Interesting Article on Mises

[mosdef]

http://www.mises.org/story/2670

Cliff Notes: Public roads/bridges fall into disrepair because they are cost centers only to governments, so governments do not profit from improvements. Private roads/bridges represent capital to investors, who are incentivized to improve their asset so they get additional capital.

I have a comment on the following extract, and would be interested to see what the ACists here have to say.

"Since the bridge does not bring an income to the state, at least directly, it is much easier for politicians to want to spend on those things that provide fame, glory, and votes. In fact, in a perverse way, the bridge collapse in Minnesota provides a benefit to politicians, since they now have an excuse to confiscate even more taxes from individuals, thus expanding the power of the state."

I understand this interpretation. But if people would care enough about repairs to the bridge to pay more for its use under private ownership (a necessary condition for the profit incentive to lead to repairs) why would they not care enough about repairs to vote against a government that does not repair the bridge? I think this is an important difference between the case of a public bridge in a democracy and analogous public goods in states that are not a democracy, which is part of the build up to the author's argument.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the bridge does not bring an income to the state, at least directly, it is much easier for politicians to want to spend on those things that provide fame, glory, and votes.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very wrong. Has the author ever heard of a pork barrel project? Tons of pork doled out in Congress and state legislatures represents infrastructure projects. Politicians get plenty of fame, glory and votes from infrastructure.

[cfb1739]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand this interpretation. But if people would care enough about repairs to the bridge to pay more for its use under private ownership (a necessary condition for the profit incentive to lead to repairs) why would they not care enough about repairs to vote against a government that does not repair the bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]

People would not need to concern themselves with the condition of bridges under private ownership. There would be economic incentives for the owners of the bridges to perform routine inspections and maintenance. If a bridge collapsed, then they (owners) would lose their source of income as well as a large investment in capital.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand this interpretation. But if people would care enough about repairs to the bridge to pay more for its use under private ownership (a necessary condition for the profit incentive to lead to repairs) why would they not care enough about repairs to vote against a government that does not repair the bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]

People would not need to concern themselves with the condition of bridges under private ownership. There would be economic incentives for the owners of the bridges to perform routine inspections and maintenance. If a bridge collapsed, then they (owners) would lose their source of income as well as a large investment in capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am asking is why you couldn't similarly argue: "If a bridge collapsed, then they (owners) would lose their source of votes as well as a their jobs."

[Nielsio]

Nobody owns the bridge so nobody loses their job because nobody is responsible.

There is only one type of ownership and that is real ownership, not violent monopolistic ruling class extortion -type ownership.

[cfb1739]

The people responsible for the bridge collapse aren't elected officials. They are appointed bureaucrats.

I suppose people could vote for a different governor or state representative during the next election. However, that would still not solve the underlying cause of the problem, which is lack of an economic incentive to keep bridges in good condition.

A politician's solution to the problem would be to increase funding for development of the state's infratstructure, which would likely temporarily satisfy constituents....at least until another bridge collapses.

Additionally, the condition of infrastructure is only one out of many issues that people will consider when electing state officials. Some may value a candidate's position on another issue more strongly than the candidate's position on the safety of the state's infratstructure.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am asking is why you couldn't similarly argue: "If a bridge collapsed, then they (owners) would lose their source of votes as well as a their jobs."

[/ QUOTE ]

First, not all government employees involved with the maintenance of bridges are elected. Bureaucrats may hold their (well-insulated) positions for decades. Even if this was not the case, any given voter may only have the choice not to vote for one or two of the dozens of representatives responsible for funding city and state infrastructure.

In the private sector an individual can directly harm a corporation by ceasing to do business with it, but it requires a majority of "customers" to harm a politician or group of politicians, and they can only do so once every so many years. Unfortunately, most voters are just plain ignorant and fail to connect infrastructure failings with their government. See Ray Nagin.

[Nielsio]

Ultimately the problem is that voting means nothing. There is no contract and when your socalled representative screwed you over in various ways and you can't get out of the relationship and you still have to ship your ever increasing taxmoney...

..then it's not representation but it's a scam.

Wake up.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
First, not all government employees involved with the maintenance of bridges are elected. Bureaucrats may hold their (well-insulated) positions for decades. Even if this was not the case, any given voter may only have the choice not to vote for one or two of the dozens of representatives responsible for funding city and state infrastructure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I think this pretty much covers it. I suppose you could make the case that the front line politician is still motivated to try to force the appointed bureaucrats to improve the bridge because the politician faces the heat for disrepair, but I guess that's the whole problem. The individual(s) in control of the bridge are not directly accountable for complaints about the bridge.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand this interpretation. But if people would care enough about repairs to the bridge to pay more for its use under private ownership (a necessary condition for the profit incentive to lead to repairs) why would they not care enough about repairs to vote against a government that does not repair the bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]

People would not need to concern themselves with the condition of bridges under private ownership. There would be economic incentives for the owners of the bridges to perform routine inspections and maintenance. If a bridge collapsed, then they (owners) would lose their source of income as well as a large investment in capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am asking is why you couldn't similarly argue: "If a bridge collapsed, then they (owners) would lose their source of votes as well as a their jobs."

[/ QUOTE ]

Because under the current voting system you're voting for one person rather than on individual measures for the most part. Even if there's a guy campaigning heavily on bridge reform he may hold views you find offensive on things you think are more important.