Hacker News Reader

Comment by robga | Hacker News Reader

The June 2021 assessment [0] of the service notes that "the team will never be able to fully recoup their cost through a recharge model so will need to rely on centrally provided funding. This poses an important risk to the longevity of the product, as it is *dependent on political buy-in and budget from the Treasury*".

[0] https://www.gov.uk/service-standard-reports/gov-dot-uk-platf...

View on HN

A pathetic example of the ideological myopia that plagues Europe these days. States have provided services to their inhabitants since prehistory, and the notion that this infrastructure does not need financing is as healthy as a corporation that thinks it does not need to invest to succeed. At best, this strategy of living off of investments made by previous generations is doomed to underperform compared to states that take an active role in their own development.

I don't know if this is a European wide problem or just a UK one.

It certainly seems worst in the UK.

Definitely applies to Germany. Our infrastructure is deeply fucked and we missed all the chances to innovate after 16 years of conservative rule, but the balance sheets look nice though.

> compared to states that take an active role in their own development.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Which non-European states do you think do this well?

Probably the Moon colony around year 2150.

China

We don’t even have to zoom in on Europe. In the US, it’s quite common for folks to expect public services (like public transit or even the USPS) to be profitable. Which means these services don’t get the investment they really need.

If it was providing a service of as much value as was being spent on it, then why shouldn't it be profitable?

Having a profit motive drives a behavior of raising prices as high as the market will bear. That inherently excludes citizens who cannot afford to pay the “most efficient” price, who are often the ones who need the service the most (e.g. busses and other public transport). That reduces the ability for society to operate as a whole. If someone can’t afford to get to school, or to an entry-level job, how will they ever be able to move up in skills and pay? Who will the high-end electronic store sell their products to if people can’t afford them?

Municipal services are meant to serve as many citizens as possible, not to extract as much profit as possible, because it’s an overall benefit to everyone.

> If it was providing a service of as much value as was being spent on it, then why shouldn't it be profitable?

The entire point of a public service is that benefits accrue to people other than the direct consumers of the service.

Public services are profitable. You just need to look at the systemic effects of having the services available instead of just dollar signs

Just looking at money is incredibly short sighted and naïve

What percentage of US taxpayer money should go to subsidize money-losing services?

As much as necessary.

An amount equal to the external utility of the services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com