Not a big point. But there is *no* example of a private actor successfully building a full transit system or modern train system without lots of state subsidy and support. So learning how to do that effectively rather than in effectively matters, it cannot simply be delegated to the private sector to provision (as housing can and should …
Not a big point. But there is *no* example of a private actor successfully building a full transit system or modern train system without lots of state subsidy and support. So learning how to do that effectively rather than in effectively matters, it cannot simply be delegated to the private sector to provision (as housing can and should be).
Same with law enforcement. To my more limited knowledge, there is no example of a country with a great and fully privatized law enforcement system. Given the state needs to be involved to some extent, how to manage that effectively matters.
Neoliberalism and privatization cannot answer all our problems, and refocusing what government must do in objectives is vital even in a more market oriented country.
Right, but transit and police are somewhat specific examples of where this doesn’t work. There are other sectors like residential housing where the private sector seems perfectly fit to satisfy demand if we could just let them do it.
yeah for housing all that needs to happen is government to allow people to do what they want with their own property, and the market will build all the housing people desire.
But there will definitely be room for government in say getting transmission lines built (eminent domain almost certainly needed)
I think that we may have overfunded R&D. The replication crisis in the social sciences may indicate there are more people chasing grants than are capable of doing quality science.
Not everyone can play in the NBA. I suspect that the intelligence and the talents to do creative work in the sciences are equally rare. Add the fact that the social sciences should be _more difficult_ than the physical sciences.
I would argue this is fundamentally an example of survivorship bias. The point at which private actors see the need to build large transit networks and also have the resources to do so is generally the point at which they have reached the level of being a state actor.
Fundamentally, the question assumes that the dynamics of power distribution and conflicts don’t exist, then examines a reality where they do exist, and obviously finds a discrepancy.
It would be better to ask “Do companies pursue and execute well on public-facing projects within their domains of power?”. For example, do private actors invest resources into building public resources that are appropriate to the scope of their sub-state status? E.g., are private companies building good quality roads? Are individual actors setting effective industry standards? Are they participating in large coordination projects between agents that act in a de facto regulatory capacity? The answer is: yes. There are tons of orgs that represent this: ISO, ASTM, ISPE, ASQ, the REST standard, Go, Python, etc. etc.
I am not sure why you are using the example of transit or policing. The book is about abundance, not mass transit and policing. I have not yet finished the book but it does not seem to mention those policy domains. Neither does Lehman’s review…
Not a big point. But there is *no* example of a private actor successfully building a full transit system or modern train system without lots of state subsidy and support. So learning how to do that effectively rather than in effectively matters, it cannot simply be delegated to the private sector to provision (as housing can and should be).
Same with law enforcement. To my more limited knowledge, there is no example of a country with a great and fully privatized law enforcement system. Given the state needs to be involved to some extent, how to manage that effectively matters.
Neoliberalism and privatization cannot answer all our problems, and refocusing what government must do in objectives is vital even in a more market oriented country.
Right, but transit and police are somewhat specific examples of where this doesn’t work. There are other sectors like residential housing where the private sector seems perfectly fit to satisfy demand if we could just let them do it.
yeah for housing all that needs to happen is government to allow people to do what they want with their own property, and the market will build all the housing people desire.
But there will definitely be room for government in say getting transmission lines built (eminent domain almost certainly needed)
Or funding basic R&D
I think that we may have overfunded R&D. The replication crisis in the social sciences may indicate there are more people chasing grants than are capable of doing quality science.
Are they not capable, or does the incentive structure encourage something else
Yes.
Not everyone can play in the NBA. I suspect that the intelligence and the talents to do creative work in the sciences are equally rare. Add the fact that the social sciences should be _more difficult_ than the physical sciences.
Then there are the various gatekeepers.
I wish Substack would move that button.
I would argue this is fundamentally an example of survivorship bias. The point at which private actors see the need to build large transit networks and also have the resources to do so is generally the point at which they have reached the level of being a state actor.
Fundamentally, the question assumes that the dynamics of power distribution and conflicts don’t exist, then examines a reality where they do exist, and obviously finds a discrepancy.
It would be better to ask “Do companies pursue and execute well on public-facing projects within their domains of power?”. For example, do private actors invest resources into building public resources that are appropriate to the scope of their sub-state status? E.g., are private companies building good quality roads? Are individual actors setting effective industry standards? Are they participating in large coordination projects between agents that act in a de facto regulatory capacity? The answer is: yes. There are tons of orgs that represent this: ISO, ASTM, ISPE, ASQ, the REST standard, Go, Python, etc. etc.
Florida built high speed rail largely relying on private industry.
Florida may be a special case. Relatively flat, for cheaper construction. Good size cities reasonably close together. Growing population.
Also, the single line I know of hasn’t had _time_ to go bankrupt yet.
I am not sure why you are using the example of transit or policing. The book is about abundance, not mass transit and policing. I have not yet finished the book but it does not seem to mention those policy domains. Neither does Lehman’s review…
The book covers mass transit related to CA's failed attempt to build high speed rail.
While CA was not building 500 miles of high speed rail, China built 23,000 MILES of high speed rail.
China also built an over abundance of crappy housing blocks which no one will ever live in.
And of course, that's why this solution is letting the market actually build the housing, not mandate government build housing