Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Ignoring the fact that I pay for your bus ride as well?

    Even if private companies operated buses without subsidy, more profitable routes would be used to fund upgrades and maintenance on less profitable ones, either in a bid to make them more profitable or to maintain basic standards.

    In answer to your point WelshBluebird, yes - I think that there should be subsidies for important loss-making routes to keep them going. Access to rural areas in particular should not be dictated by car ownership.
    You obviously don't pay enough for it, or it wouldn't need subsidised. How would you make a bus route more profitable that nobody used? If you solve that one you will certainly become a billionaire.

    The reality, I believe, would be that a small business would fill the niche that the big company can't by using smaller buses on fewer routes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So you both think there should be no state funding of ANYTHING?



    Accomodation isn't that easy to get in some places. So living in the next village or whatever is the only option.

    What about if the person has other responsibilities? A family, or perhaps an elderly relative they are looking after?
    As in my first post except the police, army and the courts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So you both think there should be no state funding of ANYTHING?



    Accomodation isn't that easy to get in some places. So living in the next village or whatever is the only option.

    What about if the person has other responsibilities? A family, or perhaps an elderly relative they are looking after?
    Yes. Lets make government policy entirely based on the exceptional few, to the detriment of the many. I was watching a documentary about Thailand last night, and some of the women go off and work in hotels for years without seeing their families just to provide. It's an absolute joke that you think people somehow have the right to not move house. Job migration was a way of life right up to the 50s in this country, and we even have people coming from thousands of miles away to get to England. And these people can't move what, 30 miles?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So you both think there should be no state funding of ANYTHING?
    You know, before currency was devalued by a very crooked banking system known as fiat currency, there was a lot more bang for your buck. I am not arguing that people would magically become more charitable under a stateless society (ceteris paribus - all things remaining constant) but people who are already charitable could afford to donate more when (a) counterfeit crooks in the CBE stop printing money and (b) government stops taxing away al their savings. For this reason, and nothing to do with human nature, more charity would be donated.

    What about if the person has other responsibilities? A family, or perhaps an elderly relative they are looking after?
    People have to pay for their own bus service anyway. Privatising it would push the costs down enormously. Also a competing minibus service would operate every 5 minutes and increased transportation of goods/services will help industrialise large segments of rural Britain so villages will become towns and cities.

    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    As in my first post except the police, army and the courts.
    So its ok for the gov to own a monopoly on law but not anything else?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    You obviously don't pay enough for it, or it wouldn't need subsidised. How would you make a bus route more profitable that nobody used? If you solve that one you will certainly become a billionaire.

    The reality, I believe, would be that a small business would fill the niche that the big company can't by using smaller buses on fewer routes.
    The fact is that unless you are going to charge huge amounts for a local fare (which no one would pay), then many rural routes are simply not profitable.

    And if anything, I would say that bigger business are in a better place to run unprofitable routes because they have other routes which are hugely profitable (and so can cross subsidise).

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Privatising it would push the costs down enormously.
    Or it would just mean that any profit is taken by the owner, rather than being pumped back into the service. If it isn't profitable, then it will be stopped. That is the reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is good
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    The fact is that unless you are going to charge huge amounts for a local fare (which no one would pay), then many rural routes are simply not profitable.

    And if anything, I would say that bigger business are in a better place to run unprofitable routes because they have other routes which are hugely profitable (and so can cross subsidise).



    Or it would just mean that any profit is taken by the owner, rather than being pumped back into the service. If it isn't profitable, then it will be stopped. That is the reality.
    Why would any business operate a route that was unprofitable for them? The big company would rather invest their money in a more profitable route in the first place. What I'm suggesting would be a one man band type thing. Runs a minibus themselves so the only costs would be their transport, labour and fuel costs. If said person can't make a profit from such a venture, then there's obviously no demand for the service in the first place.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    The fact is that unless you are going to charge huge amounts for a local fare (which no one would pay), then many rural routes are simply not profitable.

    And if anything, I would say that bigger business are in a better place to run unprofitable routes because they have other routes which are hugely profitable (and so can cross subsidise).



    Or it would just mean that any profit is taken by the owner, rather than being pumped back into the service. If it isn't profitable, then it will be stopped. That is the reality.
    If it isn't profitable then there obviously isn't enough demand for the service, ergo, it isn't needed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Or it would just mean that any profit is taken by the owner, rather than being pumped back into the service. If it isn't profitable, then it will be stopped. That is the reality.
    You know, if all private business really worked like socialists like you seem to believe, we wouldn't even have an economy. God knows what would have happened to us.

    There's no logical reason not to privatise bus services from where I'm standing. Already, they are not even 'free' for most people (i.e. it is paid by the consumer not just the tax payer).

    I can understand why some think health service and education should be socialised but there is just no reason why bus services could not run just as efficiently (if not better) under private ownership. There'd be more buses, at more regular times, in more places and at cheaper prices. Current bus drivers can easily keep their jobs if the state just sells the companies to the private sector.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    So its ok for the gov to own a monopoly on law but not anything else?
    I see your point, but I'm a minarchist as opposed to an anarchist. I would suggest a bill of human rights and a small sales tax on luxury items to pay for the army, courts and police.
    How do you propose a private law system would work?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You know, if all private business really worked like socialists like you seem to believe, we wouldn't even have an economy. God knows what would have happened to us.

