Billionaire wants Michigan to reject free bridge to Canada & use his bridge | Hacker News Reader

Billionaire wants Michigan to reject free bridge to Canada & use his bridge

news.nationalpost.com

58 pointsslaven29 comments

I live in Windsor, so it's pretty cool to see this make HN. I don't know what will happen if they do strike this down, because we've already been working heavily on the infrastructure for this for a year.

The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again.

Edit: especially an international crossing that accounts for 25% of US-CAD trade.

Does Mr. Moroun have any arguments against the bridge other than the (offensively effective), "Your grandchildren are going to pay for it?"

"... and not to my grandchildren!"

There's also a tunnel though. Who owns that?

"The tunnel is currently owned by Detroit–Windsor Tunnel LLC, which is a joint-venture between the City of Windsor and the City of Detroit, with each owning 50%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel

Trucks can't go through the tunnel.

Free markets at work! ;)

I've heard that the owner of the current bridge wants to build another one right next to it himself, but that Canada has blocked him. Is that a factor in his opposition to the Canadian funded bridge?

When this came up on Reddit earlier today, I read that if the vote passes through and they need a majority people to vote for it, but that doesn't happen, they will make the project a federal one instead of state, so no state money would be used for this, and nobody would be able to do anything against it.

> The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again.

Why laughable? If the owner of the bridge does not provide good enough value and operational efficiency, then competing bridges will be received with favor instead of skepticism. If the government owns the bridge/infrastructure and does not provide acceptable value or efficiencies, it would likely be even harder to create an alternative.

I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.

If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one).

I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge.

I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did.

My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first.

Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained.

No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers.

I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town.

When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start.

Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.

Oh nonsense. It's not like you can just come along and set up another bridge; that takes years, and the incumbent is likely to leverage some of the economic rents to frustrating your purpose.

Oddly enough, an early landmark Supreme Court case in the US involved the owners of one bridge suing to try to stop a competing bridge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_...

Canada's not only paying for Michigan's $550 Million share, but also financing them and collecting back via tolls. The bridge will connect directly into motorways (the current bridge dumps you downtown) check out http://www.economist.com/node/21563756

So, this is the first I've heard of this. Are there any interesting economic details as to why the Canadians are willing to pay for the whole thing?

Growing up in Hamilton, having family in Windsor, and frequently visiting the Detroit area, it was clear that the U.S. bound truck traffic heading over the Ambassador produced totally insane backups. (Similar backups regularly exist for the Blue Water Bridge a little further north in Sarnia.)

I'd guess Canadians are interested in collecting tolls :)

The Canadian auto industry (as well as the American one) feels that the friction caused by the current congestion is slowing down their industry enough that it's worthwhile, even to pay for it in full. The gov't feels the same way. At this point, parts make many crossings as they're built into finished cars - the industry in Ontario and Michigan is completely intertwined.

A common question for anarchists (people who argue that government is unnecessary) is "Who will pay for the roads?" Here we have an entrepreneur who has paid for a bridge, and the government is trying to compete with him. Government should not be in competition with business because it's based on coercion and it's inefficient. Coercion should be used only as a last resort.

Because when billionaires own everything they won't be able to coerce us? Government is the ONLY entity capable of checking the power of the private oligarchs who control the majority of the world's wealth.

Do anarchists have a solution for the straightforward fact that "free markets" lead to massive concentration of power in the hands of a few unaccountable billionaires?

The wealthy seem to extert power by buying off governments. Reduce the power of gevernment and there'll be less for the wealthy to buy.

Right, because power structures don't arise naturally from the topography of human social relationships, but from the erection of organized government.

The rule that wealthy will buy of govt is not a rule. Its just an observation that is pertinent today because they adapted to the legislative system, and the legislative system didn't evolve fast enough to get away from them.

The corruption and overtake of the US government is many years in the making. It isn't complete, and it is repairable and it has historical been able to achieve a stable healthy dynamic equilibrium.

"Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man."

The economic ignorance on display at Hacker News is pretty solid evidence for the necessity of liberal educations to maintain a civilized society. There are now entire generations of engineers who never read any philosophy, economics, or history, yet believe themselves to be experts on questions addressed by these fields. It's astounding how smart people can be so stupid when they are denied a liberal education.

Anyone who considers himself educated should be able to instantly spot the author of that quote. How many HN readers, aside from pg, could do that? It's not okay that this kind of ignorance is now considered acceptable among the "educated" and wealthy classes.

Religion major, music and philosophy minors, so yes, I instantly recognized it as well as it's philosophical context. We are here on HN too.

I'm here too. I know that we exist.

But Peter Thiel's entrepreneur/libertarian monoculture is expanding. These culture killers are celebrating the death of the liberal arts. It used to be that entrepreneur billionaires funded the arts, now they are actively seeking to dismantle them out of some kind of resentment. Things are looking bleak for the open, civil society.

Mark Zuckerberg called for the end of privacy in his book. Our society is putting sophomoric man-children in charge of the cultural landscape.

Why on Earth was "greedy" in quotes in the title?

To avoid libel lawsuits.

It's quoting the Canadian general counsel.

Could be a selective grab of one of Mr. Norton's quotes in the article:

“The Morouns are greedy. They are manipulative. They are cynical.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com