Posted by: graemebird | November 3, 2008

Stupidity Versus Evil: The Congestion Tax Debate At Catallaxy.

POST ORIGINALLY NOVEMBER 2008. BROUGHT TO THE FRONT MARCH 2009.

Brought to the front to gloat a bit about how these evil bastards took the idea of a congestion tax to just abuse people in Sydney who needed to go to work. There was nothing about the way they handled matter that would have been expected to lead to less congestion. None of the people involved with the evil side of the argument mentioned it at all. And none of the stupid side of the argument pointed out how atrocious the extra charge on the bridge was. They being too stupid to handle this matter.

They put the Sydney charge up to $4 for some part of the day. It was just a mindless thing. Since they kept a minimum $2.50 going round the clock. So it wasn’t going to stiff-arm companies into giving their workers flexitime, or into the management putting a shitload of extra work into rostering….. and finding that there were all sorts of productivity benefits from spreading less people out amongst more capital goods.

None of it was ever going to happen because the evil side of the argument were calling the shots.

How they ought to have done it is to admit that it would be iterative. And yes put it up to 4 dollars at that time. But then make it FREE AFTER 9.00 AM AND BEFORE 6.00 AM. That would have decisively brought up rostering into the picture.

How I’d do it is that I’d say “Right you evil bastards. You’ve only got 5 out of any 24 hours to do your bashing to reduce congestion… The other 19 hours its free.”

Since we know that these guys are wicked, anti-car, barely disguised greenie parasites right from the start, only by this method can we hope to pull out the scintilla of legitimate reasoning in pursuit of user-pays and ending congestion… and stopping the evil side of the argument from just bludgeoning people for no reason at all.

Here we are talking about a single bridge. And so as we expanded the charging network so that all road costs were taken up under congestion charges…… thats when you’d have to get rid of any taxes on gasoline (having already got rid of taxes on diesel and liquified-coal EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) any registration fees or any other putupons getting in the way of people driving their motor. But a fully-integrated road charging system city-wide would have us maybe charging as much as 12 hours a day and leaving 12 hours free. And there are civil liberties issues here as well. So for the time being, while things are as they are I STILL cannot support these measures. But my lack of support for congestion tax does not mean that there is not some technical economics validity behind it.

This is the other reason I’ve brought this topic up. I’m wanting to bring up a whole new series of technical matters in economics to do with Pigouvian thinking, the land tax and so forth. And I think its important to get the technical economics side of things right. And its important to be able to do this without the usual crowd of compulsive liars claiming that I support something, no matter what the context, just because I make some ground-breaking progress in technical economics. Anyway here is what I said about the congestion tax last November brought to the front.

And then after that will be the post where I come down on the stupid side of the argument and reject the congestion tax for the time being knowing that it will be abused…. and it was not long until I was proven right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOVEMBER 2008

The current debate at Catallaxy about the congestion tax is terrible because both sides are atrocious.

We have the stupid side of the debate. Thats Sinclair and the others. And then we have the evil side of the debate. Edney, Soon et al. I’m amazed that the wicked Kodjo didn’t show up.

Yes of course congestion tax is the right idea. Because it brings rational pricing reality to the road system and its user pays. It brings rational pricing to city-layout and to the choice between city and country living.It brings rationality to rostering and working around the clock in the big city. The stupid side of the argument has no serious answer to that.

But the evil side of the argument is wicked indeed. These are Pigouvian extremists. Every day they go to see what Mankiw has to say and they love the Harvard brand-name. When you see the Harvard brand name just think of a swastika, superimposed over a tree

What they are really after. What they really want, is for the truck driver (lets say) to pay income tax, cap-and-kill-tax, GST, excise tax on fuel, non-renewable resources tax, a seperate non-CO2-pollution tax, a road damage charge and on and on until they acheive sexual fullfillment at the death or bankruptcy of all the drivers. They want each of these hateful taxes cascading backwards and forth on eachother and as well the congestion tax. And they don’t want to make sure the funds are for roads alone. No they want to steal it all. Put it into some socialist slush-fund for green solar trains or something.

The congestion tax will be harmful if its not about more mileage rather than less. And less taxes rather than more. Cheaper costs per mile and more miles driven. It ought to come in in such a way as to help and not hurt our truck drivers. It will not be an economic success unless the change in the mix of taxes leads to great relief for the truck driver. At least in the first instance.

Bear in mind the truckies will be sorely put out. They’ll basically have to pull off the roads at peak time if they are headed the wrong way. It will create all sorts of planning difficulties to make sure the truckies are in fact heading the “right” way.

