Hacker News Reader

Comment by noahtallen | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

> 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.

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

An amount equal to the external utility of the services.

As much as necessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com