under 18′s ALREADY can’t buy spray paint. they keep it in a locked cabinet at the warehouse. of course sometimes they can get hold of it, but even if they couldn’t they could just make their art with something else.

Not sure why you are backing away. I asked the blog to let me know when there were replies but I only checked the email for the first time today a few minutes ago.

Been building a shelf for my greenhouse and didn’t have email there.

The problem where systems maximise profit is that there are two parallel considerations.

1. Minimise costs and quality to the point just above the moment where you start to lose more business than it costs to run the system.

There is no commercial incentive for a business to maintain the stations in a monopoly until the unsightliness and the smell of pee actually starts to drive customers away and in a competitive environment there is constant pressure for the infrastructure owner to reduce its charges anyway. That threshhold is apparently quite low, below your current discomfort level because, while you blog the problem, you haven’t yet reached a point where the higher costs of alternative travel are less than your revulsion cost, so even a commercial approach would see further deterioration. A bit like Larry Summers suggesting that pollution costs should be born by countries where the relative economic value of life is lower than the US.

2. All systems such as a rail network are subject to the network effect where, even if a particular station or route may not produce a direct profit, the availability of that station enables travellers to use it occasionally and reinforces the value of that network to them. But a purely commercial approach will simply close “unprofitable” nodes on the network and eventually decaying the value of the system not only to the direct users, but their employers, customers, families etc.

The benefit of publicly owned systems is that they can subsidise that “unprofitable” usage in exchange for the indirect benefits that could not be charged for directly.

Philosophically I am very leery of privatising any monopoly resource or network because the moral hazard is too high, at least public ownership gives us the possibility of voting the bums out.

Then doing it again when the former opposition screws it up the other way.

“Profit is little more than slavery in a top hat and its the relentless search for it that got us to this place; we can’t afford it any more.”

I now realise my mistake, and I am going to back away slowly.

Just to confuse things, the Wellington rail system was previously only partly private. It has been propped up by contributions from central and local governments because it is “environmentally friendly”. I don’t have a philosophical problem with the whole thing being shut down and removed entirely, if it doesn’t make economic sense.

So in this case we are talking about a shift from “partly privately owned, only partly operating within the free market” to “completely publicly owned, operating just barely within the free market”.

In general, public ownership presents completely different incentives to private ownership.

Private owners have a basic wish to INCREASE the usage rate of their trains to increase profits, and simple steps such as cleaning up stations and providing rubbish bins will generally contribute to that goal.

Public ownership takes away this overriding incentive to increase custom; the incentive is to “look good” and do things in the short-term (3 year election cycle, remember?) to impress the public. Eg, allow bikes on the trains for free.

Based on previous nationalisations and current trends in the public service, I anticipate an increase in the number of middle-management, executive and PR jobs, both directly attached to KiwiRail, and indirectly related via the Ministry of Transport. I also predict that these wages will grow faster than comparable private sector jobs.

This increase in cost due to bureaucracy will lead to one or all of the following:
a) an increase in ticket prices
b) a decrease in spending for track upgrades, cleaning and painting stations and so on
or,
c) an increase in public money entering the train system (probability: 100%).

Basically, we will see train service bloat. Instead of trimming here and there, and spending only to increase patronage and profits (private sector incentives), we will see spending directed towards lofty goals such as efficiency, environmental sustainability. There will a bloat in upper management and taxpayer money (even more than before) will be pumped into the system. Meanwhile, the actual measured performance of the system will either be stagnant or go backwards.

The issue of graffiti, why, and how to stop it is one thing, the issue of public ownership of infrastructure being implicated as implied in the headline, barely gets a look in. But what you imply is that public ownership is somehow responsible for the tagging and that the condition will now deteriorate BECAUSE of the public ownership.

Given the disgusting state of the station in private hands (and don’t kid me that private enterprise would have quickly forked out $50 to replace the perspex on the schedule) it is equally reasonable to assume that private enterprise doesn’t give a damn about the infrastructure from which it is desperately, but ineffectually, trying to profit.

You assume that it will now get worse merely because the ownership has changed, it would be good to see any actual evidence you have to support that contention.

I’m also intrigued that you suggest surveillance as the answer. Apart from the sight of a libertarian supporting big brother strategies, as Bruce Schneier suggests, it doesn’t work. http://tinyurl.com/6mczd3

Ah yes, the dark days of 2002. Six years ago. We’ve come a long way since then.

But enough from me. Why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think?

Even Stephen Berry saw the light and jumped ship from the Libertarianz!

Bring back McGillicuddy Serious Party — at least they don’t forget to register their party for general elections like the Libertarianz did in 2002.