I want cheap trains everywhere.
In Boston they're trying to connect North Station and South Station, a distance of about 5 miles. The cost is at least $10 billion.
Also, I would expect at least a few cost overruns.
The extreme mental gymnastics some people will go to to rationalize the current state of the world absolutely blows my mind.
That's still about 5 years of the total raised revenue alone to meet the minimum for just this one connector.
Look at China's high speed rail network. Only a small minority of routes manage to break even, and the rest of them are a huge financial burden that the CCP just accepts because achieving a huge engineering feat creates a sense of national pride.
You can have slower cheaper rail infrastructure that serves less traveled routes.
So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of transportation is what can cause economically non-viable transportation services to grow in usage, and in doing so, burden the economy with loss-making transportation.
> So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large.
> So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the education system from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of education is what can cause economically non-viable education services to consume greater amounts of resources, and in doing so, burden the economy.
Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.
What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work?
Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized.
>Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education.
The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs.
As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over:
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839...
>Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.
I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control:
https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-...
These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.
I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
The evidence, an example of that which I provided, shows that they are.
May I ask if you or your relatives are in a union? If so it may be hard for you to be objective about this.
>As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
The unions that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that mandate the employer - which in the case of the public sector, is the government - to engage in collective bargaining with them, to the exclusion of all other parties.
This provides them with an extreme barrier to competition from other workers, which in turn allows them to extract economic rent.
Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action. Additionally teachers are not required to join a union; the fact that teachers join the union and engage in collective bargaining is a result of their natural collective power. If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization.
I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that. Given your post history, that seems to be where you actually lie.
That's a relief. When someone has a financial conflict of interest in how the public perceives a particular political issue, then it becomes very hard to appeal to their reason and objectivity.
>>That will not be an avenue of argument for you.
I'm not looking for an avenue of argument. I'm looking to reach a consensus based on the evidence.
>>Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action
None of that is true. There are no laws that allow them to suppress their employees' ability to engage in collective action. Employees are free to quit, boycott a company, make collective bargaining a condition for their employment, etc. There is no law that deprives them of any of their contracting rights for the benefit of the employer.
I am open to seeing arguments/evidence demonstrating otherwise.
>If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization.
1. The law prohibits a company from negotiating with anyone but a union if a majority of a work unit vote to unionize. This prohibition extends to workers who did not vote to unionize, as well as applicants outside of the company's workforce who did not participate in the vote. This law, which the political left celebrates, is a blatant violation of contract liberty.
2. The law prohibits companies from requiring, as a condition of employment, to not unionize. By prohibiting these so-called Yellow Dog contracts, the law also blatantly violates contract liberty.
3. The law prohibits a company from firing workers who strike: if a company hires replacement workers and the strike ends, the company is not only required by law to employ the workers who ended the strike, but to continue employing the replacement workers.
Being restricted from engaging in hiring replacement workers without conditions restricts the company's free market rights, in order to make it as difficult as possible for companies to disassociate themselves from unions. In a free market, one would be free to disassociate themselves from a union.
>I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that.
Unions are able to derive above-market wages by restricting the contracting rights of the employer to negotiate with parties other than themselves. I've already explained that and you seemingly totally ignored me, which is concerning, given it make the prospects of a rational discussion quite dim.
Unions extracting economic rents is a very widely studied and well understood phenomenon:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=coll...
FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
>Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function.
Transportation is not amongst the subset of goods/services where having individual market actors pay for its production leads to economically sub-optimal under-production.
Whether transportation should be subsidized for other reasons is an entirely different subject.
I don't understand, could you elaborate?
Similarly, time preferences can stop long-term beneficial activities by corporate actors.
In the end, it is about bridging different preferences. There are also issues of resource pooling and coordination, but those are easier to overcome.
Like many people, I cross a train track on my commute. There even used to be a commuter rail line that stopped there. Now it is all freight.
Like many freight lines, it carries a lot of "bomb trains" running oil between the fields and the refineries.
Eventually -- not tomorrow, probably more in the 30-50 year range -- those bomb trains are going to stop running.
That is going to leave a lot of track underutilized, and adding passenger rail back to these lines is one way to keep it cost effective to keep them open for freight. You have some overhead to re-add minimal stations -- concrete pads for disembarking, roofs optional -- but the tracks already existing covers a lot of the cost and complications.
The main issues I have are that the trips aren’t as frequent as I’d like and often don’t leave on time.