Comments
aclockworkporridge t1_ixck5bh wrote
I mean it's not just Cambridge obviously, but Boston-Newton-Cambridge has a GDP of $480 billion, which is more than 36 US states and puts it at #25 in the world if it were a country (that's using 2020 Fed numbers for BCN and 2017 global numbers, so not perfect)
guimontag t1_ixcrcjg wrote
At this point shouldn't OP be asking why the state isn't doing it then??
aclockworkporridge t1_ixd56yp wrote
Which honestly I would say is a fantastic question, but I'm a firm believer in state-funded competition in privatized markets.
If a government can do it better and cheaper than capitalism, then it should become a public service.
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_ixdizzm wrote
> If a government can do it better and cheaper than capitalism
Genuinely curious but what are some examples of this?
(Besides healthcare in the US)
[deleted] OP t1_ixejgh4 wrote
[deleted]
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_ixeoeet wrote
I’m asking for examples where government does it better than a competing private business.
Also not all of this is even government owned. The us power grid for example is not
aclockworkporridge t1_ixey408 wrote
Those are examples of things that were at one time private and have been nationalized for the most part. Aspects are still contracted out, and like you said, grids are privately owned, but much of the work to get rural areas electrified was federally managed.
[deleted] OP t1_ixf2dix wrote
[deleted]
SlamwellBTP t1_ixeopaz wrote
The postal service
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_ixeox8c wrote
By what metric are they doing a better job than ups or fedex?
bayfyre t1_ixetjew wrote
By the metric of total number of deliveries and widest distribution network. USPS must deliver to everyone, not just profitable locations like FedEx and UPS
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_ixewnq8 wrote
Total number of deliveries seems like a bad metric consider the vast majority of mail received by people is junk mail that no one wants to begin with.
You may have a point regarding distribution network, I don’t know enough about that.
It would seem it’s not cheaper though. I guess I should have clarified that that was most of what I was curious about.
aclockworkporridge t1_ixexxc1 wrote
I also think it's good to note that the Postal service keeps private services from price gouging. Even if it doesn't turn a profit, if forced the leading corporations to compete against a third actor, which prevents them from colluding.
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_ixf2m8l wrote
Why do you think that fedex and ups would be engaging in illegal price fixing schemes if it were not for the USPS?
Most companies don’t have a government competitor and these sorts of activities are rare and result in serious penalties.
aclockworkporridge t1_ixfv7rz wrote
These activities are absolutely not rare. They are rarely prosecuted, but they are absolutely not rare. Fuel is a great example, both on a global level and a local one. Every year some local consortium of gas stations gets nailed for price fixing, and almost every industry has a landmark price fixing case that occurred in the last 20 years.
Internet is the current hot button topic in that regard, especially in Cambridge. A duopoly can be just as bad as a monopoly, because all it takes is an off the record game of golf and you've created massive profits with no risk of anti-trust or monopoly crackdown.
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_ixg3c9b wrote
Do you have a source, like an article, discussing the high prevalence of price fixing?
aclockworkporridge t1_ixh46ci wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_and_Spirits_Fair_Dealing_Act
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna20388297
https://www.reuters.com/article/ctech-us-memorycards-pricefixing-lawsuit-idCABREA4D0MI20140514
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna41926712
~Everywhere you look, everywhere you look~
WikiSummarizerBot t1_ixh47n1 wrote
Wine and Spirits Fair Dealing Act
>The Wine and Spirits Fair Dealing Act, also known as the Wirtz Law, was an infamous Illinois state law passed in 1999 that prevented distillers and wineries from changing distributors without "just cause". Distributors stated that the law was required to prevent producers from severing ties with Illinois distributors and "outsourcing" their deals, ostensibly resulting in thousands of job losses throughout the state. After the law was passed, all Illinois distributors raised their prices. The Federal Trade Commission actively lobbied against the law, to no avail.
>In 2002, the United States Department of Justice, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, began a probe into the activities of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) manufacturers in response to claims by US computer makers, including Dell and Gateway, that inflated DRAM pricing was causing lost profits and hindering their effectiveness in the marketplace. To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.
Lysine price-fixing conspiracy
>The lysine price-fixing conspiracy was an organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, including American company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Japanese companies Ajinomoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo, and Korean companies Sewon America Inc. and Cheil Jedang Ltd. A criminal investigation resulted in fines and three-year prison sentences for three executives of ADM who colluded with the other companies to fix prices.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
SlamwellBTP t1_ixewebd wrote
They deliver a lot more packages to a lot more people and do it cheaper. Their main financial woes stem from Congress requiring them to pre-fund retirement in a way no company does and could be fixed easily.
jontheblack t1_ixd1e2y wrote
Summerville said "excuse me?"
that_dogs_wilin t1_ixe2cvh wrote
and out of curiosity, I looked up and did some back of the envelope math. If you look instead at GDP per capita, you have ~480B / 5M ~= 95k / person.
That's roughly what this page said (though it's Boston-Camb-Newton), where it's the 6th wealthiest metro area in the country, in that respect.
I know it's not the whole story, though, and safe pharma production is a whole thing.
Knutt_Bustley_ t1_ixe6dol wrote
98% of countries, actually. It’s closing in on Germany for 4th in the world
So yes, I’d say they’re in a slightly better financial position to make this happen
SocoCocoPuffs t1_ixbdk7g wrote
This was brought up in another local sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/yudhiy/greater_boston_has_3109_life_science_companies/
TLDR Nearly all companies here specialize in researching drugs and not making them.
