bogbrush Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 All the best rail services in the world are state run. You fail Bogbrush-san 1. Our totally capitalist food provision system is brilliant. 2. Our state controlled rail system (and it is, be sure of it) isn't. 3. This thread is actually about how we could learn the lessons of food and apply them to house building. Do pay attention.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 1. Our totally capitalist food provision system is brilliant.2. Our state controlled rail system (and it is, be sure of it) isn't. 3. This thread is actually about how we could learn the lessons of food and apply them to house building. Do pay attention.... A poorly funded rail system beit state run or otherwise is going to be poor. You asserted that state run rail services are poor, I simply blew your ridiculous argument into a million pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 A poorly funded rail system beit state run or otherwise is going to be poor. You asserted that state run rail services are poor, I simply blew your ridiculous argument into a million pieces. The key to it all isn;t the amount fo money, it's how the money is got. Forced money always sucks. Free money always works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) The key to it all isn;t the amount fo money, it's how the money is got. Forced money always sucks. Free money always works. You have examples of privately run national rail networks that are successful? Edited July 3, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (bogbrush @ Jul 3 2009, 04:42 PM) *It occured to me on another thread that the best way to illustrate the shortcomings of centrally planned industries - including things like the trains, which doesn't resemble a private sector as I understand it - would be to imagine the centrally planned solution to perhaps the most important public service of all, food provision. We know that the capitalist solution gives us unbelievable choice from across the World, long term falling prices, great quality and tremendous availablity.... No we don't - but if you want to believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden who am I to stop you? Anything in addition to "No we don't - but if you want to believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden who am I to stop you?" Edit: We have about 90% chain efficiency, the reason for imports is non native and the supply chain works in ways no one would have though possible. Edited July 3, 2009 by Tom Peters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Great example bogbrush. What is more important than food.. and we trust that to a basically completely open free market. Fail. Food is heavily regulated: what chemicals and seeds farmers can/can't use, how much fish they can catch, hygiene standards for processors and retailers, etc. I'm sure some of those regulations are highly necessary, others more questionable, but I wouldn't presume to be more specific. And it delivers through droughts, through the huge oil spike last year, all without any central planning. You donèt even need a state granted liscence from a higher learning center in order to be a farmer. Thank Tescos for that. And of course Morrisons, Sainsburys, Coop, etc. They are genuinely very good at managing big businesses with complex logistics and supply chains. Bogbrush's point is right: these companies do a vastly better job than the state could ever do. But farmers are a different kettle of fish. Oh, and they're all subject to planning regulations. Housing without adequate planning regulation is disastrous enough in sparsely-populated New Zealand, and would be utterly catastrophic in overcrowded UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 You have examples of privately run national rail networks that are successful? The free market delivers what people want at a price they're willing to pay, if that's at all possible. Trains are expensive, inconvenient and decidely inferior to pretty much all their competitors. Few people are willing to pay the real cost of a 'national rail network', which is why they only exist when the government is free to steal money from people who don't want one to subsidise those who do. Trains are an attempt to apply 19th century solutions to 21st century problems, which only a fool or a lefty would regard as a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spp Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 No need to read the posts...every man for themselves! Who the £$%^ are government when TSHTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The key to it all isn;t the amount fo money, it's how the money is got. Forced money always sucks. Free money always works. So much for talking with facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The free market delivers what people want at a price they're willing to pay, if that's at all possible.Trains are expensive, inconvenient and decidely inferior to pretty much all their competitors. Few people are willing to pay the real cost of a 'national rail network', which is why they only exist when the government is free to steal money from people who don't want one to subsidise those who do. Trains are an attempt to apply 19th century solutions to 21st century problems, which only a fool or a lefty would regard as a good idea. Trains are not not perfect by any means, but what is your alternative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Trains are not not perfect by any means, but what is your alternative? You don't see a problem in asking the guy who advocates free markets what his dictaorial solutions to problems are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Trains are expensive, inconvenient and decidely inferior to pretty much all their competitors. Erm ... Thought experiment. Try charging motorists as much per death as the rail industry pays, bearing in mind that the latter includes the huge cost of public inquiries, "must never happen again" works and months/years of disruption, as well as compensation payouts. If you're an average person, your motor insurance will exceed your gross salary. If you're a young person, that'll be by a factor approaching 100:1. Take those costs off the rail industry, and it'd be a damn site cheaper. Oh, and with the immeasurable bonus of not keeping a generation of children imprisoned in their homes for (parental) fear of road danger. [edit to add] Those who think the private sector can't run railways, look at Switzerland, to take but one example. Edited July 4, 2009 by porca misèria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patfig Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 then you would have to let some gov't official shag your wife just to get bread. Might save you a job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunK BeaR Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Why then is the state involved