From: rcp27@nospam.ac.uk
On 2015-03-21 13:51:50 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
> bob wrote:
>
>> Considering that things like compulsory purchase powers over land are a
>> form of subsidy (because the buyer of that land is forcing the owner to
>> sell it at less than they would otherwise chose to sell it at), I would
>> extend that to any transportation infrastructure of any kind.
>
>> Transportation infrastructure is the classic case of the economic
>> benefits being almost entirely external to the owner of the
>> infrastructure. In cases like this, it is pretty much universally
>> recognised that government provision (or interference in the market to
>> bring about the required objective) is beneficial to all.
>
> Dude, you have a logic gap there:
>
> You lept from "benefits are external", which is correct, to "beneficial
> to all", which is false.
In the general case it is false, but in the specific case of
transportation infrastructure it is true. There is not a single person
alive in the developed world today who does not have a better quality
of life than they would if there were no transportation infrastructure.
Something as simple as being able to buy a whole week's worth of
groceries in one place, for an afordable cost, and bring them home
would be impossible without transportation infrastructure.
> The benefits of transportation go to land
> value, and it depends on the proximity of the land to the transportation
> infrastructure. Also, if one owns residential land, one might not
> appreciate being under an airport landing approach path.
>
> What would be universally beneficial to all would be if there was a
> strict relationship between costs and benefits, so that those with a
> proportionate benefit pay a proportionate share of costs; a bit of
> hedging as it's difficult to avoid outside subsidy whenever government
> has its hand in anything.
It would be lovely if the word were simple enough that every benefit
every person gains could be assigned a dollar value, and these could be
neatly attributed to specific bits of government spending.
Unfortunately the world doesn't work like that. There are an awful lot
of things where I benefit from something existing that I don't use. I
benefit from the military existing. I hope the military never has to
be used, and in some ways it won't need to be used *because* it exists.
How much is that benefit worth? I benefit from the fact that it is
economically viable for a car company to make a car that I can afford.
I don't own a car right now, but nevertheless I benefit from that. I
benefit from the education system. I finished school years ago and
have no kids, but I still benefit from the education system because it
means the other people I depend on in society are better educated. I
benefit because there will be a new generation of doctors and nurses
when I grow old. I know these are things I benefit from, but it is
almost impossible to quantify that benefit. How much benefit do I gain
from the criminal justice system? What value does the deterent effect
of there being police around, and courts and prisons have?
> With government, most of the time, there's no direct relationship between
> taxation and benefit, which is exactly what prevents government "good"
> being universally beneficial and can distort the economy.
The relationship between taxation and benefit is evaluated through the
ballot box. People offer a proposal for what they thing we should do
and what it will cost us, and we decide whether to support that
proposal or not.
Robin
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