    There's no logical reason not to privatise bus services from where I'm standing. Already, they are not even 'free' for most people (i.e. it is paid by the consumer not just the tax payer).

    I can understand why some think health service and education should be socialised but there is just no reason why bus services could not run just as efficiently (if not better) under private ownership. There'd be more buses, at more regular times, in more places and at cheaper prices. Current bus drivers can easily keep their jobs if the state just sells the companies to the private sector.
    Most/all buses in Britain are already privatised. Stagecoach? Arriva? First?

    They simply operate at the behest of local government and receive subsidies to operate unprofitable routes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    How do you propose a private law system would work?
    See Somali Xeer.

    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Most/all buses in Britain are already privatised. Stagecoach? Arriva? First?

    They simply operate at the behest of local government and receive subsidies to operate unprofitable routes.
    My bad. But I think smaller bus companies could easily send around more minibuses (like Istanbul) to rural areas with more competition introduced. If not, people in the community would be incentivised to bandy together and pay for a regular bus service for the purposes of national trade.

    Especially without loads of incredibly tight health and safety regulations, bus suppliers would find it far cheaper to operate/manufacture more buses.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    If it isn't profitable then there obviously isn't enough demand for the service, ergo, it isn't needed.
    Except you are clearly wrong.
    There is huge demand for bus services that are not necessarily profitable.
    I am living in semi-rural somerset right now and can tell you that is a fact.

    However, I think one issue is probably down to the type of people who tend to use buses a lot. Either students (who are likely to have a travel pass from the council) or OAP's (who will have a travel pass). Thus, it is entirely possible for a bus to be totally full, but the driver take no money at all.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You know, if all private business really worked like socialists like you seem to believe, we wouldn't even have an economy. God knows what would have happened to us.
    Well then not everything should be provided by a private company.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I think the balance between state ownership and private ownership that we have at the moment is pretty damn good. One thing I do have an issue with though is the idea of car insurance, because if you want to drive a car you have to have it which in my opinion makes it a tax which the goverment should be responsible for, not private companies who can charge what they like (this is with regards to third party insurance I do still think anything above that is arguably an optional extra and well within the realms of private insurance)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    I think that both state and private ownership have their merits. Whilst I'd like to see the NHS broken up (although a public option would be maintained) so that private companies can compete, there is a case for renationalising the water or gas and electricity suppliers. Certainly, with water suppliers you have no choice as to what company supplies you, it's dictated by where you live, and that's silly.

    As for transport? I'm not sure. It depends on the type of transport. I'm definitely for buses being kept in private operation - no tangible benefit from nationalisation, really. Planes and most ferries (obviously not those serving the Scottish Isles) should be kept private, but whilst I think that independent airports that compete with each other are a good thing (and I welcome the breakup of BAA to accomplish this) I'm not so sure that selling off the port of dover is a very wise idea. Most other ports in the UK are private because they deal mainly with cargo or because they're small, but Dover sees tens of millions of passengers per year and selling it could be a national security and immigration risk.

    I think that trains should either be renationalised or completely liberalised, but anything is better than the system of state-funded monopolies that we have now. There's no real competition because only one company can operate each franchise at a time.
    Transport is actually an area where I can tolerant nationalisation. Compare the mess what we have now to the nationalised system in Germany: Efficient and profit making.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Except you are clearly wrong.
    There is huge demand for bus services that are not necessarily profitable.
    That's desire, not demand. Demand is desire backed by purchasing power: no demand, no supply.

    I deeply question whether it is optimal for the government to allocate resources in ways which clearly cannot maximise profit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    See Somali Xeer.
    Interesting. Do you think it would be possible to have a non punitive system in cases of blood crimes?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Interesting. Do you think it would be possible to have a non punitive system in cases of blood crimes?
    No, certainly not.

    I believe in individualist retribution whereby the victim of a crime has control over the offender's fate as opposed to utilitarian system whereby it is the common good of society that is worked towards. But the retribution should be proportional to the original offence committed.

    For example, a women may wish to (a) seek monetary reparations from her rapist, (b) seek outlawry for her rapist (effectively removal of any insurance scheme which protect the rapist from murder, so this effectively amounts to death), (c) kill her rapist herself and prove her case later or (d) just leave him be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    No, certainly not.

    I believe in individualist retribution whereby the victim of a crime has control over the offender's fate as opposed to utilitarian system whereby it is the common good of society that is worked towards. But the retribution should be proportional to the original offence committed.

    For example, a women may wish to (a) seek monetary reparations from her rapist, (b) seek outlawry for her rapist (effectively removal of any insurance scheme which protect the rapist from murder, so this effectively amounts to death), (c) kill her rapist herself and prove her case later or (d) just leave him be.
    Who would decide what is proportional and how would they be appointed?

    Is murder proportional to rape?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    At the moment with such dire Transport in this country, especially with National Rail. There should definitly be more competition, as the better more efficient (less late) companies would prosper thus benefiting the public !!
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,109

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.