• markr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes it is. Luckily we have a system of taxation. By ‘free’ I mean of course ‘at the point of use’. We could provide 100% subsidies for mass transportation for probably around 100 years before we would approach equity with the subsidies we have given to fossil fuels and private transportation.

    • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason people don’t use public transport is because right now it absolutely sucks in most places if you want more people to use them then they need to be privatised so a business that actually has an insentive to provide a good service can take over and make them great ( for example look at Japan). This way you can also lower taxes a bit which is great for the economy

      • markr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh I agree. Use cost is one major problem, quality and non-existence is the other. However privatization is neoliberal bullshit. It doesn’t guarantee quality. It guarantees that profits will be extracted and therefore use cost will increase and/or quality will decrease.

        • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Companies actually have to make their customers happy, if there is adequate competition it will definitely work out, if you look at almost any industry (that isn’t overegulated) the customers are satisfied, companies have real insentives governments don’t.

          • markr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no competition for train lines. That is just stupid. Also multiple competing local bus services is equally stupid. Some services just don’t fit in the neoliberal model.

            • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ther’s no competition if you have a bureaucrats approving only specific train lines if you just live it to the free market it’ll be alright

              • markr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’ll try this slowly: it would be idiotic to have multiple rail systems providing the same routes.

                Please research ‘natural monopolies’ because that is the history of the unregulated development of the rail industry. If you are going to spout right-libertarian ideology, at least have some understanding of the history of capitalism.

                • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ther’s nothing wrong with having many rail systems serve the same route but the bureaucracts won’t let it happen, which is exactly how monopolies are formed. If the government only approves one company to build a train somewhere of course it’s going to be a monopoly. Monopolies cannot happen in a completely free market, without artificial boundaries competition will always be able to provide a service more attractive to consumers expect if the established company is providing an excellent service