Optimal_Pineapple_41 t1_ixdyrjl wrote
If they send me the recipe I can start homebrewing it in my bathtub
HaddockBranzini-II t1_ixch3we wrote
I've got a pot of it bubbling on the stove now! Gonna put it in jars for the farmer's market.
BuckyWunderlick007 t1_ixckw25 wrote
Cambridge, home to MIT and many of the worlds top technology companies, can't even figure out how to provide municipal broadband.
cptninc t1_ixczlb4 wrote
I like that this isn't even the dumbest idea on this sub.
greywix t1_ixe6nct wrote
Best I can do is new bike lanes within the bike lanes.
magnetmonopole t1_ixbixci wrote
Because it’s a stupid logistical nightmare of an idea that won’t actually help most people and disincentivizes actual innovation
cptninc t1_ixd7gge wrote
And it's also not a bike lane.
Goldenrule-er t1_ixbminy wrote
This is a joke right?
This city is so owned by private interests that rent control has not only been dead for decades, but the masses just celebrated eliminating parking minimums in new construction to spite the children and elderly so as to afford six more luxury condo sales per each foreign developer, per each ground-level parking level eliminated.
You want community insulin in the home of Eli Lilly? In the land of: balls so big: We will Crispr humanity's self-labeled elite faster than you can outbreed our paying subscribers?!
Share with me what Knowledge can persuade this golden golem of more is more and quality is secondary to number.
teddyone t1_ixcghsw wrote
Ah yes what will the Children do without parking
Goldenrule-er t1_ixkbwxx wrote
Every child with a parent who can no longer afford to give them public education in a decent system is a child that has a harder shot at realizing their potential, you flippant, ignorant simpleton. Go back to chatting about super smash brothers with the other speaking apes.
teddyone t1_ixkwrub wrote
Poor kids growing up without parking… never stood a chance SMH
Goldenrule-er t1_ixluudh wrote
Take a look at how property values work smart guy. Removing parking is a ply so developers can sell more luxury condos. Cars aren't going anywhere, they'll just get greener. I'm a cyclist and I've been hit twice. It'd be nice with fewer cars but removing parking minimums doesn't change their necessity for the population, it just makes it harder for the disabled to have accommodating housing and jacks up housing costs that much faster (meaning fewer less-socioenomocially-advantaged kids will have access to decent education).
teddyone t1_ixm3loh wrote
ok jokes aside i don’t see the economic argument for how parking minimums make for more expensive housing.
Parking minimums = harder to build more housing. Your per unit cost goes up to build, so it’s harder to build more.
Harder to build more housing = price of housing goes up.
We invest billions of dollars in our public transit system and making it accessible to disabled people. While it isn’t perfect, if you live close to a T station, you do not need a car.
Look at NYC. Would it make sense to have parking minimums there? No. Because it would be insane to add that overhead to building new housing when there is an accessible public transit system in place.
Until we remove more barriers to building new housing, the price will continue to skyrocket. Remove legislation that blocks new housing. Remove zoning, remove parking minimums
Goldenrule-er t1_ixn6k2m wrote
Sales selling for higher amounts raises area cost of square footage, not construction cost.
Selling more condos raises the costs, not removing necessary parking minimums.
More sales of increasingly priced luxury condos = raised costs of housing, not cost of construction. So clearly eliminating parking and adding 6-12 more "luxury" condos acts to raise housing costs. That increase of availability in no way lowers the forever demand so doesn't stem, but increases housing values.
ANYONE living in Boston or Cambridge with a job they need to be at reliably knows you can in NO WAY rely on the MBTA. The MBTA as an organization is one of the greatest amalgams of incompetency and corruption that anyone can point to. I mean come on. They are currently under federal direction for turning their act around because they couldn't stop actually killing their ridership.
Anyone arguing against parking minimums either walks to work or works from home, doesn't have kids and is not elderly or disabled.
teddyone t1_ixocvj6 wrote
I know it’s a little counter intuitive but Apartments being fancy doesn’t make them expensive. It’s the scarcity. The “luxury” apartments of 5 or 10 years ago are normal market apts now. If developers build 100,000 “luxury” units right now, prices will fall for everyone because that’s 100,000 fewer people to compete against for housing.
Also I have taken the T to work for years. It sucks sometimes, but it could be a lot worse. If you want to live in a city center, don’t expect a parking spot.
Goldenrule-er t1_ixoz3vk wrote
This market will never satisfy demand for housing well enough to lower costs.
I often outwalk the bus on a 3 mile walk to/from work.
Parking minimums are .5 spaces per unit. No one is being forced to buy parking. There just isn't enough.
magnetmonopole t1_ixd8kub wrote
Eli Lilly literally has vouchers for anyone to get insulin for $35.
bayfyre t1_ixeu70n wrote
Ahh yes that must be why millions of Americans need to ration their monthly insulin rx! It’s just too affordable
magnetmonopole t1_ixey7rz wrote
no, there are other insulin manufacturers. The big European manufacturers like Sanofi charge a lot. It’s just simply incorrect to act like Eli Lilly is some evil entity when they aren’t actually overcharging anyone.
Goldenrule-er t1_ixkabwy wrote
You are either woefully misinformed or an intentional agent of evil. Educate yourself on insulin costs over the last 30 years and find out. People are dying for the inability to pay for a life-necessary drug whose patent was sold for a dollar because of the benefit human beings were intended to gain by its discovery.
guimontag t1_ixbpvqy wrote
California is an entire state and has a GDP larger than like 75% of the countries in the world. Cambridge is a tiny ass fucking town.