this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
171 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

70528 readers
3631 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It's a service that costs money to maintain

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes it is. Luckily we have a system of taxation. By ‘free’ I mean of course ‘at the point of use’. We could provide 100% subsidies for mass transportation for probably around 100 years before we would approach equity with the subsidies we have given to fossil fuels and private transportation.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The reason people don't use public transport is because right now it absolutely sucks in most places if you want more people to use them then they need to be privatised so a business that actually has an insentive to provide a good service can take over and make them great ( for example look at Japan). This way you can also lower taxes a bit which is great for the economy

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Oh I agree. Use cost is one major problem, quality and non-existence is the other. However privatization is neoliberal bullshit. It doesn’t guarantee quality. It guarantees that profits will be extracted and therefore use cost will increase and/or quality will decrease.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Companies actually have to make their customers happy, if there is adequate competition it will definitely work out, if you look at almost any industry (that isn't overegulated) the customers are satisfied, companies have real insentives governments don't.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is no competition for train lines. That is just stupid. Also multiple competing local bus services is equally stupid. Some services just don’t fit in the neoliberal model.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Ther's no competition if you have a bureaucrats approving only specific train lines if you just live it to the free market it'll be alright

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I’ll try this slowly: it would be idiotic to have multiple rail systems providing the same routes.

Please research ‘natural monopolies’ because that is the history of the unregulated development of the rail industry. If you are going to spout right-libertarian ideology, at least have some understanding of the history of capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ther's nothing wrong with having many rail systems serve the same route but the bureaucracts won't let it happen, which is exactly how monopolies are formed. If the government only approves one company to build a train somewhere of course it's going to be a monopoly. Monopolies cannot happen in a completely free market, without artificial boundaries competition will always be able to provide a service more attractive to consumers expect if the established company is providing an excellent service

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

yes please i really want even more of my already-overpopulated living space consumed by redundant concrete and metal, sounds great!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

roads and car infrastructure costs money to maintain, but anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free

Anyone with a car is paying additional taxes for fuel and car registration.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Those typically don’t cover all of transportation dept budgets, and fuel taxes are on the permanent decline.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Ticket prices don't cover the full costs of train infrastructure and maintenance either. The point is the statement "anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free" is demonstrably false and using a demonstrably false statement as a counterpoint is...inadvisable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Felt there was an implicit understanding that cars need gas, but yeah that’s fair.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I should have specified “… can use the infrastructure for free”. The car will cost money, but you can only use it because everyone subsidises roads, bridges, parking and much more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Car drivers are demonstrably paying taxes for the ability to drive on public roads, they are demonstrably not "using the infrastructure for free". They pay taxes for every mile they drive on a public road. Gas is taxed and cars have regular registration taxes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Not to mention, roads are also used for logistics.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

fuel tax in the US is a joke, in Europe it’s higher but still doesn’t cover anywhere near the infrastructure cost.

This video illustrates it nicely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Ther's ussually tolls there too