Its got to be congestion tax and congestion tax alone. Thats got to fund the entire road system and only the roads and we have to get rid of all of the other taxes cap-and-kill not excepted. And it ought to come in with a 5 year suspension of income tax for truckies as well.

We cannot be too careful about this matter. Because a progressing economy in the first instance progresses via a lengthening in the structure of production. That means more and not less mileage in the short run. Perhaps down the track we might develop more wharves and there will be more tugboats and things operating all along the coast.

Tug boats can pull immense amounts of cargo very cheaply but at a slow pace. And in the longer run this might steal a lot of custom from the truckies. But this pigouvian extremism is so destructive. Because they get hold of one of the few areas where a charge makes sense and they go demonic with it. No consideration for their fellow humans whatsoever. No consideration for prior intervention or existing unfair and non-neutral taxes.

Also note that none of these guys mentioned the critical supply-of-fuel factor. If we want this congestion tax to pay for the maintenance and building of all these new roads and tunnels and things to make that nut work we want gigalitres of extra fuel production. That means nuclear plants providing the heat and hydrogen for liquified coal as well as the nuclear plants crowding out coal-electricity which is a shocking waste when nuclear is available.

But no hint of all that. In the Pigouvian extremists world its just a world of suffering. We’ve got to conserve that fuel. Some of them pretend the oil from traditional sites is everlasting and no move to synthetics is necessary.

But thats by the by. Thats not their main focus. Their main focus is hurting the fuel users. The CO2 producers. They don’t think the song title “Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me” is the least bit cool.

They want every fucker having to take the train. And mark my words, a big part of this deal is these guys wanting to steal off the motorists to build trains everywhere. They won’t feel satisfied if thats not part of the deal.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “SteveEdney Says:
    November 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
    What I can’t understand is how Bird can be on our side and have escaped the taint of evil.”

    Try READING you evil bastard. Not only evil but illiterate. This is where the evil bastard pretends to be even more stupid than he is through wickedness and guile.

  2. Part of the evil of it I know from past experience. Soon at first wanted to treat it as a Pigouvian deal rather as a prelude to some sort of privatisation. But when it came to privatisation he refused to enter into any discussion that wasn’t a tax-eater plunder-and-splurge affair followed by a total sellout to crony-town. Even so much as calling capitalism in this situation giving it all up to communist interests.

    AND THOSE DUMB BASTARDS MARK HILL AND JIMMY-SPIV BACKED HIM UP ON THIS.

    It was extremely crude house-nigger talk all in favour of the big end of town. And totally against the interests of your average Joe. When I went to talk about how you could have a competitive market in the medium term this is just brushed aside.

    So when these clowns talk about congestion tax its the destruction of the motorist.

    When these clowns talk about privatisation of roads its all giveaways to the rich for no fucking reason at all. And its all predicated on the idea that if your average Joe walks out his door he’s already trespassing if the road owner wants him to be.

    So it was all just from one evil extreme to the other. Any attempt to project a competitive market that was practical and in the interests of your average Joe was simply Lamberted out of the air.

    Evil and Stupid. The whole conversation dominated by evil and stupidity.

  3. …………allow discussion here bird.

    DISCUSS AWAY. BUT SAY SOMETHING WITH A BIT OF MENTAL EFFORT PUT INTO IT. THIS IS TOO GOOD A BLOG TO BE WATERED DOWN BY EVIL STUPID PEOPLE WHO AREN’T EVEN PUTTING A BIT OF EFFORT IN.

    I’M PARTICULARLY NOT GOING TO LET THE THREAD OF DOOM TECHNIQUE OBSCURE MY EFFORTS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION. THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT TO LET THAT SORT OF CRAP GO ON OUT OF SOME SORT OF MISPLACED LIBERTARIAN PIETY.

  4. why did you misrepresent edney and then wipe his clarification?

    You are a dishonourable ‘man’, Graeme Montgomery Bird,

  5. You’re in top form Bird. Mankiw a Pigouvian extremist. He’d be amused.

    Me, I like wicked.

    I do remain of the presumably wicked view that what you raise from a road tax is largely (but not entirely) independent of what you spend on roads. The reason the two not entirely independent, is that a rational tax, ie one that brings the marginal social cost of congestion into line with marginal valuation of road transit, can help signal when greater capacity should be built (eg, if the expected revenue generated by the tax, which provides a minimal reflection of consumers valuation of the road, exceeds the cost of expanding the road, then such an expansion is called for.)

  6. Hey Bird, how do you get rational pricing outside of a market system?

    The evil guys can fantaise all they like about rational taxes, but you cannot rationally price congestion. The tax is essentially an arbitrary act of central planning that privileges the rich for access to the road net work built out of consolidated revenue.

