The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Schools and hospital privatization is not anything to worry about as it will still be tax-payed. If the private schools (which anyone can be admitted to free of charge) do better that the public schools it's a good thing and if they don't they'll close. It's a win-win situation.
On a tangent, the pm has his kids in public school in spite of a majority of schools in his hometown being private.
The congestion tax is a neoliberal idea, which is why Federley and the neolibs support it. The argument is that roads are a good like any other and the price of using it should be decided by supply and demand. That is, if there is a large demand on roads and a small supply (=congestion) there should be a cost so the poor stays away from driving so the rich can have a nicer driving experience.
What if we did like this in the hospital emergency room or in public transport?
- Sorry we just have had a large car accident so we can't take care of your gunshot wound right now. But you can cut the line if you pay 1000.
- Because of the congestion in the subway we have decided to increase fare prices to 10 so supply meets demand without inefficient congestion. Have a nice day.
Those are absurd solutions. If there is a congestion for a vital good the solution is not to increase prices but increase capacity. That is build a new hospital, or in the matter of congestion, build new highways, railroads and metros.
Arguing that prices should be allowed to increase to spur new investment (in hospitals or roads etc) is irrelevant as those things are not operating on a free market so it won't work, and more importantly, I do not want to live in a society where the price of those things are decided by the market. Call me a commie bastard if you like. ;)
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Supply and demand are in balance anyway, with the total price (including non-monetary) including the inconvenience, additional fuel consumption, etc., caused by the congestion. I think that the argument is better staged in terms of differing negative externalities of driving at different times, noting that differential monetary pricing is a non-destructive transfer of tokens, while congestion destroys actual fuel and slices of human lifetime.
It is often argued that X should have a lower price because the poor will be more affected, but this applies with similar force to all non-luxury goods X. In all instances, to act on this would distort prices and incentives. This suggests that it is far better to address inequalities more directly, on the income side.
Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 118 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2712 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments