Sell the Roads!

[Stranger]

@liberty student

@Stranger

This is not an argument based on economic theory, only hearsay and personal prejudice.

You’re right. It isn’t based on whatever flavour of theory we are on today. It is based on observation. A = A.

It does seem somewhat contradictory to argue against open immigration because it creates increased welfare pressure from the state but want to privatize a road, without recognizing that it’s a losing deal because at best, the public is still on the hook (someone must maintain that necessary road, even if the private firm mismanages it) without any of the upside (potential profit, goodwill, etc).

Privatization without competition is monopoly by it’s original definition.

We’re quibbling over whether a private state monopoly is preferable to a public state monopoly. It’s still the same paradigm.

Why wouldn’t there be competition in the road market once it were privatized? You simply assumed this would be the case to make the argument for continuing communal ownership. You also employed the argument that rightful owners would not get enough of the rent from the privatization to make the case for continuing communal ownership. In fact every argument employed by the anti-privatization crowd has led to continuing communal ownership.

That leads to only one conclusion: you are in favor of communal ownership, an anti-economic policy. Any form of privatization, monopolistic or otherwise, is preferable to communal ownership towards economizing scarce goods. It doesn’t appear that any of you care about wealth at all. In fact you claim it is the same paradigm.

By the way I’ve never made the argument against immigration based on welfare programs, I’ve made it based purely on the preservation of wealth.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

Why wouldn’t there be competition in the road market once it were privatized?

Changing the ownership structure of a state firm to a private firm, doesn’t change the regulatory burdens that were placed on the state firm. And I would actually consider it more likely that the state would increase regulation once a firm was privatized, arguing that those darn private operators better be as competent as the bureaucrats were!

@Stranger

You simply assumed this would be the case to make the argument for continuing communal ownership.

Not at all. Perhaps you have misunderstood me.

@Stranger

You also employed the argument that rightful owners would not get enough of the rent from the privatization to make the case for continuing communal ownership.

I don’t recall making that argument.

@Stranger

In fact every argument employed by the anti-privatization crowd has led to continuing communal ownership.

That’s a strawman. I’m not in the anti-privatization crowd. I am for privatization, I just understand it is meaningless without deregulation. To say that privatization is a positive, excluding deregulation from the discussion altogether is false as far as I can see. You’re merely re-arranging deck chairs.

@Stranger

That leads to only one conclusion: you are in favor of communal ownership, an anti-economic policy.

Should I just forget the rest because it seems we have a misunderstanding here?

@Stranger

It doesn’t appear that any of you care about wealth at all.

“Any of you”? You can speak to me directly, and quote me specifically. It makes for less strawmen when people are precise in their refutations. It is too easy to block quote a post, then attribute whatever meaning or statements you want to it. That’s a tactic too frequently used on this forum, and I think it is not good form in debate.

@Stranger

Any form of privatization, monopolistic or otherwise, is preferable to communal ownership towards economizing scarce goods.

Without competition, I am curious to know how you can make this statement? Because private owners will be inclined to pursue profit for their own well being? I acknowledge that. But they will also choose the path of least resistance, which means charging more than a competitive market rate, delivering a lower level of service, allowing capital goods to wear out or become obsolete, and lastly, spending 1% of what they could expect in government subsidy should they run at a loss, by engaging in graft.

A free market monopoly is the most efficient firm. A state monopoly is the least efficient, the ownership structure not-withstanding. They get their bonuses whether the taxpayer is funding billion dollar bailouts to keep the firm afloat or not. Because they have no competition, they will always be “too big to fail”. Only competing roads can make privatized roads work. Stossel points that out in one of his recent pieces, where the public and private lanes operate side by side.

@Stranger

By the way I’ve never made the argument against immigration based on welfare programs, I’ve made it based purely on the preservation of wealth.

It’s the same argument. We’re on the same page on immigration, but I don’t think you’re using the same logic you use for immigration as applied to privatization of public goods.

[Stranger]

I can’t read those quote-bombs. If you had any points to make please wrap them up concisely.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

I can’t read those quote-bombs. If you had any points to make please wrap them up concisely.

Your inability to argue specifically was evident in your last post.

[Juan]

Any form of privatization, monopolistic or otherwise, is preferable to communal ownership towards economizing scarce goods. It doesn’t appear that any of you care about wealth at all.

You’re misusing economics and you don’t care about freedom. Why don’t you preach your ‘privatization’ mantra to wall street bankers and the like ? I’m sure they’ll love it.

[hayekianxyz]

It’s not relevant if he cares about freedom, but he’s correct.

[Brainpolice]

@Juan

Any form of privatization, monopolistic or otherwise, is preferable to communal ownership towards economizing scarce goods. It doesn’t appear that any of you care about wealth at all.