in house provision? Why do we have planning laws restricting activity, and investment programmes where the state commissions new house building? It seems to me that the (apalling) state of home provision reflects very accurately the mess that food provision would be if the state ran it. So isn't the solution to home availability and right prices just obvious? The usual agrument trotted out for state interference via the planning system is due to the market failure from negative environmental externalities. eg You build a new house in your garden, it blocks light into your neighbours garden resulting in a loss of their 'residential amenity' yet this is not reflected in the build cost of the new house. On a larger scale, if you build 1000 houses you increase burden on local infrastructure, maybe destroy a bit of woodland etc etc The state tries to internalise these externalities by either charging developers for these additional costs or not allowing development at all. IMO the market can adequately deal with many of these problems especially the infrastructure one. People wont buy houses if they dont have a sewerage connection and wont live in an area where there are no school places for their kids. Also they seem to think it is the developers responsibility to fork out for this stuff. However, it is not the developer who burdens the infrastructure, it the residents of the new houses and these costs should be met through tax and NI. As for neighbours squabbling over extensions etc they can work these problems out themselves and dont need the state sticking their nose in. As for social housing, they seem to think the market cant deliver which is nonsense. Taking the example of food, you get food ranging from cheap Savers products to more expensive varieties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 You don't see a problem in asking the guy who advocates free markets what his dictaorial solutions to problems are? Where did I ask what his dictatorial solutions were? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Where did I ask what his dictatorial solutions were? "Trains are not not perfect by any means, but what is your alternative?" If he could provide an alternative that would suit the wishes of millions of people, then we wouldn't need to ask them or have a market, we'd just have to ask him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 "Trains are not not perfect by any means, but what is your alternative?"If he could provide an alternative that would suit the wishes of millions of people, then we wouldn't need to ask them or have a market, we'd just have to ask him. So I didnt ask him what his dictatorial solutions were. YOU said that to try to make a point. You seem to make assumptions about what people think, extrapulate to the extreme, twist words, never commit to anything tanglible. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, for all your bluster you should be a politician! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patfig Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 So I didnt ask him what his dictatorial solutions were. YOU said that to try to make a point. You seem to make assumptions about what people think, extrapulate to the extreme, twist words, never commit to anything tanglible. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, for all your bluster you should be a politician! She is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 So I didnt ask him what his dictatorial solutions were. Yes, you did. YOU said that to try to make a point.You seem to make assumptions about what people think, extrapulate to the extreme, twist words, never commit to anything tanglible. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, for all your bluster you should be a politician! Except what I wrote was a logical consequence of your post. Once more you completely ignore any point I raise and just go straight to the attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Yes, you did. Except what I wrote was a logical consequence of your post. Once more you completely ignore any point I raise and just go straight to the attacks. Maybe you could link to my actual words? No? Oh, thats because I didnt say them! I asked what his alternative were - a genuine question. Not some crap about state sponsored voilence or wherever your train of thought would end up (usually state collapse and hyperinflation!). I was hoping for more of a debate about transport options, practical alternatives to railways. How moving millions of people from the railways could be dealt with. Your 'logic' is flawed Injin. Not every thread has to be turned into the Injin show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Maybe you could link to my actual words? No? Oh, thats because I didnt say them! I asked what his alternative were - a genuine question. Not some crap about state sponsored voilence or wherever your train of thought would end up (usually state collapse and hyperinflation!). I was hoping for more of a debate about transport options, practical alternatives to railways. How moving millions of people from the railways could be dealt with. And if he knew, then there wouldn't need to be a market. Simple question for you - what are we all going to eat for tea tomorrow night? Your 'logic' is flawed Injin. Not every thread has to be turned into the Injin show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 You have examples of privately run national rail networks that are successful? Japan. Prior to privatisation in 1987 JNR was the world's most loss making enterprise, as well as suffering the other ailments of a state-owned industry. It was then split up into regional lines that have operated profitably and efficiently ever since. The privatisation of the rail system in Japan disproves the dogma that railways "must" be state run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Simple question for you - what are we all going to eat for tea tomorrow night? Food for most us - the ones lucky enough to live in a country where thats possible. Where there is no state, and warlords rule - or where there are droughts or floods. Maybe nothing. Thankfully, all those who post here will have a meal later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Food for most us - the ones lucky enough to live in a country where thats possible. Where there is no state, and warlords rule - or where there are droughts or floods. Maybe nothing. Thankfully, all those who post here will have a meal later. Simple question for you - what are we all going to eat for tea tomorrow night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Simple question for you - what are we all going to eat for tea tomorrow night? I dont know what you will be eating - I shall be having a Sunday Roasty (but without the meat). You are free to have whatever you want. Simple question for you - how old are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.