaining roads without the aid of the government, then roads should not be built at all.

I greatly dislike motor vehicles. I hope that in the future, human civilization will develop in such a way that motor vehicles will no longer be in use anymore.

I'm sure it will, just like motor vehicles made the horse-and-buggy unnecessary.

Maybe we'll all be using flying cars in another 50 years.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Economics 102

Alright, this is a bit off-topic (sorry), but I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this question: If roads are private, what's to stop the guy who owns the road directly in front of my driveway from totally gouging me? How can there possibly be market competition in this case?

That would be a community-owned road, not a highway.

 

[Tmy]

The private sector is not going to fund the creation of roads. Its a bad investment. The overhead is enormous, and the users would never pay the fees needed to recoup costs and maintain the thing. Theres no profit in it.

We need govt to bulid the bridges cause no one else would. The funny thing is that the private industry actually builds the stuff and govt writes the checks. Thats why I dont really get why people say the govt, unlike the private sector, is inept in these projects. Its the private sector building the things.

 

[shanek]

I'm not saying that people will be able to build roads on other people's land. But we can't have a society where people just build roads if they want to. We'll have a chaos without comparison.

Manhattan is a great example:

All of Manhattan's roads are private??? Do the NYC taxpayers know this?

 

[shanek]

The private sector is not going to fund the creation of roads. Its a bad investment. The overhead is enormous, and the users would never pay the fees needed to recoup costs and maintain the thing. Theres no profit in it.

EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT THAT EXISTS, at one point or another, was put on a truck that drove on a road. WTF do you mean there's no profit in roads???

Thats why I dont really get why people say the govt, unlike the private sector, is inept in these projects.

Show one such private sector project for evidence. Then compare it to, say, the Big Dig.

 

[CFLarsen]

All of Manhattan's roads are private??? Do the NYC taxpayers know this?

You are not listening: I used Midtown Manhattan as an example of why we cannot rely of private road-planners.

 

[shanek]

You are not listening: I used Midtown Manhattan as an example of why we cannot rely of private road-planners.

Come to Charlotte sometime and see the ridiculousness of government road planning.

"We're making a beltway around a major metropolitan city? Say, I've got an idea: let's make it only two lanes in each direction, put exits at every overpass, and not install any lights!"

 

[CFLarsen]

Come to Charlotte sometime and see the ridiculousness of government road planning.

"We're making a beltway around a major metropolitan city? Say, I've got an idea: let's make it only two lanes in each direction, put exits at every overpass, and not install any lights!"

Could you address the point, please? Was Midtown Manhattan planned by private companies or the public sector?

 

[shanek]

Could you address the point, please?

I just did.

Was Midtown Manhattan planned by private companies or the public sector?

I don't know. All I have to go on right now is your word, which is worthless.

 

[CFLarsen]

I just did.



I don't know. All I have to go on right now is your word, which is worthless.

Have a nice Christmas.

 

[Ed]

I recall city maps showing the proposed grid system for manhattan when above 42 St. was farmland. I assume that it was a government plan.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics 102

That would be a community-owned road, not a highway.

And just how would a private company acquire land to build a highway on?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics 102

And just how would a private company acquire land to build a highway on?

Buy it, maybe?

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics 102

Buy it, maybe?

Seeing as the gov't must often undertake lengthy court fights to buy land for roads, even though it has powers of eminent domain, I find it highly unlikely a private corp could buy a continuous piece of land coast to coast.

Also, it is doubtful a private company would bother building roads in rural areas where they would have little chance of recouping their investment, let alone turn a profit.

Do you really think the interstate highway system we have now could have been built and maintained w/o any gov't involvement?

But then again, there are some money making opportunities to be had w/ the private highway idea. I could buy a swath of land 100 miles long and one foot wide, and charge $50 for anyone wanting to cross my one foot section of road. If you don't want to pay, feel free to take the 100 mile detour. Of course, my cousin happens to own the next 100 mile by one foot piece of land adjoining mine, he also charges $50 to cross. And don't even think of trying to get through w/o paying, the tire shredders will pop up and you won't get very far w/ shredded tires.

 

[Mycroft]

That would be a community-owned road, not a highway.

So what's the functional difference between a community owned road and the system we have now? Roads are built by governments, either city, county, state or federal.

 

[shanek]

So what's the functional difference between a community owned road and the system we have now? Roads are built by governments, either city, county, state or federal.

Incorrect. There are a lot of private roads in Charlotte, for example. I have neighbors who live on private roads. A lot of the roads on islands in North Carolina's outer banks are private.

Denying reality will get you nowhere.