    Kodjo’s point is nonsense because a price set outside market processes cannot reflect anyone’s valuation of the road, only their tolerance for the tax given individual elasticities and financial means.

  7. Jason Soon.

    I didn’t wipe his clarification. And his clarification was bullshit also. He doesn’t know what he wants to achieve. He hasn’t thought it through. What use would it be getting rid of the cross-city tunnel charge? You’d have to have a congestion charge there also. Since once the charge came onto the bridge and everywhere else all this traffic would flow to previously underutilized roads.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Thats all true Kodjo. Actually in the longer run you ought to be able to raise both the maintenance and the implied interest of the capital cost that the real estate represents. Getting this sort of money would wind up kicking off a big tunneling industry if the rules for tunneling were formalised and not made a special privilege of tax-eater/cronytown.

    New roads have to be created. So if the old roads were only raising enough for maintenance then the new roads would not be profitable under the same charging system. All true what you are saying.

    BUT

    1. This in no way implies that this can ever be a fundraiser. Rather it must obviously be a source of tax cuts.

    2. Nowhere is there an excuse for a whole swag of these other charges. Surely the model is to have NO REGO charge and to get the people on the roads where you can hit them up for congestion but only when there is congestion. There is no reason why a family cannot have ten vehicles. One of them might be air-car to save fuel. They might have a motorbike to save on congestion tax. They may have motor assisted bicycles because now many of the roads would be car-free at certain times. Its not up to these nutballs to charge for registration. Edneys being feeble in the face of incredibly vicious thieving bastards.

    So its all gotta be rolled into congestion charge. Not even into road damage. Since this presupposes that some entrepreneur cannot come up with a more robust roads. And its another chance for abuse. Its got to be congestion and congestion alone.

    What possible excuse could anyone have for both congestion and excise fuel. It runs counter to purpose. It buggers up the entire pricing arrangement.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Pedro. Starting from 2008 there is no rational way to price the roaduse WITHIN a market system. Not without major dislocation which can be avoided if we set up the rational pricing first.

    Think about it. There is no way. The reason dates right back to colonial times and the way we established land titles. Which was overly generous and ought to have included plenty of buffer space around the titled property and THROUGH substantial titled properties. No-one has the right to give someone something that they don’t themselves own. Hence the government, in many cases, was wrong to give land that didn’t involve the new owner having improved that land intensively…. But I’ll get into that later.

    The point is you can only have rational prices with a city-wide pricing system. And it would be rational on the basis that it is ITERATIVE. Where there was congestion you would increase the charges a tad each week at that time….. but not where there was the congestion. Rather you would increase the charges in the roads leading INTO where the congestion cropped up.

    But each week whensoever that time slot for that road was underutilized the charges for the roads leading INTO that road would be reduced. The idea would be to at first find the right ITERATIVE rules to smooth it all out. You really need to do this prior to even thinking about private administration.

    A lot of the revenue would have to go to local councils. Because the councils will have all these people complaining about trucks going past their place at all hours of the night. Where possible you have to deal with this by rates relief sufficient to allow the afflicted landowner to be able to invest in all sorts of sound-proofing and the like. So its never going to be a fundraiser. Later it can be a source of tax cuts. But it cannot be a fundraiser.

  8. No, you can only have rational prices in a competitive market.

    I JUST SHOWED YOU HOW TO GET RATIONAL PRICES YOU FUCKING MORON.

    Outside a competitive market you have centrally planned prices or monopoly set prices.

    BUT I JUST DEMONSTRATED THIS VERY FUCKING HOUR HOW IT WOULD BE RATIONAL PRICING IN THIS SITUATION YOU DUMB CUNT.

    A congestion charge on public roads is a centrally planned price.

    BUT YOU STUPID CUNT ITS A RATIONAL PRICE IN THIS SITUATION. AND THE RATIONAL PRICE IS CERTAINLY NOT ZERO YOU THICK SHITHEAD.

    NO YOU DON’T GET TO INSULT ME WHEN YOU ARE BEING A BLOCKHEAD.

    You need to be very careful when trying to intepret this type of “price” signal. I can’t see how it will meaningfully help decisions about how much road to build.

    BUT THATS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT. ONCE YOU HAD SORTED THE RULES FOR CHARGING YOU HAVE A READY INFORMATION FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BUILD AND RUN A NEW LENGTH OF ROAD

    The arbitrary nature THERE IS NO ARIBITRARY NATURE TO IT. ITS ITERATIVE TO NEAR-MAXIMIZE USAGE AND CLEAR CONGESTION.

    THATS NOT ARBITRARY YOU FUCKHEAD. THATS OBJECTIVE

    of the initial price makes all calculations derived from it similarly arbitrary.

