A Solution to the Economic Problem

That might have been the case at some time in the distant past. Our government has become nothing more than a facilitator for the people who have the cash to bend its ear.

 

Perhaps it's time to abolish it.

 

This is not really true. People 'who have the cash' are going to invest that money no matter what the US government does. Maybe 50-60 years ago when most Americans invested in the USA in some form or fashion...but today we operate in a global economy. If I can't get what I want with my money in the USA, I'll just invest it outside of the USA...it's really this simple...

 

I think most people agree that the time is right for major structural changes.

 

[video=youtube;jg4GbDaCXCg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg4GbDaCXCg[/video]

[video=youtube;s-cEtBlWqis]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-cEtBlWqis[/video]

60% of Iowa Republicans say the debt worries them the most.

Yes it does, if you work at a corporation and they say they are going to fire and replace 15% of you, you are going to get your act together to avoid being fired. Why would you not?

Seriously, just google it...

Roads are 1.904% of the US's yearly budget, which costs 43 billion a year. however this spending saves us money due to damage to cars caused by bad roads, which costs Americans 67 billion a year. This would be greatly larger if we didn't maintain our roads, so this spending is good.

So how would giving roads to the private sector even work? Would you make Walmart responsible for them since it depends on them?

 

Agreed, the State has failed to live up to its promise. That's why I'm a post-statist. It's time for voluntary, non-criminal governmental systems.

 

On this website; http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm in the category of national priorities, just looking at the polls in 2012, for the 8 polls they did, on average, the concern about deficit/debt is 10.75%.

And those Iowa Republicans and all others are giving answers that are from bad questions! If you ask people are they concerned most will say yes. But if you ask these same people if their taxes must increase and government services be decreased, in order to deal with the deficit/debt, you'll be lucky to get 1-2% to agree!

This is the problem with polls and videos and political BS; ask stupid questions and get stupid answers.

Wal-Mart does not depend any more on roads than you do. We have private roads and bridges today in the USA. But they are toll roads/bridges which I hate because of the toll booths and traffic jams so just get payment in the form of taxation in which everyone pays a little...like they do now with gas taxes.

 

Way to avoid each candidate's solution to the economy, you should of at least tell me each plan would fail horribly based on your first 3 minute impression of it.

Well anyway you're asking bad questions as well, you want to find concern on fixing the deficit so you go to polls asking people to say what they think is most important, and of course people are going to say the economy/jobs and our wars are more important. How do you know the people who rank economy/jobs first wouldn't rank the debt second?

On the Reuters/Ipsos Poll the debt crisis placed second next to jobs on whether or not it's crucial. Does second mean the problem is completely ignored? Hell no.

So now address why you think what both candidates are doing to reduce the deficit is actually completely ignoring the problem.

Way to avoid the question, again. How would privatized roads even work?

 

You could utilise some form of GPS technology. By paying per mile used you could also perceivably link it with a price correction for generated pollution. It would be a technical exercise into generating a perceived efficient result. The problems of course are equity and possible long term perverse incentives (e.g. there would be an attack on rural life, with a further shift in urban living)

 

But who would be incharge of the roads?

 

It wouldn't be difficult to use some form of contestable markets, with contracts provided according to a competitive tendering process.

 

If stupid questions are asked you will get stupid answers!

It makes zero difference if people 'feel' strongly about deficits/debt. Ask how much these same people are willing to facilitate change in order to deal with deficits/debt and you will really see how they feel! People do not want higher taxes and they do not want less government...it is IMPOSSIBLE to deal with deficits and debt without higher taxes and less government. What you need to do is think about how many 0's are in our deficit/debt...the answer is 12 of them...which means these are extraordinarily large numbers. Numbers this large require large actions. People DO NOT like large actions.

The ONLY reason politicians talk about this is for the dogma of politics. Try to pin down either candidate how they will achieve balanced budgets, or reduced deficits, or reduced debt and they will disappear faster than a ham sandwich within ten feet of Oprah!

YOUR Reuters/Ipsos poll is the same; ask stupid questions and get stupid answers.

One way to privatize roads without toll booths is to use what we use in CA...FastTrac devices that are electronically monitored so when we cross a toll bridge it automatically deducts $6 from our account. These same devices can be used on toll roads. The state can also use taxation to pay a private contractor; like so much per mile of road or per quantity of cars?? Anything is possible.

