American toll roads and bridges sold...

[Vinya]

...to foreign private investors. Read it in the paper today.....tell me, do you think this is perfectly allowable with the United States belief in capitolism? I'm all for capitolism; seriously. But I thought the purpose of toll roads and stuff was for the upkeep of said roads? If our money goes to foreign investors then how does it help the general United States citizens? Politicians like foreign and private companies buying tax paid for things (like said toll roads) because it takes the politics out of determining the toll itself. The companies can raise or lower them as they see fit. SO: has American capitolism gone too far when the American people no longer benifit or is it just one step closer to a global community?


For the record (to get out of the way since inevitably it would come up since I mentioned capitolism): since I know we have several communism supporters on the forums, my two cents on it is that it is a great idea; but the problem is its ideolist. It can never be achieved because...well....absolute power corrupts absolutely. SO try to keep the communism talk to a minimum unless it actually contributes to the discussion.

/rant

[Osama Bin Laden]

Roads are public property, they shouldnt be owned by a corporation. Im all for capitalism too, but this is just going a bit too far.

[Muad'dib]

Personally, I think giving things too readily to privatization is in itself a horrible thing, and profit gets put before people time and again.

I didn't need to see it was a foreign company taking the case to think it was bad, I think even if you had some private company from America, it'd be just as open to attacks in the form of price increases, etc.

[Vinya]

newbiezilla said:

Personally, I think giving things too readily to privatization is in itself a horrible thing, and profit gets put before people time and again.

I didn't need to see it was a foreign company taking the case to think it was bad, I think even if you had some private company from America, it'd be just as open to attacks in the form of price increases, etc.

well to a larger extent its the same as the American ports being sold to Dubai....and to some extent the law that says that private corporations can seize land from owners if their investment brings in revenue. So basically, you can have your land taken by the government so a wal-mart can be built. Its the same thing, only the owners are overseas....it doesn't benefit the American people.

[Muad'dib]

But even private companies from America, it really just goes to the CEOs, and makes them wealthy.

There have been fights for privatisation here where i'm from, too, and people just don't want it, or at least a lot don't.

They don't want the job losses, or the pursuit of profit thats involved with privatization.

[Ratwar]

Well, Vinya, to tell you the truth, toll road operated by private investors isn't all that new. I know that it was actually done quite frequently before public roads became common. Of course, as public road systems increased, private roads were integrated into them, making them public.

I think that the real answer to the question is which will benefit the common consumer more? A capitalist approach, or a more socialist approach? At first glance, it would be the socialist approach. With this one, you eliminate not only the profit margin demanded by the private sector, but in theory, you also lower the cost of maintaining the road, since it is cheaper to maintain 100,000 miles of road per mile than it is to maintain 100 miles (once again on a purely per mile rate).

So you might ask, why bother with explaining the capitalist approach, if it is obviously worse than the socialistic approach? Well, it is only worse in theory. You see, in the government, the only thing that an elected official is accountable to is the people who vote. Now, in a state wide system, the number of people who actually know what's going on in the Transportation Department are a very minor percentage of the voters. I mean, most people are looking at bigger issues than the tolls when it comes to voting for a canidate for Governor. So what does this cause? Over spending on road construction obviously! Whether it is hiring more expensive Civil Engineering firms or more expensive Construction firms a lot of deals are made for political reason, not economic reasons.

So the end result is that you can make an argument either way. Does the added profit margin and higher theoretical costs of the capitalist approach make it more expensive? Sometimes, of course the opposite can be also true, when corruption somes it's ugly face. Personally, I know a state park that was run by a private company for a few years. The venture failed horribly.

Yes, I am perfectally aware that I haven't given a straight answer. Here it is! I'd rather see the roads stay in the hands of the government. It gives the common citizen more control over them, and it is the commom citizen that paid for the road in the first place.

[Vinya]

ratwar said:

Yes, I am perfectally aware that I haven't given a straight answer. Here it is! I'd rather see the roads stay in the hands of the government. It gives the common citizen more control over them, and it is the commom citizen that paid for the road in the first place.

....which was the gist I was aiming for in the first place, Ratty XD

[Muad'dib]

The bigger problem with privatization (as in other than that never ending goal of profit, or perhaps because of it) is the inevitable job losses, though.

Time and time again, i've seen it happen.

[Ratwar]

vinyahuinewen said:

and to some extent the law that says that private corporations can seize land from owners if their investment brings in revenue. So basically, you can have your land taken by the government so a wal-mart can be built. Its the same thing, only the owners are overseas....it doesn't benefit the American people.

I really don't see what eminent domain has to do with selling toll roads, building tham perhaps, but not selling them. Anyways, I'll save you the lecture on the reasons why that view of a specific eminent domain case is a bit flawed. (But if you would like it, I'll happily post it just to hear myself talk.)

vinyahuinewen said:

....which was the gist I was aiming for in the first place, Ratty XD

Am I starting to sound like Nair?

newbiezilla said:

The bigger problem with privatization (as in other than that never ending goal of profit, or perhaps because of it) is the inevitable job losses, though.

Time and time again, i've seen it happen.

Job losses? The goals of never ending profits makes capitalistic business grow, creating jobs...

[Muad'dib]

Ratwar, from what i've seen of privatization, one of two things eventually occurs, attacks of wages and/or reduction of workforce.

Its happened in a lot of cases, and the people here don't want to see it happen again in something thats "close to home" for me, so to speak.

[Ratwar]

newbiezilla said:

Ratwar, from what i've seen of privatization, one of two things eventually occurs, attacks of wages and/or reduction of workforce.

Its happened in a lot of cases, and the people here don't want to see it happen again in something thats "close to home" for me, so to speak.

Ahh, I thought you were discussing private business in general. My mistake.

[eek]

That's a really bad road to go down, if you'll excuse the pun. Take, for example, Britain's railways, which are in no way punctual, to put it one way.

I think infrastructure like roads and railways should not be privatized. They are important public services, not businesses, and shouldn't be treated as such. Yes, I know, you could call shops a public service, but they have rivals to compete with, which (most of the time) keeps them in line. Selling off a transport network is different. There is no real competition, since two or more companies can't really cover the same area.

[Muad'dib]

Public transport, needs to be, public.

This isn't related to the thread, but i'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

If a particular route is unprofitable, it'd likely be removed by a privatized company, whereas, a state owned one would be more likely to use profits from other routes on keeping the less succesful one afloat.