    NOT THATS CRAP. THE THING WOULD RIGHT ITSELF ITERATIVELY NO MATTER WHAT YOUR STARTING POINT IS YOU RETARD.

    NO YOU DON’T GET TO INSULT ME WHEN YOU ARE BEING A DROOLING RETARD.

    SO MY HEADING HAS BEEN PROVEN. CLEARLY YOU ARE THE STUPID SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. WHEREAS THE MALIGN CO2-BEDWETTING AND HURT THE MOTORIST SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT IS THE OTHER SIDE.

  9. No mate you are fucking wrong.

    Lets go over it again. And this time attempt not to be a stupid cunt.

    Starting from 2008 you cannot have rational charging on the roads EXCEPT through a city-wide charging system.

    And you can get rational charging by making it ITERATIVE.

    Now stop talking stupid shit.

    Because you CANNOT demonstrate what you are talking about.

    Fucking idiot.

  10. Obviously if you get the charging ITERATIVE and you do so in such a way as to get no congestion but maximum or near-maximum utilisation…… well this can be said to be RATIONAL.

    Now don’t be a stupid cunt and just say something isn’t true when it is.

    Fucking hell mate you are a dim bulb.

  11. Now third parties. We can see if we are serious about it, it becomes pretty obvious that this regime will shift living costs famously in favour of regional centres. We here in Sydney might wind up with only a few hours in the day where the charges WOULDN’T apply on some level. Whereas some of these towns might wind up with only 1 hour in 24 where the charges applied.

    But this might be and probably is how things ought to be. There is nothing to say that these big cities aren’t an historical anomaly. An anomaly caused by taxpayer subsidised infrastructure and perhaps fractional reserve lending where all the lending is skewed to the areas where land appreciation is expected.

  12. What a stupid cunt this pedro is hey? I just explained to him how you can have rational prices and the dumb cunt says “no you cannot have rational prices” right after I had explained precisely how you could have rational prices.

    I did say it was the argument of the evil versus the stupid over at catallaxy didn’t I?

    Told you so.

  13. Nice manners graeme. And you’re a dope. You cannot set a rational price for a congestion charge.

    I JUST TOLD YOU HOW YOU DUMB CUNT

    Iterative pricing might, if workable for your road network, get your near maximal utilisation

    NOW YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF. SO WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING YOU CANNOT SET RATIONAL PRICES IN THIS SITUATION?????

    , but it is still a joke of an idea.

    SAYS YOU BUT YOU ARE AN IDIOT

    We’re talking about roads dummy.

    WHEN DID I FUCKING SAY WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT ROADS YOU FUCKING MORON????? ALL I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS ROADS YOU STUPID CUNT.

    Just think about the implications of state pricing of movement.

    I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THEM. BLOODY PETROL TAX. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT IS???? REGO TAX????? ITS TERRIBLE, ITS DISGRACEFUL
    NO GET FUCKED. YOU DON’T GET TO INSULT ME WHEN YOU ARE BEING SUCH A DUMB CUNT.

  14. I JUST TOLD YOU HOW YOU COULD DO IT YOU STUPID CUNT.

    You are just being a moron.

    Unless you can explain yourself in some logical fashion you will get wiped. Because I already fucking told you how to do it.

    Now stop being a dumb cunt. And stop lying.

    You are a fucking moron nugent.

    A fucking lightweight.

  15. No, you can only have rational prices in a competitive market. Outside a competitive market you have centrally planned prices or monopoly set prices

    This is taking Economics 101 to ridiculous extremes pedro. By your logic then anything short of perfect competition doesn’t yield rational prices. How do you define the market in this case? The market for roads? The market for transport?

    *Someone* has to own the roads and whoever owns it has to manage it so that the benefits from road usage are maximised. That’s the rational pricing dilemma. It wouldn’t matter if the government or a private corporation owned the roads, there would probably still be some road rules and speeding rules agreed?

    Then why do you have a problem with pricing? if the city road system were handed over to say Macquarie Bank would road pricing suddenly magically become rational by virtue of the change in ownership?

    No, so why are you obsessed over the government-owner at least trying to manage it rationally to avoid congestion? We are not at the stage where all roads can be privately owned but if they were would you then argue we shouldn’t allow the owners to manage congestion?
    \
    The congestion scheme has to be assessed on its merits and already has and the only argument you have on that score is you think it’s unfair to price income constrained people out of certain peak times. But that is irrelevant to whether your alternative handles congestion better. it doesn’t. you’d rather everyone sit in traffic for the sake of ‘fairness’

  16. He cannot escape the fact that the roads need to be paid for. That there is alternative uses for all that real estate. And that the rational price is not zero. And yet the rational pricing CAN be found. Since it can be discovered how the charging can be altered flexibly to clear congestion and get more or less continual usage.

