Is the T even worth the trouble? (Boston: daycare, purchase)

[Dm84]

Look the real issue is the MBTA is a monopoly. Without competition they have no incentive to provide good service and are able to bleed the public dry in the process.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

So corporations create corruption and are the source of the common man's problems, while the government with its millions and millions of employees and various police forces, their Air Force, Navy, National Guard, Army, etc. just sit passively around waving their fists in disgust?

I never said nor implied any such thing.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Not sure I see how that works. Without the coercive state, corporations have to rely on their customers to succeed. By the way, "corporation" is a state-assigned designation. A "corporation" can't exist without the state, right from the get go.

I don't find it to be coercion for the government to protect is from the excessive externalities and activities of corporations which the market can't (without regulation) capture.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Not sure how transit is "more than a consumer service." Food is pretty vital. Should we nationalize the production and distribution of food? Without it, we will all die. Hear it has worked well in Caracas.

There is absolutely a national role in the production of food (we have it now) and in the inspection of food for health and security reasons (which the corporations work hard every year to reduce as it impacts their bottom line).

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

^Not trying to start talking about food, just showing the logic of your statement, as I perceive it (crucial things should be state controlled). Who gets to decide what is "crucial?" And why? What are the criteria?

Things become crucial when their failing becomes incredibly damaging to the entire economy and the people of the Nation, and the fallout reaches further than stockholders and employees. Education, infrastructure, food, medicine, national security, etc (and others) are things that should never ever every be let solely to the whims of the marketplace.

I think most every rationale person understands libertarianism is a nice thing to chat about over a beer, but its completely (thankfully) unworkable in the real world.

[scratchie]

Originally Posted by Dm84

Look the real issue is the MBTA is a monopoly. Without competition they have no incentive to provide good service and are able to bleed the public dry in the process.

So the solution is to build a competing subway?

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by scratchie

So the solution is to build a competing subway?

No. However the government is notorious for not holding itself accountable. You could argue we do by voting but in Massachusetts pretty much the entire legislature is controlled and run by one party who literally has no fear of being removed from office.

The legislature won't come down on the MBTA for its compensation practices because the MBTA unions fund the candidates who run for office.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Dm84

No. However the government is notorious for not holding itself accountable. You could argue we do by voting but in Massachusetts pretty much the entire legislature is controlled and run by one party who literally has no fear of being removed from office.

The legislature won't come down on the MBTA for its compensation practices because the MBTA unions fund the candidates who run for office.

Private business is notorious for not being accountable to society. It's often not accountable to its own shareholders (and no, the rank and files shareholders don't choose the board in reality).

[MMS02760]

Is driving a car even worth the trouble?


It just seems like driving problems become more and more of a nightmare.

Cars are so expensive to purchase and maintain. There are excise taxes, insurance, repairs, and gas costs. The roads are clogged with so much traffic and the condition of roads are so bad. Is it really worth having having a car?

I'm starting to think it's a conspiracy. I think the government would prefer less people driving because the road infrastructure can't handle the volume and the state can't seem to afford to make any improvements.

Driving is no longer convenient. It makes people angry and late.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by MMS02760

I'm starting to think it's a conspiracy. I think the government would prefer less people driving because the road infrastructure can't handle the volume and the state can't seem to afford to make any improvements.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. It's actually prudent urban planning. If you build more roads and widen roads problems are never solved, there is just more and more traffic with the associated problems, from quality of life to health issues, as well as the negative economic impacts.

Sadly, what I think is going on here isn't due to good urban planning, but just poor leadership.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I never said nor implied any such thing.



I don't find it to be coercion for the government to protect is from the excessive externalities and activities of corporations which the market can't (without regulation) capture.



There is absolutely a national role in the production of food (we have it now) and in the inspection of food for health and security reasons (which the corporations work hard every year to reduce as it impacts their bottom line).



Things become crucial when their failing becomes incredibly damaging to the entire economy and the people of the Nation, and the fallout reaches further than stockholders and employees. Education, infrastructure, food, medicine, national security, etc (and others) are things that should never ever every be let solely to the whims of the marketplace.

I think most every rationale person understands libertarianism is a nice thing to chat about over a beer, but its completely (thankfully) unworkable in the real world.

You did imply that by blaming state created corporations for corruption. I'm pointing out how that's flawed.

Again, corporations aren't necessarily market-oriented. See my post a few back.

Also, food inspection does not have to be nationalized to exist. You're also not addressing what I brought up, which was the production and distribution of food. Should the government additionally come around to inspect the tomatoes I grow in my yard? And isn't the production of the food more important than the inspection of it? Without the former, the latter is impossible. Why shouldn't the production be nationalized, in your view?

In your definition of "crucial" you use other words such as "incredibly damaging" that I think need criteria. What does that even mean? Don't really buy the notion that education, medicine, etc. need to be government controlled. They exist/have existed at various times without the state. Much of the reasons for less than ideal conditions of education and such things are in many ways caused by intervention.

I think most every rational person understands progressivism is a nice thing to chat about over a beer, but it's completely unworkable in the real world. Just a matter of time to find this out. Well, students of history already know this. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. already have tried your nationalized systems of education, medicine, food, etc. What have the results been overall? Instead of relying on the "expert" direction from "intellectuals" to control all conceivable things for all conceivable people, isn't it easier to let people make their own decisions?

