Economics 102

[a_unique_person]

I was asking questions about traffic, and how it can be modelled and improved.

An economist added the observation that there is a simple solution to preventing the overload of traffic, just charge for the right to travel on a road. 'red' ken in london has apparently done just that. If you wan to drive in london, a notoriously overloaded traffic area, you now have to pay for the privelige.

Which made me wonder, why is it that, when we have to control the consumption of something, it is the poor who have to miss out?

The western economic system has survived and prospered better than the Marxian one. It seems to me that the basic assumption in it, that when you dish out the spoils of anything, the poor will always get less, is a curious one. Why the poor?

 

[Tmy]

Do you jave turnpikes in your parts?? They are pay highways. What annoys me is that we're told the money is needed for costs/upkeep. But at some point shoudnt they drop the tolls? After you recoup the costs.

Back to your Q. Pay roads really dont improve traffic much. Turnpikes and toll bridges are just as filled as the regular highways. And they pick on the poor because they are an easy target. Unlike the elderly, who almost always get a pass or discount when the govt charges somthing.

 

[a_unique_person]

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?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do you jave turnpikes in your parts?? They are pay highways. What annoys me is that we're told the money is needed for costs/upkeep. But at some point shoudnt they drop the tolls? After you recoup the costs.

We had a toll road in this area. They kept collecting the tolls for eleven years after they'd paid off the cost of building the road and were supposed to have stopped.

 

[Tmy]

Whats the motive for the pay road? To rasie money to pay for the road, or to control traffic??? The latter doesnt really make sense cause the traffic wont dissappear. Itll just move to other roads, making them worse.

 

[Tmy]

We had a toll road in this area. They kept collecting the tolls for eleven years after they'd paid off the cost of building the road and were supposed to have stopped.

Well we know how states are always so eager to close off a revenue stream.

Its like pulling teeth.

 

[Chaos]

We had a toll road in this area. They kept collecting the tolls for eleven years after they'd paid off the cost of building the road and were supposed to have stopped.

That´s nothing. The German government imposed a tax on sparkling wine in the 1890´s to raise the money for expanding Germany´s battleship fleet.

Said fleet was sunk twice since then, and we haven´t had a battle fleet for about 60 years - but we´re still paying the dang tax...

 

[Giz]

That´s nothing. The German government imposed a tax on sparkling wine in the 1890´s to raise the money for expanding Germany´s battleship fleet.

Said fleet was sunk twice since then, and we haven´t had a battle fleet for about 60 years - but we´re still paying the dang tax...

Heck, we had income tax brought in to stop Napoleon. Two centuries later and I suppose the powers that be must be worried about undead Corsicans 'cause we're still paying it.


AUP"It seems to me that the basic assumption in it, that when you dish out the spoils of anything, the poor will always get less, is a curious one. Why the poor?"

- I think this is tautological; we call them poor because they have less moolah, access to goods and services is based on handing out moolah, they have less moolah to hand out...

Perhaps you could charge different amounts of congestion charge based on the size of the car? Why should smart cars pay the same as stretched limos?

 

[digitalmcq]

The problem with economists is that they think that if everything is marketized then the world will become this wonderful utopia. It won't. Charging people to use roads that they need to use (to get to work, etc) only serves to transfer money from individuals to the government. This especially screws the poor who can barely pay their bills anyway.

 

[shanek]

I was asking questions about traffic, and how it can be modelled and improved.

An economist added the observation that there is a simple solution to preventing the overload of traffic, just charge for the right to travel on a road. 'red' ken in london has apparently done just that. If you wan to drive in london, a notoriously overloaded traffic area, you now have to pay for the privelige.

Which made me wonder, why is it that, when we have to control the consumption of something, it is the poor who have to miss out?

It's not that "it is the poor who miss out." It's that people actually pay for the resources they consume. It's the best way to manage limited resources. It's not "screw the poor," it's making people evaluate whether or not their need to travel on that road outweighs the need for the money they'd spend on it.

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

The western economic system has survived and prospered better than the Marxian one. It seems to me that the basic assumption in it, that when you dish out the spoils of anything, the poor will always get less, is a curious one. Why the poor?

The poor fare far, far better under a free market economy than in any other system anyone has ever tried in the history of the world. Including, if not especially, Marxism.

 

[shanek]

Do you jave turnpikes in your parts?? They are pay highways. What annoys me is that we're told the money is needed for costs/upkeep. But at some point shoudnt they drop the tolls? After you recoup the costs.

The costs continue. The road needs to be maintained, repaved every so often, widened, etc.

 

[shanek]

We had a toll road in this area. They kept collecting the tolls for eleven years after they'd paid off the cost of building the road and were supposed to have stopped.

Wait...you're telling me a government instituted a revenue stream and then kept it going long after they had promised to stop it? Gee, that's never happened before!

 

[Matabiri]

Re: Re: Economics 102

The poor fare far, far better under a free market economy than in any other system anyone has ever tried in the history of the world. Including, if not especially, Marxism.

Everyone was so happy under Thatcher.

 

[shanek]

That´s nothing. The German government imposed a tax on sparkling wine in the 1890´s to raise the money for expanding Germany´s battleship fleet.

Said fleet was sunk twice since then, and we haven´t had a battle fleet for about 60 years - but we´re still paying the dang tax...

We're still paying the tax to pay for the Spanish-American war.

 

[shanek]

Perhaps you could charge different amounts of congestion charge based on the size of the car? Why should smart cars pay the same as stretched limos?

That makes sense to me. Base it on size or weight. They already have weigh stations for trucks.

 

[shanek]

The problem with economists is that they think that if everything is marketized then the world will become this wonderful utopia.

Strawman.

It won't. Charging people to use roads that they need to use (to get to work, etc) only serves to transfer money from individuals to the government.

Unless, of course, the roads are privately owned.

Besides, I thought the poor couldn't afford cars and that's why we need to heavily subsidize expensive and inefficient mass transit systems?

 

[Tmy]

The costs continue. The road needs to be maintained, repaved every so often, widened, etc.

Sure. But how much does maintence cost? The tolls havent gone down over time. Im sure a months worth would be plenty of money for a years maintence costs.

THeres also freedom of movement. I guess they get around that by saying "use the free backroads".

 

[shanek]

Sure. But how much does maintence cost? The tolls havent gone down over time. Im sure a months worth would be plenty of money for a years maintence costs.

Probably, but that's why we shouldn't leave this in the hands of governments. That's what they do.

 

[JAR]

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.

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.

 

[Tex]

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.

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?