    It doesn’t matter what the general truths are. For this specific situation matters can be, and are, different.

    And it doesn’t have to be PERFECT AND RATIONAL pricing. The one best pricing system known heretofore only to God. But sussing out rules for iterative changes to charging can deliver rational pricing good enough to privatise down the track under firm property rights. Not freehold property rights but strong property rights nonetheless.

  17. You need to be very careful when trying to intepret this type of “price” signal. I can’t see how it will meaningfully help decisions about how much road to build.

    The price signal has nothing to say about how many roads to build.

    It’s a congestion charge. It does enough which is to create an implicit market whereby people can make their opportunity cost of time fungible.

  18. No no Jason. You are both wrong. If you have clear rules for the iterative nature of the charging, and if those rules are predictable and the same for new entrants, then it can indeed set up a clear guide to decision-making for someone who wishes to build a stretch of road.

  19. OK I was wrong about that, Kodjo’s original formulation is better. The price can serve as an input:

    what you raise from a road tax is largely (but not entirely) independent of what you spend on roads. The reason the two not entirely independent, is that a rational tax, ie one that brings the marginal social cost of congestion into line with marginal valuation of road transit, can help signal when greater capacity should be built (eg, if the expected revenue generated by the tax, which provides a minimal reflection of consumers valuation of the road, exceeds the cost of expanding the road, then such an expansion is called for.)

  20. Right. But its not going to DO THE JOB if you have any other taxes. So cap-and-kill has to go. Income tax thresholds have to be lifted. No excise tax.

    See you are looking at it from an evil socialist point of view Jason. It has to be a valid price signal that people can predict and rely on or the private investors cannot step in with confidence and the government stay out of it.

  21. A market price in a competitive market reflects supply and demand, it is not perfect but it is independent. You’re talking about exploring price effects on behaviour to try and determine the right pricing for something as hugely complex and variable as demands on road networks.

    The demand for roads should be estimated from population and development trends

    See your contradictions Pedro? You’re saying congestion charges are not a rational price because they don’t reflect supply and demand because it’s government planners who are trying to evaluate these things then in the other sentence you say ‘demand can be estimated’ presumably by central planners whether they are the NSW government or Disneyworld or Macquarie Bank. If they can be estimated for the purpose of building roads and you trust these central planners to do this, why can’t they be estimated to minimise congestion i.e. make efficient use of existing roads.

    and no, for the last time, building more roads doesn’t eliminate congestion because congestion arises when many people want to use existing roads at certain periods of time because peak times go unpriced. when you say ‘priced out of existing roads’ what you really mean is not being able to use roads exactly when they want but opting for another time period reflect the fact that they value using it at peak time less than the peak price.

  22. Bird what do you think of Mark’s idea to devolve ownership of the roads to resident groups? then let the pricing and interconnections evolve naturally?

  23. The government cannot give it to resident groups. Because the government doesn’t own it and the resident groups didn’t build it. The person who gets the benefit of these roads has to homestead them. Or we do it as close to the homesteading principle as we can.

    No this is just Mark being an idiot. THE PRICING MUST COME FIRST. Then we can figure out what to do.

    We find the right price-changing RULES.

    This is a special problem. Since you cannot allow the charger to increase the charges WHERE THE CONGESTION IS. The ability to increase the charge must come UPSTREAM FROM THE ACTUAL CONGESTION.

    Otherwise the motherfucker can block up his road.

    THIS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD. And you must acknowledge that you understand this this time.

    If I want to increase the charges on my road it cannot be because my road is congested. It has to be that I’ve invested so that the guy DOWNSTREAM FROM ME is congested.

    Do you understand that problem at least.

    Because last time you were just doing the thread of doom on me (you being the evil component) and of course Mark was just being a dopey lunatic just like Pedro.

    This is what you must acknolwledge. Its NOT!!!!!! precisely the stratch of road that is congested that ought to be able to increase the charge. Since the people upstream from the congested area are the ones who have gotten the efficient throughput it is them that must get the charge increase. Otherwise you are rewarding failure.

    Its this undeniable factor that forces us to get the pricing first prior to deciding the best way to privatize things.

    If you cannot acknowledge that as the special problem involved here, then you don’t understand the problem and the rest of what you are going to say is going to be useless.

  24. Is this my discovery? Have you heard it anywhere else? I want my fucking Nobels if its original to me.

    Nonetheless its undeniable. But its not a hard problem to overcome. Just so long as people aren’t idiotic about it.

