The debate "Amtrak should be privatized" was started by
February 1, 2018, 11:13 am.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
lachlan posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 10 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan, Against_eu and 2 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Slymcfly and 4 visitors disagree.
that is true, the same money would exist, but what would it be spent on is the issue you are missing.
I never said the government created the products out of thin air, I said the government allocated it where it was most needed, the places the private sector routinely ignores. why would they provide these services to people who can't afford it, much less make them a profit, when they could much easier open another posh restaurant in the business district? nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with the fact that the communities that need the services are still forgotten.
and that is in addition to the loss due to the profit seeking middleman and lose of economics of scale.
If the government taxes citizens to do so then it is not hypothetical, it is reality. If everyone paid $20 in taxes to provide the food every citizen would be $20 poorer. The food is not "new" stuff, you can't create something from nothing. It is $20 less everyone will have to spend on other things to raise their standard of livong and create real wealth.
lack of imagination, or facts of reality?
if tomorrow the gov starts providing fresh foods to poor neighborhoods which have been food deserts for decades, will you then claim the private sector would have solved this problem despite the obvious fact they had no intention to?
is this hypothetical all you got? because history says otherwise. the private sector ignores the poor for many necessary services, and that hurts our nation in the long term.
Sure I understand what you're saying, and it plays into the lack of imagination and the fallacy of seeing only what is physically seen. Since the govenrment compulsively made certain economic aspects the way it wanted, you can't imagine any alternative aspects because they were never allowed to happen.
Satellites have made a positive impact but without it people would still have whatever money was taxed from them to fincance it and spent or invested it, therefore raising production in a different industry. But because the government compulsion is what happened it is the only possibility you can imagine.
The same goes for the Amtrak. The people that use it will be less poor without it, with more untaxed money to spend on other needs, which would probably be the same train, but higher quality. Thats the other thing: if the state sells something it dosen't cease to exist. You could make your case for any service and make the same argument. Trains are not a role of government. Just like water bottles and basketballs are not a role of government.
we do know what the private sector did before the space program or the highway system.... nothing.
the government didn't regulate the roads until after it built them. before that anyone could have built anything. the problem was no one wanted to do it because of no foreseeable return.
I can't show you a lack of a regulation, so how about you show me the law that stopped people from building a highway system before the government built the highway system....
I never stated that you said sattelites were the role of the government.
you said the space program had no consumer demand when that was clearly false. the problem was the nonexistent tech would cost far more to develop then any profits, which is why without government's advances we would not have the current private sector tech boom. we would certainly get all the stuff eventually... but we got it now because the gov was able to invest for the sake of the results without factoring in making a profit.
millions of people use Amtrak every day and depend on it to get to work. without it all of their lives would be worse, and the entire economy would be worse. any private replacement would have to raise prices which would hurt ridership and likely make it fail anyway, but with a government subsidy it can offer reduced fare and stay open, generating far more in economic efficiency and growth for the government than what it receives from them.
You're original point was that government services have everything to do with the people involved, which is completely untrue. I also never said that satallites WERE NOT the role of government, I only defended the possiblility that it might be untrue.
You and historybuff have a way of arguing where a specific fiscally conservative stance will be taken, and you guys assume that the person taking the stance wants to privatize everything, and then you're talking about satellites or some shit.
Defend the idea that trains are a role of the federal government, and though it makes a negative profit, Amtrak should stay in business by the state.
I don't know what the the private sector could have done in place of government highways or satellites. The government already compulsively did those things so we will never find out. However just because it is unseen and government services are seen dosen't absolutely make the unseen the incorrect way.
I think anti-capitalists suffer from a severe lack of imagination.
Not "no profit" but "no option or expectation of profit, just the public good"
they can't now, but before the government built the highway system, why didn't private interests do it before? why did the any experiment that inspired the highway system (a drive from coast to coast) fail so miserably? it's not that they couldn't, it's that they wouldn't because there was no upside for them.
no matter how good it was for not only their consumers, but everyone across the nation. profit doesn't equal what the consumer wants. Even tolls would be useless cause the people in the unconnected small towns had little money and even less traffic.... until after the no profit investment that can only be down by the government. now our economy is 1000s of times stronger because of those countless growing towns.
Are you saying that private companies have no need for satellites? and no, not moon rocks. they are basically just primitive earth rocks. but mars rocks, or comet rocks, or some more exotic shit can hold materials that can revolutionize tech.
your thinking is very simplified isn't it?
space has been excellent for private companies.... it was the path to get to space that was too unprofitable for companies, and we would still not have microprocessors or gps if we were waiting on the private market.
you have no idea what your talking about regarding space and demand. half of your life revolves around things conmected to space currently.
MajorGeneralX if railroads are useless should they then be privatized and left to go out of business?
The private sector has no success with the highway system because 1. The state has a monopoly on major roads and 2. the space program has no consumer demand and is therefore pointless!
Are you looking to buy moon rocks?
Nemiroff you're completely wrong about your assesment of public vs private sorry.
There are many examples of private businesses failing and you don't have to deal with them because they GO OUT OF BUSINESS! Public services that fail and prive poor services stay in business for ever and ever working at a loss.
It has less to do with public vs private and more to do with the people operating it? Really? This is like every socialist argument for public service ever every time it fails.
The people operating public services will always fail because they are not put in the situation of earning more for increased production and good work. Since they are not profit motivated they will never take into consideration the complete needs of the customer and have absolutely no way of knowing the information that only private businesses can realize, like supply, market price etc.
Railway is useless in America
the internet, drones, nuclear power
main point is that the success of a venture has less to do with whether it's public or private and more to do with the quality of the people involved.
the private sector may have many more examples of successes, but it also has many many many more examples of failure. meanwhile gov has plenty of successes from the highway system, to the space program (which the private sector is still failing at).
Because I don't like over- broad discussions , like public vs private debates. I like a main point.
I could talk about buses as well if you want. I don't believe transportation is a role of government.
it runs a loss because it offers below cost tickets. in exchange for that the government partially funds it. meaning it sends it money, it doesn't own it.
and why are you ignoring the numerous fully publicly controlled transportation agencies across the nation that function well? how about the private transportation agencies like those cheap new York Boston buses that keep toppling over, which fail worse then any agency including Amtrak?
you're cherry picking your examples.
That's a governnent owned corporation. This is an example of state capitalism, if it was private it would have gone out of business years ago or improved. But since it is government owned it can make negative profits and stay in business in order to protect bureaucrats at the expense of taxpayers.
Did you really think a private business was staying open making a loss for 10 years?
no. it is managed by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a private for profit corporation.
Amtrak is managed by the governme t for profit.
That's why it has made negative profit... for over 10 years.
Amtrak is managed by a for profit company.