308
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 59 points 1 year ago

Infrastructure delivers more economic impact with less grifting when it's not designed and run to make a profit on its own.

[-] DickFiasco@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago

Right? When did we start becoming concerned with a public service being "profitable"? I've heard this applied to the US Postal Service a lot recently.

[-] theragu40@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

"The postal service is losing money!"

No, the postal service costs money. It's a service. It doesn't aim to make a profit. It costs money, and we are in turn rendered a service that is useful.

I swear people are delusional.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Conservatives want to kill the postal service because it competes with for profit services they own and invest in. See: DeJoy

[-] theragu40@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Which of course is stupid, because USPS is actually great and provides a much better and more reliable service than any private competitor even in its current underfunded state.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

Yet nobody ever expects the road system to turn a profit. Why should trains be any different?

[-] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

I first remember it becoming an issue when a failed businessman turned president wanted to run the country like one of his failed businesses.

[-] Zitronensaft@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I remember Postal Service profitability being a political issue under the second Bush, too. Trump didn't start that. He probably even benefited from the previous rounds because he bought a historic post office in DC when it was sold off and he turned it into a hotel. That's the same hotel where people stayed during his presidency to curry favor with him.

[-] spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You want to put pressure on these things to make them more cost effecient. You're in a capitalist system which does that job very well. But since this is not really a replaceable company, the government has to own these companies until they go public.

[-] geissi@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

When did we start becoming concerned with a public service being “profitable”?

Late 80s, early 90s, with the rise of the rise of the Chicago School of neoliberalism.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Depends how you calculate profit.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly it's not accumulating debt. It's a service being provided to citizens.

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
308 points (97.0% liked)

World News

32352 readers
410 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS