Who was the biggest arsehole?

[Montegriffo]

If there's a market for them someone will buy private land and build a private parking lot/structure/garage

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

Hold up.


If it's stealing to keep them from trying to maximize revenue through double charging, then it's also stealing from those same libraries or whatever if the car park charges less than market price for the parking spots.

So you're arguing that the council should be as greedy as the ''merchant cunts''?
I don't know how the council work out their charging policy but I know for certain that a private company would charge more and invest none of it in local services. They wouldn't even spend as much on maintenance of the carpark but would put in more cameras to catch those avoiding charges.

I've already explained the difference between double charging and a minimum charge so let's not go over that again.

[Ex-California]

They clearly are. Without car parks the streets would be blocked by parked cars and you'd get the sort of situations the stop a douchebag movement fights against in Russia where self-entitled pricks hold up traffic by double parking and inconvenience others without a second thought. The most common excuse they use is ''there's nowhere to park''.
If you provide only private car parking with a profit motive everybody pays more, the fines are larger and the high street suffers because people give up going into town centres.

If there's a market for them someone will buy private land and build a private parking lot/structure/garage

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

Yes, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you're free to park somewhere else, and you can pass along your unused time without feeling bad

[Fife]

And what is the argument that supports the lo-info conclusory claim that the state charges less than "market price" anyway?

How does the state determine the "correct" price for anything it "provides?"

You could probably figure it out well enough by collecting data and fucking around with the rates to see how demand reacts.

Parking in a dense city like London is likely worth quite a lot of money, honestly.

The calculation problem is made even worse and more intractable by the state crowding out legitimate market activity, every time.

And, yep, parking is more difficult in the middle of London than it is at a shopping mall in the suburbs of Nashville or Charlotte, and physical parking spots are certainly more valuable in the middle of London, I reckon. I don't see how that changes things.

[Fife]

I don't know how the council work out their charging policy but I know for certain that a private company would charge more and invest none of it in local services. They wouldn't even spend as much on maintenance of the carpark but would put in more cameras to catch those avoiding charges.

Everything after "I don't know" in that political statement is devoid of reasoning or any critical thought, Monts. A marxist fairy tale you want to "know for certain," so I guess in your mind you do.

[Speaker to Animals]

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

Hold up.


If it's stealing to keep them from trying to maximize revenue through double charging, then it's also stealing from those same libraries or whatever if the car park charges less than market price for the parking spots.

So you're arguing that the council should be as greedy as the ''merchant cunts''?
I don't know how the council work out their charging policy but I know for certain that a private company would charge more and invest none of it in local services. They wouldn't even spend as much on maintenance of the carpark but would put in more cameras to catch those avoiding charges.

I've already explained the difference between double charging and a minimum charge so let's not go over that again.

No. I demonstrated that the basis for your charge that people are "stealing" when they share unused parking time falls apart if you also support the city charging less for that time than they could otherwise charge according to market demand.

[Montegriffo]

If there's a market for them someone will buy private land and build a private parking lot/structure/garage

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

Yes, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you're free to park somewhere else, and you can pass along your unused time without feeling bad

...or I could support my local council-run car park and pay less.

[Montegriffo]

I don't know how the council work out their charging policy but I know for certain that a private company would charge more and invest none of it in local services. They wouldn't even spend as much on maintenance of the carpark but would put in more cameras to catch those avoiding charges.

Everything after "I don't know" in that political statement is devoid of reasoning or any critical thought, Monts. A marxist fairy tale you want to "know for certain," so I guess in your mind you do.

Comparison is a form of reasoning. I have plenty of examples of pothole-filled private car parks with higher charges and more aggressive enforcement measures to work with.
Still, you got to get that warm fuzzy feeling which comes from calling someone a Marxist and I wouldn't want to deprive you of that.

[pineapplemike]

...and charge more for it to line their own pockets.

Yes, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you're free to park somewhere else, and you can pass along your unused time without feeling bad

...or I could support my local council-run car park and pay less.

on the surface level perhaps youre paying less but if you think underneath the surface level i wonder how much more you are paying for that carpark through inefficient taxation and government middlemen taking a cut, aka stealing from you

[Montegriffo]

Hold up.


If it's stealing to keep them from trying to maximize revenue through double charging, then it's also stealing from those same libraries or whatever if the car park charges less than market price for the parking spots.

So you're arguing that the council should be as greedy as the ''merchant cunts''?
I don't know how the council work out their charging policy but I know for certain that a private company would charge more and invest none of it in local services. They wouldn't even spend as much on maintenance of the carpark but would put in more cameras to catch those avoiding charges.

I've already explained the difference between double charging and a minimum charge so let's not go over that again.

No. I demonstrated that the basis for your charge that people are "stealing" when they share unused parking time falls apart if you also support the city charging less for that time than they could otherwise charge according to market demand.

Well they could charge a price I feel is fair or they could charge as much as a private operator and I'd walk half a mile from a free space in a residential area nearby and contribute nothing instead.
I guess they might take that into account.

[Montegriffo]

Yes, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you're free to park somewhere else, and you can pass along your unused time without feeling bad

...or I could support my local council-run car park and pay less.

on the surface level perhaps youre paying less but if you think underneath the surface level i wonder how much more you are paying for that carpark through inefficient taxation and government middlemen taking a cut, aka stealing from you

No, I get it. Everybody hates local government and is moving to Somalia as soon as they can.
That won't affect my reasoning though. I appreciate a reasonably priced car park in the centre of town and think that government inefficiencies are another subject altogether (which I can object to without needing to steal from car park funds in order to prove my sincerity).