Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Taxes aren't the problem, it's the appropriation of tax funds. If tax levels were a problem, Minnesota wouldn't have dropped 750,000,000 on a sports stadium for a private franchise.

Do you think that a tax levied last spring would have saved a bridge that, to all eyes who watch this sort of thing, had little indication that collapse was imminent?

No, I am saying precisely the opposite.

Whether or not the bridge collapsed as a result of negligence has yet to be seen, the point is that Federal money for the new bridge implies that the state of Minnesota is incapable of maintaining or creating new infrastructure. The stadium example illustrates that it is.

Quote:

Problems begin to arise when you remember that the voters in the first model are the same people as the shareholders in the second. In neither model does an individual level of responsibility exist for road maintainence; in the former, the government retains responsibility, while in the latter, the proposed corporation does.

People who feel no particular need to vote in local elections won't feel any to vote for board members of this new corporation, either.

These are notable problems, but I would still say that the corporation has an incentive for income. If a bridge collapses or a road becomes unusable, then the corporation and its shareholders stop collecting income from the damaged infrastructure. Governments do not have this incentive, because government income is acquired through taxation.

It doesn't matter if repairing a bridge is cheaper than constructing a new one, since governments do not have to produce wealth.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

the point is that Federal money for the new bridge implies that the state of Minnesota is incapable of maintaining or creating new infrastructure.

The bridge in question was part of the Interstate Highway System, which recieves federal money.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

These are notable problems, but I would still say that the corporation has an incentive for income. If a bridge collapses or a road becomes unusable, then the corporation and its shareholders stop collecting income from the damaged infrastructure. Governments do not have this incentive, because government income is acquired through taxation.

It doesn't matter if repairing a bridge is cheaper than constructing a new one, since governments do not have to produce wealth.

By specifically setting up this corporation as a non-profit, you've removed the income motive. Any profits the corporation are subsequently redistributed to the "shareholders" based on their usage of the roads. This means that people who use the roads less get less money back than those who use it more, if they are able to get anything back at all, since it would stand to reason that those who use it more would get first priority on refunds. But, however money you get back, since you're paying the money in in the first place, your net income would still be a negative.

The negative would only grow if the corporation determined that it needed to retain some of those profits for expansion of the system, as the construction costs for building the expansions are factored in, as are the maintainence costs afterward. If the amount you drive doesn't increase, you end up getting less money back.

All of this is, however, based on the assumption that the corporation actually generates any profits to be redistributed in the first place. If it operates at a loss, the amount the users paid becomes loss, and would only increase as tolls go up to make up for corporate loss. During that time, the system couldn't expand if it needed to, since it wouldn't have the money on hand and wouldn't for some time.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If that would be the case, though, then there's no amount of surpluses being made since nobody is using the shitty roads.

This bridge in Minneapolis was considered deficient for seventeen years. What do you mean that no one is using the shitty roads? Tolls will still be made until you can't get over the road without a 4x4.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Of course, if people are still incapable of acting rationally, despite the information made available to them, how does that change the present situation where the government neglects infrastructure and expects the Federal government to bail them out?

It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The stadium example illustrates that it is.

If anything, with how much you hate the spending, the stadium example only shows that voters can't vote on the right spending and that they can't elect officials that will get them the proper maintenance, and I have no idea why you don't think those same shortcomings wouldn't transfer to a populace selecting a board to handle the problem.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.

Could you clarify on this statement a bit? Because it sounds to me as if you're implying that we shouldn't try to fix a broken system.

You shouldn't try to fix a broken system that you can't fix. Yes.

Quote:

By specifically setting up this corporation as a non-profit, you've removed the income motive. Any profits the corporation are subsequently redistributed to the "shareholders" based on their usage of the roads. This means that people who use the roads less get less money back than those who use it more, if they are able to get anything back at all, since it would stand to reason that those who use it more would get first priority on refunds. But, however money you get back, since you're paying the money in in the first place, your net income would still be a negative.

I understand the income is a negative, I think you're confusing the need for income as a profit incentive (or confusing what I said, I mean).

If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition.

Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained.

If the bridge collapses for the corporation, then tolls have to be raised in order to finance its replacement. If the bridge collapses for the government, then it's no sweat off their back.

In both cases, the public/shareholders are losing money, but in the case of the corporation there is at least an incentive for the shareholders and the board to avoid the greatest cost with proper maintenance.

Quote:

This bridge in Minneapolis was considered deficient for seventeen years. What do you mean that no one is using the shitty roads? Tolls will still be made until you can't get over the road without a 4x4.

I meant to say as in your shitty roads. Commuters coming in from out of state are going to avoid the worst infrastructure if they can, and poor road conditions will encourage locals to avoid travel which extracts a toll. The end result being that you lose commerce.

You live in, what, Arizona? What are the conditions of your roads? Because without many bridges, 25% approval may actually be the appropriate amount of spending.

Quote:

It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.

That's hideously defeatist, particularly when we're talking about an untested method. I'd like to see more solutions to the problem, which is why I made this thread, and why I didn't put out Paron's example in the opening.

I'm guessing that there's some non-privatizing solutions to the problem of infrastructure priority, but there is apparently no solution, according to you.

Quote:

If anything, with how much you hate the spending, the stadium example only shows that voters can't vote on the right spending and that they can't elect officials that will get them the proper maintenance, and I have no idea why you don't think those same shortcomings wouldn't transfer to a populace selecting a board to handle the problem.