BTW; Neither of the presidential candidates can do much about the deficits/debt. Congress must approve this stuff so it is Congress that must deal with deficits and debt and get the approval of the president. Do you actually believe Obama or Romney can win the election if they run on raising everyone's federal taxes by 5%? Be realistic...

 

Very bad idea. You'd shift road usage from tolled roads to non-tolled roads, leading to increases in congestion and costs for both individual and firm alike

 

It would be identical to the federal government contracting the management of Yellowstone Park to a private enterprise. The private company bids for the project. When selected they manage the project and receive payment in whatever fashion works.

I can envision large construction companies who would love to have these opportunities; they have the equipment, the skill-set, and the manpower. It allows them a more stable workforce yet still bid other jobs...

 

We already have toll roads and bridges, and although there are 'sometimes' alternatives to these, most of the time there is not. Major roads/freeways and bridges are going to be used by the masses no matter what. A few cheap-skates will find other routes. I can't think of all the solutions but I'm sure with today's technologies it is feasible...

 

They're usually in very specific circumstances: e.g. a key bridge that uses tolling to pay for private investment; a toll road used in conjunction with public roads to control localised congestion. Privatising a significant proportion of the road system will certainly lead to negative spillover effects.

It would have to be a complete privatisation. Even then there will be equity issues, perverse effects and the maximisation of costs from contracting competitions (leading to an increase in waste)

 

Complete privatization is one answer but again we already have toll roads and bridges in the USA and they are working. If a few of them can work then more of them can work. Supposedly our roads and bridges are funded with gasoline taxes. This can stay as it is. The government can simply contract with private companies to manage/maintain/rebuild roads and bridges for some fixed fee. They would need to be long-term contracts and they would pay some amount per foot or mile, or per meter or kilometer. It would be very complex to convert all roads but even converting 50% of them out of government day-to-day would benefit...

 

Again, they're used in very particular circumstances. Even a gradual shift towards privatisation could have substantially negative effects. We're referring to a 'product' which has public good characteristics. A 'private answer' would have to be radical and extremely complicated if it is to avoid the well-being losses associated with using the market for public good provision

 

It would be invisible to the user! They wouldn't know if they are driving on public or private roads. The contract is between the government and the private contractor. The identical amount of federal or fuel taxes will be collected...invisible to the consumer. We should privatize airports. Roads. Bridges. Parks. Recreational areas. Ports. Remove as much day-to-day from government while maintaining the same or more integrity/quality of services with arms-length regulation from government...

 

You'd only be increasing the inefficiency associated with contracting competition. It becomes a 'race to the bottom', with quality controls becoming a regulation nightmare (see, for example, the inefficiencies generated in British rail privatisation)

 

If the government is not involved in the day-to-day managing these programs, the government can place all it's efforts in defining the requirements of the contracts. Citizens can be the watch-dogs. Severe penalties can be in place for those who do not fulfill the contract requirements.

If a federal government is incapable of proper management of contracts, then remove this from the feds and place it with the lowest government levels which can provide the most direct in intense monitoring....

 

Have a look at the disastrous result of British 'privatise and regulate' railways. That will give you an idea of what to expect.

There is no such thing as perfect contracting. The imperfections involved will assuredly lead to pricing and quality problems

 

To his point though we could look at the Chilean bus system, where attempts to bring it under the public umbrella had disastrous results.

The private system was chaotic, drivers were paid per rider so would fight fiercely over passengers. When the state took over they switched to a hub/spoke system, bought new buses and paid the drivers to be on time. The result? The buses were to big to make turns on their narrow streets, the hub/spoke system left many riders with long walks to stops and the drivers would drive right past passengers. I'm not as familiar with the rail system in the UK, but the public system here in Atlanta is a mess.

 

Some of the most expensive 'per mile' trips in the world. Awfully uncunning for a country with infrastructure problems

 

That's unfortunate, same deal with Amtrak very similar tale, was the UK rails system also started by the state (Nixon brought us Amtrak)? If that's the case it'd be easy to argue that the rail system was never economical without subsidy to begin with and that the high price per mile more accurately reflects the value they provide.

I guess we can talk about trains, akphidelt is back on his real account.