141–150 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say Asia, are you including China? It's likely that the situation is different in each country, and grouping "Europe and Asia" versus the "US" leads to a pretty sweeping generalization.
By that logic, you should never compare any two countries to each other, because they all differ in so many ways.
This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost nothing is a free market - so you have to be careful of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
You're mixing free market and laissez faire. Any market without monopolistic forces and where prices are set freely by the balance of supply and demand and competitive forces is essentially a free market.
This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…
In the US, there is no political party where you can go to prioritize competent government. You can only choose between these two options a) more government, or b) less government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is half true: European infrastructure construction is almost perfectly decentralized to the point that it's (for the most part) fully centralized at the level of each member state. The US half tries to fund and administer infrastructure at the federal level, state level, as well as local level, depending on the state. As an American, I find the EU to have phenomenally good infrastructure, but I think that's beca…
This is why I'm not entirely opposed to the Trump infrastructure philosophy of encouraging states and local governments to pay their own way. It also encourages more private investment in infrastructure which is something that has contributed to the success of the subways in Seoul, Hong Kong and Tokyo as well as the original builders of the NYC subway.
This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…
Here in the US voters don't punish any elected officials for anything because half don't vote and the other half that do are more concerned about their side "winning" and less concerned about practical day to day considerations like corruption. People would gladly accept a corrupt Democrat over a Republican and vice versa purely based on political lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing free market and laissez faire. Any market without monopolistic forces and where prices are set freely by the balance of supply and demand and competitive forces is essentially a free market.
No, I’m not. Your description here is fine, but it does not fit a huge chunk of the real economy, which was the point. Healthcare is just one example of many (agriculture, energy, telecom, etc.)
That depends on the country. Energy and telecom are quite free markets in many countries, especially with local loop unbundling and separation of generation, transmission and distribution.
And compare that to "Almost nothing is a free market" which you claimed. Now it's the opposite: most markets are free, but some, which depend on restricted physical infrastructure, are not.
Very different from your claim.
This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…
The USA is pretty big and has a lot of sparsely populated area compared to Europe. People living outside major metro areas don't care about public transit, because public transit only works and makes sense in dense urban areas. So people in Upstate New York don't care about mass transit in NYC, and so the representatives they elect to NY state government don't care about it. Public transit honestly is not even on my…
That would make sense if there were no political subdivisions below the state level with the power to tax and spend, but there are. NYC has both its own revenue sources, including income, sales, and special excise taxes, and its own (quite vast) governmental apparatus with which to spend that revenue in the service of its residents. They ought to have more than the tools required to get projects done -- it's a government on scale with many smaller countries!
NYC also has structures in place like the Port Authority, set up specifically to solve intra-jurisdictional problems (and IIRC with its own funding from tolls).
None of this seems to have helped stop costs from spiraling out of control.
The US seems to get less of everything for its money than its peers. Geographic spread is a major macro factor, but you'd still think that a supposedly efficient capitalistic market would at least handle local services better.
Exactly my sentiment. However, my take away is there are too many middlemen dealing with middlemen dealing with ... Everyone's gotta get greased with before each blow by the the worker carrying out the physical labor.
This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…
In the US, there is no political party where you can go to prioritize competent government. You can only choose between these two options a) more government, or b) less government.