You’re misusing economics and you don’t care about freedom. Why don’t you preach your ‘privatization’ mantra to wall street bankers and the like ? I’m sure they’ll love it.

Haha. This is a joke. Don’t care about wealth? Well I care about justice primarily. Unlike those who only care about superficial judgements of economic utility (which are based on a misuse of economics) and don’t give a shit about justice - only wealth for its own sake. eyeroll @ libertarians advocating top-down privatization schemes

[hayekianxyz]

@liberty student

And that is checkmate.

Apparently so.

[wombatron]

@liberty student

Yeah, however, just because someone hired you to fix the toilet, doesn’t mean you own the healthspa. These people working on or with property, in many cases are government agents, receiving 100% tax provided income (fruits of theft) and based upon your notion of workers getting to appropriate, would have the highest claim to plunder even further.

Here’s my question for you, then: if there is no way to determine who was taxed to pay for it, and the company that currently has the land is 99% private, what happens?

This really isn’t a left-vs.-right thing, its just a straight application of Rothbard’s restitution theory.

[liberty_student]

@GilesStratton

It’s not relevant if he cares about freedom, but he’s correct.

I’m not sure if we agree or not, but Stranger’s position fails on utilitarianism. There is no difference between a private state monopoly and a public state monopoly except the ownership structure. He maintains a private state monopoly would manage capital differently, but observation is to the contrary.

Changing the ownership structure is like changing from a leftist government to a rightist government. It’s lipstick on a pig.

The only meaningful privatization is when there is deregulation. Then it is irrelevant who gets the privatized (former) government firm. Folks can start competitive firms.

[hayekianxyz]

@wombatron

Here’s my question for you, then: if there is no way to determine who was taxed to pay for it, and the company that currently has the land is 99% private, what happens?

And here’s mine for you: what do you propose then, instead of giving it to the taxpayers (let’s assume this is implausible).

[liberty_student]

@wombatron

Here’s my question for you, then: if there is no way to determine who was taxed to pay for it, and the company that currently has the land is 99% private, what happens?

You can’t determine if taxes were paid, and who if anyone paid any taxes, or just not able to specify which individuals and their appropriated funds in particular own the good?

@wombatron

This really isn’t a left-vs.-right thing, its just a straight application of Rothbard’s restitution theory.

Which I think I have shown to be wanting. And you’re correct. It is not left vs. right. It is right vs. wrong.

[Stranger]

@liberty student

I’m not sure if we agree or not, but Stranger’s position fails on utilitarianism. There is no difference between a private state monopoly and a public state monopoly except the ownership structure. He maintains a private state monopoly would manage capital differently, but observation is to the contrary.

If I remember correctly, one of the fundamental principles of praxeology is that observation cannot invalidate an economic statement, but that an economic statement can invalidate observation.

No suprise that you are wrong on privatization, you don’t understand economics at all.

[hayekianxyz]

My point was merely that Stranger is correct on economic grounds, a private monopoly is better on economic grounds than a public monopoly. A private monopolist can expect a stream of income extending into the future and as a result of time preference will choose not to engage in capital consumption, this stands in contrast to a public monopoly in which each individual will attempt to gain what they can from their priviledged status whilst they can, with capital consumption being the result.

@liberty student

The only meaningful privatization is when there is deregulation. Then it is irrelevant who gets the privatized (former) government firm. Folks can start competitive firms.

Agreed, from an economic perspective it, provided deregulation occurs, it does not matter who gets the assets in question, in the long run proft and loss will ensure the correct distribution of the assets in question.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

It’s not relevant if he[Stranger] cares about freedom,

Oh really ?

but he’s correct.

Correct about what ? Roads can be used as a commons of sorts with minimal or no problems. Roads are just a piece of land. I’m sure that a chip fab can’t be run as ‘communal’ property. But a sidewalk ? Come on.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

Correct about what ?

That private ownership will always be more efficient than public ownership.

[liberty_student]

@GilesStratton

A private monopolist can expect a stream of income extending into the future and as a result of time preference will choose not to engage in capital consumption…

This is not a given.

[liberty_student]

@GilesStratton

@Juan

Correct about what ?

That private ownership will always be more efficient than public ownership.

But it’s not real private ownership. There is no incentive not to fail. Efficiency is a product of competition, not private ownership in and of itself.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

No suprise that you are wrong on privatization, you don’t understand economics at all.

Back for more? And all full up with strawmen. Great! [:D]

[Juan]

@Stranger

No suprise that you are wrong on privatization, you don’t understand economics at all.

Or perhaps you don’t. So you misapply the theory and when your misapplied theory doesn’t match the facts you claim that the facts don’t exist…Amusing.