  25. The deal about property titles is they have to be simple so that they can be strong.

    Now I’m hoping that you won’t be a complete cunt about this this time around. But I’m going over old ground.

    From a starting point of 1808 we might have been able to have just freehold and unclaimed land and the unclaimed land we could use for transit. I want to not speculate about that at this point.

    But what we can say is that from a starting point of 2008 freehold roads are not appropriate. That should be obvious. Because we would be locked in.

    Now you guys would argue about company law regulations and all that jive. But thats all interventionism.

    So we had to figure it out AS IF we were dealing with sole traders alone.

    At this point Jason, you fucking evil bastard, you’d just start lying.

    But reasoning is all very clear. We need to be able to formulate non-freehold titles with clear rules, and if we cannot do it for the sole trader than we are clearly on the wrong track.

    So when Mark talks about hand-balling it to a collective of residents he just being an idiot again. He’s running away from the problem and letting his eyes glaze over. And in any case the government has no right to hand people gifts. Its not there gear to hand to people.

    So the first step is to get the pricing, then get the price-changing rules sorted out and simplified.

    And then we can have people homestead sections of road for the purpose of picking up the known charges.

  26. No its not better to auction the roads. Can you attempt not to be an idiot.

    Thats just a slushfund for taxeaters. What advantage does that give anyone. Now I’m trespassing just walking on that road.

    Its pretty clear to me you haven’t grasped a fucking thing I’ve said. Or you wouldn’t suggest such a ludicrous idea as auctioning.

    LETS GO OVER IT AGAIN. THIS TIME ATTEMPT TO ABSORB IT.

    “This is what you must acknolwledge. Its NOT!!!!!! precisely the stratch of road that is congested that ought to be able to increase the charge. Since the people upstream from the congested area are the ones who have gotten the efficient throughput it is them that must get the charge increase. Otherwise you are rewarding failure.”

    If you say “oh we’ll auction it” you’ve just let your eyes glaze over. On what basis do you auction it? Freehold?

    Thats an anti-liberty solution from starting point 2008. And obviously so. We are far too restricted in our movements………

    ….. You might not be smart enough for this discussion. If I have to repeat myself constantly it means you are not grasping things.

  27. “This is what you must acknolwledge. Its NOT!!!!!! precisely the stratch of road that is congested that ought to be able to increase the charge. Since the people upstream from the congested area are the ones who have gotten the efficient throughput it is them that must get the charge increase. Otherwise you are rewarding failure.”

    Have you got THAT far yet? Have you sorted that much of it out?

    This is the unique problem of road ownership start-day-today. It will lead to immensely crappy outcomes just selling stuff off like that. And the reason is because of the above. It will be a horrible obstruction. Well it might resolve itself after some period of rampant chaos and exploitation. But its not the answer right away.

    Now do you understand why?

    It ought not be too difficult to absorb the nature of the problem.

  28. I’ve just never been able to get people to understand the fundamental problem of road freehold.

    Fucking hell. You would think this would be easy to understand.

  29. What do you people have to do?

    Do you have to go and consult Mankiw or something?

    Just try and think it through. Congestion is not proof of charge-worthiness. Since the road owner can block his own road. Its only proof of a totally independent owner upstream having a justification to increase HIS charge.

  30. I guess if you are going to be bigoted about someone like Palin you just aren’t going to be able to muster the brainpower to understand what I’m talking about.

    My analysis would seem to imply that the roads ought to be homesteaded just one 50m stretch at a time. If the entrpreneur sees that the charging system is such that one stretch of road would be congested without the charges….. and the roads upstream are getting a bunch of money, he can commandeer and improve a small stretch of it, like partcularly an intersection, and get the congestion pushed downstream, therefore grabbing the lions-share of the charges.

    But this is all speculative. The pricing iteration and then finding the best pricing rules comes first.

  31. Conjestion is its own dissincentive. An additional charge is simply government policy which helps the money-rich & time-poor and hurts the money-poor & time-rich.

    Of course, roads should be private anyway and the owners can decide their own prices.

  32. speaking of decongesting the internet of nonsense..

    someone has hacked catallaxy.. quite professional or congessional

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3773#comments

  33. Jesus. They did a right job on Catallaxy.

  34. No you got it all wrong Humphreys. But I’m having to side with the stupid side of the argument on this one.

    I’m supposing that the stupid side of the argument have good instincts but lack introspection. So that therefore I’m suggesting you and Pedro’s subconcious minds are in the right and are telling you correctly that this will lead to more thieving and appalling Big Brother snooping. And it is this that is making you stupid on the technical side of it.

    Because in the hands of these evil bastards this congestion tax will just give these guys awesome power to screw things up. And so I’m with you in opposing it for the time being.

