279 posts on this?! For Heaven’s Sake!
The thread was started by mickanomics. Go figure.
I said the same thing.
In terms of $$ volume, the largest land trade artery (arguably the single most important thoroughfare) for the United States is privately owned & operated. Has been ever since it was built 80 years ago.
It’s called the Ambassador Bridge.
You are joking, right?
No, I’m not joking.
They have and failed. Hence the reason we have delivered water services now. City’s won’t allow more then one pipe main from being installed under the city. This is why cable company’s have monopoly’ as well. City’s only allow a single cable network dropped as well.
On a side note I can’t remember who posted it, perhaps fee.org. But there was recently a discussion about a local government’s public water system falling to shambles and them contracting it out to a private water service company. They came in and pretty much saved the day. When I can find the article I’ll post it.
To state that water wouldn’t get delivered to people’s homes without the state is entirely silly. Third world countries in much worse conditions than us currently do it privately in this manner already. How is it that a third world country can do it but we cannot?
Do you have a reference for this?
Quiet frankly is a reference needed? This is rather elementary. You brought up the argument, not me. Your trying to prove that it’s unprofitable for a private company to provide water. Such a claim seems awfully naive.
What, you’ve never seen Chinatown?
Yes.
No I’m not. I’m just suggesting that its rather impractical to have two sets of mains running down one street. I suspect instances of this are rare as hens teeth. Now this could be one of the following reasons:
A. Private companies are keen to add secondary pipes but are barred from doing so by the government.
B. Private companies are not keen to add secondary pipes.
I suspect A. If the case is B, then you would expect to see the occasional newspaper article saying “water company asks to build secondary pipes but were barred”.
Is it impractical to have two types of milk at the grocery store?
Well ofcoarse. How many opportunities does the private market get to explore this sector?
This is correct
This is the only unsubstantiated thing stated. Though you seem to be taking this as fact, and ignoring A despite the fact that A is the most empirically and obviously observed fact on the table.
Why would you expect to see this in the newspaper? Private business’s requests for licenses’s on a daily basis. Working directly with civil engineers and service providers I see this on a day to day basis. What, you want the newspaper to publish every single time someone asks something of the government?
By the way, it’s worth pointing out the following. That such discussions over whether it is, or is not, practical to do such things is entirely business speculation. We cannot and will not know the cheapest most efficient way of providing water under the condition of a coercive monopoly.
Still, it is not the job of economists to decide what is the most efficient way of doing things. Those types of speculations are confined to entrepreneurs and businessmen alike. Pretending to know how things SHOULD be is pretending to be omniscient. Something I doubt you are.
No, they are entirely different cases, for reasons discussed at length earlier in this thread.
Hang on a second… it seems that my suggesting that B is true is due to my idiotic pretence to be omniscient, yet your assertion that A is true is somehow your genius expertise?
Tell me more details about your “observations” of this fact.
If you are right, then presumably someone would cite this response in a book or article somewhere. So presumably you can give me a link to the books where your response is cited.
If you are right, then presumably someone would cite this response in a book or article somewhere. So presumably you can give me a link to the books where your response is cited.
I here by confess that I am not well read enough to know about such a citation. Or even if it exists. I am not pretending to know of such a citation. But filc has stated that “A” was “observed”… so I want to know about his “observation”.
The point he’s making is that government monopoly forces a set business model upon everyone, regardless of whether a more viable option exists. The private sector is demonstrably more efficient and effective, whether or not it involves the exploration of alternatives.
In any case, this is ridiculous. I went on a two-week vacation and this “debate” is still going on, and it’s just because of your (mickanomics) willful ignorance. There are many, many counter-examples provided by other posters in this thread, and you just need to spend ten to fifteen minutes looking at some of their posts to see not only rationale for private roads and utilities, but examples inasmuch as private businesses are allowed to operate in such industries.
So until you can put forth such a citation, I’m going to have to ask you to shut up. Either way, there’s a huge water crises in CA, where farmers are put out of business because the government finds tiny fish more important than the economy (41.5% unemployment).
So filc can assert something without a citation and his comments are valid, while if I assert something without citation and I’m supposed to “shut up”. Why the asymmetry?
Okay, fine, both of you shut up.