Beat the Press
National Income Accounting for Robert Samuelson and Friends
Dean Baker | Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C
Monday, March 27, 2017
Dean Baker — National Income Accounting for Robert Samuelson and Friends
Beat the Press
National Income Accounting for Robert Samuelson and Friends
Dean Baker | Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"We will be paying just as much in tolls in both cases (probably more in the private route, since they want a profit)."
Bullshit....
Yeah, we should privatize all roads, bridges, tunnels, etc and, make them tolls roads, and then we'd have no infrastructure problems in the future. (snark)
The 20% that the private partner takes in excess of operations and maintenance is MORE than made up for in the productivity advantages of a partnership form over government/authority form of institutional organization....
If they can maintain the infrastructure without increasing fares and turn a profit. The reason that the US infrastructure was let deteriorate is owing to the huge cost of maintenance.
As tolls rise, people tend to use alternate routes even though it is slower.
This is not only a tricky game but road was a natural monopoly. There are not going to be competing private toll roads.
The only way this works is if in the end government foots the bill for the maintenance and improvements.
Govt responsible for 80% of original investment , private partner 20% .. ops and maintenance paid by tolls ... also return of/on original investment paid by tolls 80/20... to govt/private...
Equals government takes the risk. Why cut private contractors in on the deal when they can be engaged by competitive bidding?
Better operational execution....
There is competition when the govt goes thru the process of looking for a qualified partner at the beginning of the project...
Better operational execution....
What is the evidence for the assumption that privatization or private participation (PPP) is either more effective or more efficient in creating and maintaining infrastructure that was previously entirely a public responsibility?
There is competition when the govt goes thru the process of looking for a qualified partner at the beginning of the project...
And how is this superior to competing bidding?
Anyway, Trump is proposing it to "get the munnie" from private investment, which is nonsense from the MMT POV.
The reason that the US infrastructure was let deteriorate is owing to the huge cost of maintenance.
Nothing whatsoever to do with corporate tax breaks (average 12% payment on 35% statutory rate) or offshoring trillions to avoid taxes altogether ... it's not the huge cost, it's the failure to collect the money necessary to perform the task.
And as any idiot knows, it is generally much cheaper to maintain something in proper condition than it is to replace it when it is past repair, which of course becomes a huge giveaway to some special interest.
I live in one of the most expensive areas of the US and the roads are crap and there are no municipal services like garbage or leaf pickup. Public transport and rail service are next to non-existent. Local roads are cleaned by volunteers who get a sign recognizing their contribution. Average house price 2016: $2.13m.
If only there were empirical evidence regarding PPPs. Oh wait, there is:
http://www.world-psi.org/sites/default/files/rapport_eng_56pages_a4_lr.pdf
PPPs are crap.
Jeff seems like the criticism there is about financial terms not real terms...
A general revenue bond is always going to go off at a lower rate than a specific revenue bond... but both are low rates for decent states...
Here:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-port-efficiency-award-20161213-story,amp.html
Real terms:
"The port averaged 71 container moves per hour per berth, unloading and loading giant container ships by crane faster than any other port in the country."
PPPs are always going to be more efficient...
Post a Comment