"Cycling is for everyone": Council leader responds to claim he "doesn't like cycling because it's too middle-class"

Rich_cb wrote:

It is for the majority of the population.

How much does it cost to have a baby in a non NHS hospital?

That gives the NHS a monopoly for 95%+ of births.

It's the same for almost all healthcare, most people simply cannot afford an alternative so the NHS has an effective monopoly for almost all health interventions for the majority of the population.

That's an indication that the NHS provides good value, not that it is a monopoly.

It's interesting to compare national health services in various countries with the for-profit health services (I'm thinking of the U.S. specifically) and it's clear that the free market is disfunctional when applied to basic human needs. As you mentioned earlier, privatisation of services such as water, telecoms, transport etc tends to lead to monopolies and thus the free market model breaks down.

I think competitive markets function best when there isn't a huge barrier to entry such as investing in infrastructure before services can be offered. Internet services in the UK are an example where the infrastructure (usually BT) can be resold by third parties, but even that suffers in comparison with the services provided in many other countries (notably not the U.S. - they tend to have regional monopolies).

It's not really any indicator of value as you don't have an option to take the money you've already spent elsewhere.

If you had the option to take an NHS voucher equivalent to the cost of NHS services to any provider that would be a test of value.

As an analogy, imagine you have a freak accident at home and your beloved bike is destroyed.

You ring the insurance company who inform you that the bike is completely covered but you'll have to wait 6 months for the brand new replacement.

They tell you that you can have the bike tomorrow but you have to pay an excess equivalent to the entire payout.

If you choose to wait does that prove the insurance was good value?

The US doesn't provide universal healthcare.

There are many, many countries, directly comparable to the UK, that do so and do so using for profit healthcare providers.

Those countries outperform the UK on almost any healthcare outcome you wish to measure.

The idea that for profit providers cannot provide "basic human needs" is demonstrably false.

Transport can easily be privatised in a way that engenders competition. The EU are doing so with their railways and producing good results. The UK actually ran the same scheme first but it hasn't really taken off widely and the old monopolies persist. (South Wales is about to finally get competition on the main line to London breaking that monopoly).

BT Openreach is another legacy (near) monopoly. It should be broken up.

I don't think that healthcare should work in terms of money already spent - I consider it more as a tax that pays for the improved health of society. Thinking purely in terms of the individual leads to a U.S. style model which I find particularly distasteful.

I don't disagree about using profit based companies for certain services, but I think our government would act purely in bad faith at the moment, so would not place any trust in them copying best practices from other countries.

Having had some minor experiences of working with BT and knowing some people that have worked for them, I can recommend putting the execs in front of a firing squad.

I think healthcare should be approached in a similar vein to public roads (in an attempt to bring this somewhat back into road.cc relevance). We could attempt to have roads all privately owned and you only pay for the roads that you use, but society doesn't work that way. At some point you may need to use roads that you've never previously paid for and then you'd be hit for all the maintenance charges you'd never contributed towards. Makes far more sense to consider them a public resource that everyone pays towards out of taxation according to their ability, rather than what they happen to need to use.

Then you get the 'Tragedy of the Commons'.

If everybody pays for what they use (including wear and tear caused) and prices vary by peak demand etc then you get more rational use.

Tying both threads together unless you allow people to spend their NHS funding as they see fit then you can't declare it good value.

Rich_cb wrote:

Then you get the 'Tragedy of the Commons'.

If everybody pays for what they use (including wear and tear caused) and prices vary by peak demand etc then you get more rational use.

Tying both threads together unless you allow people to spend their NHS funding as they see fit then you can't declare it good value.

It's less about value and more about the general health of people. However the UK seems to prioritise motor company profits over people's well-being so there's a lot of things we should be doing better.

The general health of people is better in those countries with both universal healthcare and meaningful competition in the provision of healthcare.

Rich_cb wrote:

The general health of people is better in those countries with both universal healthcare and meaningful competition in the provision of healthcare.

Let's get rid of our current selection of lying, asset-stripping clowns in charge and go for that then.