As Styphon pointed out, the bridge is payed for with Federal money and maintained by the State. I'd argue that there was a lack of incentive for voters in the case of Minnesota because the money more than likely isn't extracted from themselves.

With state gas taxes you can get an inkling of where the money goes, but with a Federal money pool who the fuck knows?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No, I am saying precisely the opposite.

Then why do you / the article writer keep holding it up as an example of excessive pork-barrel spending in the context of this bridge? If you don't think it has anything to do with the bridge, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. You are being intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

You live in, what, Arizona? What are the conditions of your roads? Because without many bridges, 25% approval may actually be the appropriate amount of spending.

Arizona's problems are roads that need frequent repair due to the intense heat and roads that can't handle the amount of traffic put on them, meaning widing projects and strengthening everything underneath them. Arizona has some of the worst traffic in the country and one of the highest traffic death rates.

Plus, we own part of what is probably the most important interstate highway in the country: I-10.

We actually have many bridges (they are relatively new, however). Dry rivers still have to be crossed.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I'm guessing that there's some non-privatizing solutions to the problem of infrastructure priority, but there is apparently no solution, according to you.

Nah, I wasn't saying that. I don't believe this is a workable solution or at least worth the effort it would take to make the changes. There might be a modest increase in quality, at best, assuming everything works absolutely perfectly. As many have stated, this will most likely just lead to more of the same.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition.

Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained.

You mean it doesn't cost the government any greater amount of money to build a new bridge vs. repair existing bridges? I.. what?

you're fucking trolling

Quote:

Then why do you / the article writer keep holding it up as an example of excessive pork-barrel spending in the context of this bridge? If you don't think it has anything to do with the bridge, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. You are being intellectually dishonest.

I thought you meant a new tax being levied, since I was referring to Airanach talking about an increase in taxes.

Quote:

You mean it doesn't cost the government any greater amount of money to build a new bridge vs. repair existing bridges? I.. what?

Alright look at it this way:

Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged.

Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do.

It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.

Quote:

Arizona's problems are roads that need frequent repair due to the intense heat and roads that can't handle the amount of traffic put on them, meaning widing projects and strengthening everything underneath them. Arizona has some of the worst traffic in the country and one of the highest traffic death rates.

Plus, we own part of what is probably the most important interstate highway in the country: I-10.

We actually have many bridges (they are relatively new, however). Dry rivers still have to be crossed.

You're still not answering my question about road conditions.

If the graph you provided is any indication, the state is certainly on the ball in regards to bridges.

Quote:

Nah, I wasn't saying that. I don't believe this is a workable solution or at least worth the effort it would take to make the changes. There might be a modest increase in quality, at best, assuming everything works absolutely perfectly. As many have stated, this will most likely just lead to more of the same.

I was kinda hoping that somebody would channel Al Gore's lockbox, to be honest. I think it's a shame, though, that the opportunity to test potential solutions will likely never present themselves in light of general apathy and lack of debate.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged.

Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do.

It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.

Oh, brady. You think taxes are like mugging people and that the government accrues defecit without any thought about the future. Sure, it might seem like that at times, but things are more complicated than that!

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If the graph you provided is any indication, the state is certainly on the ball in regards to bridges.

So, what are you saying, that bridges are the only thing that applies in your scenario here? That the interstate highway system is perfectly fine if not for those pesky rivers it has to cross? That, infrastructurally, everything else is doin' great and doesn't need money set aside in federal and state budgets?

Or do you just want these special non-government governments on everything?

All this shareholder idea is doing is creating a highly complicated second political system JUST for road maintenance. Rather than fancy tolls and such, set up semi-independant transportation ministers and use some of the taxes from licenses, or gasoline. So much simpler. But as noted, you don't avoid the political element.

You could try to pass a law requiring maintenance to be funded before building a new project. But then if there are bad times, and people let maintenance languish a bit, they're going to run up such a tab they won't want to build anything.

A method that works on the small scale is the media. In a few towns I've lived in, the local paper would once a month shame the municipal government into filling in potholes. Similarily, maybe an advocacy group could hire a few civil inspectors to shame/scare the governments into action.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The problem isn't unique to Minnesota. If you compare the percentage of bridge deficiencies with taxes raised, you'll find that some of the highest-taxed states also have some of the worst problems with bridge maintenance. Rhode Island is in the top ten when it comes to taxes collected, and has a higher percentage of deficient bridges than any other state. Pennsylvania has taxes higher than 31 other states, and a bridge deficiency rate that is the second worst in the country. New York is number ten in taxes collected, and is one of the worst when it comes maintenance. In fact, half of the top ten-taxed states are in the bottom ten when to comes to bridge maintenance.

So the states with the most bridges have the most problems with bridges? HOLY SHIT ALERT THE MEDIA. Pittsburgh has more bridges than Venice and it's had a shrinking population for the past 60 years.

Also, which taxes are they talking about? State taxes in Pennsylvania are actually pretty low, sales tax is 6% for most of the state (except for food and clothing where it's 0%), and property taxes and such vary greatly between counties and municipalities.

Also, having been a frequent traveler on toll roads I have to say that it really doesn't make them any better to drive on than typical state roads. I just drove on I-80, a free road, and it was in better condition than the PA Turnpike which I pay around $16 each way to drive across most of the state.

Finally, Brady, it's not like this is something new where a city is giving money to a sports team to stay in their city. It's a pretty established practice that many teams do when they either feel attendance is dropping or their facilities are lacking. After all, they're using their ability to move to a different city as a bargaining chip. What's so terrible about that?