  35. Lets hope that Jason really tries to follow through and stitch the culprits up.

  36. Someone NOT NECESSARILY advocating assassination but musing out loud about it. He is not me. But he does seem to come from the same background and part of the world as me:

    “I’m an old man now and have never for a moment thought that the asssassination of a President would be a good thing for America. Now I’m not so sure… If this man serves… a full term America may not recover from the damage done to her. The traitorous filth – installed by the media and gullible fools looking for salvation via the half-bred fixer – are on course to destroy the Republic. If it takes a bullet to avert that, then so be it.”

    There is absolutely nothing to disagree with here except for the idea of assassination itself which this fellow is only speculating about.

    Soetoro will destroy the Republic if he is not stopped in some way. And millions must die because of this. Other then the speculation we are focusing on….. well the rest of it is true and every word.

  37. The fascism of the people at grodspost is incredible. I make it that they are authentically trying to get this harmless old man murdered by the Usurpers goons.

    There is nothing this fucking scum won’t stoop too.

  38. Just in case you think I’m mucking about:

    osama… jets… cyanide… bombs… president… new york… fleshlights… drugs… taliban… david hicks… plans… jihad… iran… allah… john surname… hamas… hummus… dirty bomb… bali… lakemba… kings of leon… 9/11… underground… air force one… stingers… oil wells… donkeys…

    OK, CIA computers, now we’ve got your attention, please take note of the ramblings of one K.G. at A Wrestler’s Heaven:

    I’m an old man now and have never for a moment thought that the asssassination of a President would be a good thing for America. Now I’m not so sure… If this man serves… a full term America may not recover from the damage done to her. The traitorous filth – installed by the media and gullible fools looking for salvation via the half-bred fixer – are on course to destroy the Republic. If it takes a bullet to avert that, then so be it.

    Your agents will find this KG person on a remote farm on New Zealand’s North Island. Be careful though, he’s probably got a bigger arsenal than David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. And KG is still reliving the Vietnam War and has seen Platoon, like, 200 times, so his farm is most likely booby-trapped with DIY claymores and trip wires cunningly honed from dental floss. He’s an early riser so a raid just before dawn, when KG heads out to tend his sheep (the same way that Thomas Jefferson used to tend his slaves) might catch him with his trousers-down.

    Go to it, lads, nab the stupid old bastard. (Hat tip to THR and Toaf.)

    UPDATE

    Before this post, Tim Blair had AWH in his blogroll. After this post, AWH has disappeared from Tim Blair’s blogroll. “Curiouser and curiouser”, said Alice.

    opium… al qaeda… mumbai… jamaah islamiah… doner kebab… uss cole… tanzanian embassy… mosques… let’s cook! with craig… israel… halaal… beheading… mujahadeen… infidels… 7/7… birmingham… washington… goose fat… anal sex… burkas… jews… pegging…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I make it that these guys are really authentically trying to get this harmless nice old NewZealander murdered. I believe that this is the intention of the post.

    These are fucking evil people I tell you.

  39. I invite you to condemn this advocacy of assassination. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude that you endorse it

  40. Well I do condemn the advocacy of assassination. I’m not sure this fellow is advocating it. He’s wondering about it sure.

    How about Hitler? I invite you to categorically say that he ought not have been assassinated.

    I think he ought to have been assassinated any time from about 1936 on. What do you think?

    What about Saddam. Clinton tried to have him assassinated. What do you say about that?

    Clearly you cannot rule it out in all situations. Certainly if someone wins an election legitimately and the next election is still going to be free and fair it may seem like too strong a sanction.

    What do you think. Forget the Usurper and fraud for a moment. What about the general subject.

    In fact you have supported the mass-murder of women and children. You support it still. And you refuse to back down from it.

    And I know you endorse the mass-murder of women and children. Because you have said so many times openly.

    Are you NOW ready to back down from your support of OPERATION KEELHAUL?

    Let the record show that Jason Soon has turned down many opportunities to back away from his support of operation keelhaul and has accepted none.

    (FASCIST).

  41. Obama is not Hitler.

    I would be happy to endorse the assassination of Hitler.

  42. Very good. So its not something that I can categorically back away from. In fact for three years I have advocated a hunting season for the entire ruling elite as the preferred form of warfare. So clearly I cannot back away from it without a string of caveats. Nor could I advocate it without an even longer string.

    So are you NOW ready to back away from your support of operation keelhaul?

  43. There are many aggrieved people in Kenya whose family members have been murdered thanks to the joint efforts of Barry and his alleged cousin.

    No-one could blame one of them for taking a shot at this criminal fraud usurper who is desperately trying to destroy America.

    For the rest of us such action is surely premature. And I myself would never get involved in such a thing. Not even tangentially.