"Monopolies are always bad for the customer."

...as can be cartels.  Further - our ferocious competitors "delivering efficiencies" can certainly be bad for everyone apart from their customers.  Or bad for some customers - e.g. bus companies running subsidised services to put rivals out of business then dropping their service to an area.

Define "good" I suppose.  Customers want cheap, convenient, available.  However often we also want "stable".  Bit like bike design, you may not get all of those.  De-regulated energy suppliers anyone?

Aside: I always feel "free market" is a less useful term than political "left / right".  Probably we should just specify the nature and degree of regulation.  In one common definition it mentions "unrestricted competition".  Not aware that such a state exists (even criminals are regulated in a sense).  If nothing else I'm not aware of a state where there are zero restrictions on e.g. importing employees from elsewhere if it was economic to do so!

A cartel is just a form of monopoly.

It removes competition.

Competition benefits customers.

Rich_cb wrote:

Competition benefits customers.

Yes most of the time, though it does have the tendency to produce a race to the bottom. That could be blamed on the customers always going for the cheapest option though, but some markets don't allow people to make informed choices.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Thanks - I did not know that!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Thanks - I did not know that!

You're welcome.

Information asymmetry is a big problem with the theory behind free markets as the people with more money can afford to have better access to information and thus skew the market in their favour.

That feedback loop is easily overcome by the informed seller offering the 'Peach' at peach prices with a guarantee rolled in.

The market then functions perfectly.

Rich_cb wrote:

That feedback loop is easily overcome by the informed seller offering the 'Peach' at peach prices with a guarantee rolled in.

The market then functions perfectly.

Nice idea in theory, but not what tends to happen

It does happen.

You can buy a used car with a decent warranty. It costs more but you know that it is in the seller's best interest to only sell better cars with a warranty.

This is amusing but just not in the way that you think.

.

Rich_cb wrote:

This is amusing but just not in the way that you think.

Trying to appear condescendingly superiour but really just looking arrogant I'm afraid. Which is another undisputable quality of the political right.

I thought that was your cue to finish the joke, or appear superior yourself with a neat bit of argumentation?

Back in the day it was "always let your opponent get into the gutter first - and you still don't have to follow them".

I guess times have changed though?

Again. You're on a roll.

To a first approximation our government / local authorities etc. are working for:

- The fuel/power industry - because there will be a revolution if the lights go out / gas stops, and everything else will stop e.g. water.
- The transport industry - ditto but with avocados, cars, wine, plastic rubbish from China ... actually everything we consume, 90%+ coming in metal boxes on / in bulk in the holds of on very big ships.
- The health industry - because if people start dying because all the medicines, products and machines run out that'll make others a bit grumpy.

These are fundamental to our current mode of existence.

Also - the motor vehicle industry - because people use those to get to jobs / do the deliveries / pick up things from the first 3.

There are other big "basic services" lobbies as well of course (banking, communications...).  However if you've an issue which conflicts with any of those above you'll have a battle getting it moving with the politicians.  Unless - like the motor industry - it concentrates large sums of money effectively.  Apparently cycling - unlike driving - generates a net economic benefit to all but isn't so good at the financial gravity.  Which is another reason why I personally value it.

Stevearafprice wrote:

I am a working class peasant and ride a bike! wtf?     Walsall Council leader Mike Bird [ Con ] said he believed that cyclists are dinosaurs and are inferior to motorists in evolutionary terms.  He said this at a council meeting,, I almost brought up my lunch .

cycles are dinosaurs?

oh, my mistake.

I always get confused here - according to BikeSnobNYC the dinosaur (extract) is normally on your head?

Presumably the key audience is seen as car-dependent working-class people. And I'm sure they get good mileage out of "Lord Snooty owns a Bentley but doesn't want *you* to get in his way in the roads!"

Same way cycling can be spun as bad by both sides - "it's for the avocado set" / "it's just yobs and hippies on bikes - those unwilling to better themselves lawfully".

Fact is that the car sellers have both ends of the market in thrall. It's just a bit easier if you're richer, as always.