kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Long distance phone rates were being used to subsidize local
service ... Now, local rates are going up, deprived of their
subsidy.
Good. Let people pay their fair share.
I don't know about anyone else, but my phone bill is in fact
higher than it was, because the decrease in the cost of my long
distance doesn't make up for the increase in the cost of my local
service.
Mine too. Strange sort of subsidy that makes it more expensive for
everyone when it is removed. Perhaps the price increase has more to
do with local service being a monopoly? I suspect the now absent
subsidy was used only as an excuse for increasing local rates. I
don't guess there is any way to find out unless local phone
competition is legalized.
There used to be [competing local phone companies].
But it wasn't very good.
Perhaps this had more to do with the 19th century technology in use
at the time?
Can you imagine the VHS vs. Beta vs. 8mm video competition
extended to telephone service?
Be real. There would be interconnects. After all, all the
incompatible computer networks interconnect.
Can you imagine, instead of the many competing computer CPUs, memory
schemes, languages, formats, etc, what things would be like if the
government had simply granted IBM a monopoly in the 1950s? Is it
possible that phone service today could have been as far ahead of the
phone service of the 1950s as computers today are ahead of computers
of the 1950s?
... the motorists on the LA freeways ... would be better off if
they car-pooled. Even if they each found only 1 other person with
whom they ride-shared once a week, it would reduce the number of
cars on the road by 20%, which would eliminate rush-hour traffic
jams ... But, if only a few people car pool, they give up the
freedom of choosing the time they arrive, the time they leave, and
where to go for lunch, AND do not benefit from a reduction in the
number of cars on the road, because it isn't large enough to make
a difference. So no one car pools.
The idea should be to make the person pay for the resources he is
consuming. This can include inconvenience to others. The owner of
the road is free to set policy. Presumably he wishes to maximize
revenues. In order to do so, he needs to maximize value. Things are
made confusing by the fact that the owner of the road is usually the
state, federal, or local government, rather than a company. But the
principle is the same.
I don't know about LA, but around here (DC area) a lot of people
carpool. Many major highways allow only vehicles with 3 or more
people during rush hours. I think this is reasonable, but I think
they should also allow 2 and 1 person vehicles if the people are
willing to pay extra for the privilege.
One thing I have heard about Los Angeles - correct me if I am wrong
- bus service is often the most logical way to get around, but the
city run bus service in Los Angeles is said to be atrocious. So bad,
in fact, that few people even think about using bus service.
Since a person is not likely to ride a bus after paying a lot for a
car, even if the city buses got better or a private bus system were to
start up, few people would start riding it until their cars wore out,
which would take years. Much of the traffic problem can probably be
traced to the historic lack of competing private systems. But it is
not clear just what to do about it now.
It is certainly costing the people of the city considerable
revenues. Los Angeles would be a great place for tourists to visit,
except that potential tourists who don't drive don't find it practical
to visit the place.
I don't think nonusers should ever have to pay for the roads. Users
should pay in proportion to their usage. Usage can be defined in
terms of incremental cost of road maintenance plus incremental
inconvenience to other users plus amortized costs of road
construction. As such, I find automobile ownership taxes and gasoline
sales taxes the least objectionable ways of paying for government
owned roads. It is not reasonable to pay for roads from income taxes
or general sales taxes.
Government run city bus service is subsidized in many places. I
think it should be self supporting, via fares, with one exception.
The one exception is that since it is not fair that people who ride
the buses are delayed by traffic jams caused by others, it is
reasonable that users of the vehicles in the traffic jams be assessed
the value of the time lost by bus riders, which should be given to the
riders in the form of lower fares. I don't know just what the best
way to do this is, especially since most roads are owned by the
government.
I believe you give too much credit to the enemies of capitalism,
and that you do capitalism a disservice by refusing to admit that
while it is the best possible economic system, it is not perfect.
That depends on what you mean by not perfect. Not everybody would
suddenly become healthy, wealthy, and wise if there was a purely
capitalist system. In that sense it is far from perfect. It doesn't
solve the problem of nuclear war. In that sense it is far from
perfect.
But in the sense that it is the best system known, and in the sense
that it is the most MORAL system that CAN be known, it is as close to
perfect as we are going to get.
It makes little sense to me that since it is the best system known
but not perfect it must be mixed with a worse system. That seems to
be what you are saying.
But let's not ignore a few flaws ... to which I see no remedy
other than government intervention in the market.
And people in the middle ages saw no remedy other than prayer and
total obedience to the local bishop. And people in earlier ages saw
no remedy but human sacrifice. I don't think that we of the 20th
century have reach the endpoint of human knowledge.
...Keith
[ I take issue with your statement on middle ages. Middle ages man
(of Europe, I suppose you mean) was in many ways as energetic and
intelligent as 20th century man. Indeed, the Reformation, Norman
Conquest, Crusades, rise of Venice and Genoa, the "Renaissance", and a
host of other events was due entirely to people NOT obeying the local
bishop. - CWM]
-------