Might want to check out a new book my Princeton's Thomas C. Leonard called Illiberal Reformers. Paints a chilling picture of where your progressive ideals actually historically originate. That is, if you care to entertain ideas that don't conform to your already held beliefs.

It really is a shame that people such as yourself have fallen so far from the liberal traditions that gave the United States the most massive shift from poverty to wealth in the shortest amount of time ever of any place in history.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

You did imply that by blaming state created corporations for corruption. I'm pointing out how that's flawed.

Primarily for it yes, that isn't that flawed. It works in concert with our flawed system that sees money as speech and a host of other corporate personhood issues. I never said public institutions don't have any responsibility, nor implied it. They do often work in concert due to the overwhelming purchasing of our private sector by business. Food production companies have purchased the FDA and bought politicians to defund it. Is that a failure of business or public institutions? I would say primarily business, then our system.

This is a large way in which business harms our public institutions. They purchase the system, defund the regulators that exist to keep them honest because the marketplace failed, then point the fingers at the agencies they actively conspired against and blame those regulatory agencies which don't have the tools they need to do their job thanks to those same businesses. It's totally insane.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Also, food inspection does not have to be nationalized to exist. You're also not addressing what I brought up, which was the production and distribution of food. Should the government additionally come around to inspect the tomatoes I grow in my yard?

If you are selling them, yes, absolutely they should have that right.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

In your definition of "crucial" you use other words such as "incredibly damaging" that I think need criteria. What does that even mean? Don't really buy the notion that education, medicine, etc. need to be government controlled. They exist/have existed at various times without the state. Much of the reasons for less than ideal conditions of education and such things are in many ways caused by intervention.

Almost without fail (i'm sure there are some exceptions), when government gets involved it is due to a failure of the marketplace. If the marketplace was supplying education to every single person in society (as we do with primary education) efficiently and economically, then government wouldn't have become involved.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I think most every rational person understands progressivism is a nice thing to chat about over a beer, but it's completely unworkable in the real world. Just a matter of time to find this out.

And yet as we've become more and more conservative in our society, our standard of living, wages, happiness, etc have all declined. While other countries that have widely adopted progressive ideals have flourished. We have the best doctors (etc) in the world, but one of the worst, if not the worst, health care system in the world. There is a reason while every other western nation have single payer health care. It is better and more efficient, more fair and more economical.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Might want to check out a new book my Princeton's Thomas C. Leonard called Illiberal Reformers. Paints a chilling picture of where your progressive ideals actually historically originate. That is, if you care to entertain ideas that don't conform to your already held beliefs.

I know the author, but I've not read that book.The brief online makes it seems like he is worried about things like the founders of Planned Parenthood's messed up beliefs, which just seems to be an expansion of a piece I read of his in some economic journal from Duke. It was interesting as a historical analysis re eugenics and other such things, but has nothing to do with those people trying to improve our country and the world today.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Primarily for it yes, that isn't that flawed. It works in concert with our flawed system that sees money as speech and a host of other corporate personhood issues. I never said public institutions don't have any responsibility, nor implied it. They do often work in concert due to the overwhelming purchasing of our private sector by business. Food production companies have purchased the FDA and bought politicians to defund it. Is that a failure of business or public institutions? I would say primarily business, then our system.

We agree that institutions that use state power to their advantage are in the wrong.

This is a large way in which business harms our public institutions. They purchase the system, defund the regulators that exist to keep them honest because the marketplace failed, then point the fingers at the agencies they actively conspired against and blame those regulatory agencies which don't have the tools they need to do their job thanks to those same businesses. It's totally insane.

Not sure how anyone other than the state can alter the state's budgets. But yes, those that use state power to their advantage are in the wrong.



[quote]If you are selling them, yes, absolutely they should have that right. [\QUOTE]
On what grounds? The idea that two people (buyer and seller) don't know what's best for them and someone else does (a regulator/group of regulators in this case) seems to be the implication.

Almost without fail (i'm sure there are some exceptions), when government gets involved it is due to a failure of the marketplace. If the marketplace was supplying education to every single person in society (as we do with primary education) efficiently and economically, then government wouldn't have become involved.

I find this extremely naive. Government likes power over others. That's the whole point of government.

And yet as we've become more and more conservative in our society, our standard of living, wages, happiness, etc have all declined. While other countries that have widely adopted progressive ideals have flourished. We have the best doctors (etc) in the world, but one of the worst, if not the worst, health care system in the world. There is a reason while every other western nation have single payer health care. It is better and more efficient, more fair and more economical.

Citations needed BIG TIME here.

I know the author, but I've not read that book.The brief online makes it seems like he is worried about things like the founders of Planned Parenthood's messed up beliefs, which just seems to be an expansion of a piece I read of his in some economic journal from Duke. It was interesting as a historical analysis re eugenics and other such things, but has nothing to do with those people trying to improve our country and the world today.

Hmm funny... Planned Parenthood not mentioned even once in the 56 pages of footnotes and index. I'm merely suggesting you find information yourself and form your own opinions instead of deferring to others, whether that be Barack Obama or an economic journal from Duke. I recommend actually reading things, not immediately using someone else's ideas about whatever the source in question is. Fittingly, this is kinda the main problem demonstrated throughout the book. Guess that makes a lot of sense.

If time is the issue, here's a good primer: https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/otherbel.pdf

Anyway, apologies to the others in the forum that are more interested in discussing the general inefficiency, wastefulness, and questionable worth of the MBTA. Proceed!