  44. the labour market is getting re-regulated, the EU is cracking down on tax havens and you’re worried about fiat money and Obama’s citizenship.

    FIAT MONEY AND THE RULE OF LAW ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. IF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION WERE FOLLOWED THEN YOU WOULD HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A DEFENSE ALLIANCE THAT WAS NOT REGULATED FROM THE CENTRE. HAD THERE NOT BEEN FIAT MONEY THIS GENERAL COLLAPSE, AND THE SUBSEQUENT UNREASON, COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD ECONOMICS YOU’D PRIORITISE ACCORDINGLY. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD ETHICS YOU’D BACK AWAY FROM OPERATION KEELHAUL. THE EU IS CRACKING DOWN ON TAX HAVENS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THIS BAD ECONOMICS OF YOURS THAT I SPOKE ABOUT THIS VERY DAY. UNDER YOUR ECONOMICS CIRCA 1970 THE FREE MARKET ZONE OF HONG KONG COULD BE THOUGHT TO BE UNDERMINING CHINA.

    ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU PRIORITISING? HAVING SEEN WHAT SOETORO IS DOING THE MARXIST TYPES IN THE LABOUR PARTY ARE DROPPING THEIR REASONABLE FACADE AND GOING FOR MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT. MY OWN GIRLS HAD PLANS TO OPEN A RESTAURANT AND THESE WILL DESTROY THEM UTTERLY. WHAT CAN I DO? BAD ECONOMISTS UNDERCUTTING ME EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. CONSIDER WHAT ALL THIS LOADING AND BUSINESS WILL BE DOING FOR CONGESTION. I HATE THAT MARXIST BITCH. I HATE HER SO VERY VERY MUCH. BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO WHEN CAMBRIA SPENDS HALF HIS TIME PRAISING HER.

    THIS WANTON DESTRUCTION OF ANOTHER ENTRY-LEVEL BUSINESS DIDN’T DROP FROM A CLEAR BLUE SKY. YOU GUYS ALL THINK ITS A SOCIAL FUCKING FAUX PASS THAT YOU CAN EVER TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT ITS NOT RIGHT TO LET MARXISTS NEAR POWER. ITS NOT OK. ITS NOT OK JASON. YET YOU SPEND YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE RIDICULING JUST THIS NOTION.

    NOW LOOK WHAT SOETORO HAS DONE. NOW LOOK WHAT GILLARD HAS DONE. IT WAS NEVER OK TO HAVE MARXISTS SHOWING UP ANYWHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU LAUGHED AT MY CONCERNS WITH ANDREW LEIGH AND NICK GRUEN BEING CALLED TO CANBERRA. NOW LOOK WHAT THEY’VE DONE. ITS NOT FUCKING FUNNY MATE.

    I’M MORE RELEVANT THEN EVER. WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THE LOGICAL OUTCOME OF ALL YOUR VARIOUS EFFORTS. NOW SINCLAIR GOING OUT OF HIS WAY TO PUSH A CARBON TAX ALTHOUGH HE PLEADS ANTI-PIGOUVIANISM. YOU TELL ME I’M NOT RELEVANT AND THEN YOU SPEND ALL YOUR TIME SELLING US DOWN RIVER.

    WHAT DO YOU THINK THE EU is!!!! JASON? THE EU IS WHAT YOU INSIST ON CALLING A FREE TRADE DEAL. BUT IT NEVER WAS A FREE TRADE DEAL. YET TO THIS DAY YOU CALL THESE INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FREE TRADE DEALS AND YOU CLAIM THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THEM THEY ARE AGAINST FREE TRADE. THE ONLY FREE TRADE DEAL IS WHERE YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN’T GET IN THE WAY OF YOU TRADING. THE ONLY FREE TRADE DEAL IS UNILATERAL FREE TRADE. HOW IS ANYTHING YOU’VE MENTIONED NOT HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE THINGS I’VE ALWAYS LECTURED YOU ABOUT.

    • Fiat monies all wind up being worthless. Barry Soetoro is a marxist usurper working flat out to destroy the American fiat currency. In your view neither of these two facts is relevant. Whose going to destroy all those restaurants? Another Marxist. Yet you ridiculue an anti-Marxists.

      What could be more relevant than the upcoming destruction of the US dollar? We have to know where to go from there.

  45. Bear in mind that Barry’s crowd have already murdered the choir-master. Turn about is fair play if that link can be made. He’s already killed thousands of people in Kenya… What had traditionally been one of the few politically peaceful countries in Africa. I was incredibly shocked when I heard about all those people that Barry’s crowd had stirred up, and them burning women and children in a church.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: