this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
238 points (96.5% liked)

World News

33454 readers
457 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Infrastructure delivers more economic impact with less grifting when it's not designed and run to make a profit on its own.

[–] DickFiasco@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Right? When did we start becoming concerned with a public service being "profitable"? I've heard this applied to the US Postal Service a lot recently.

[–] theragu40@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The postal service is losing money!"

No, the postal service costs money. It's a service. It doesn't aim to make a profit. It costs money, and we are in turn rendered a service that is useful.

I swear people are delusional.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Conservatives want to kill the postal service because it competes with for profit services they own and invest in. See: DeJoy

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Yet nobody ever expects the road system to turn a profit. Why should trains be any different?

[–] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

I first remember it becoming an issue when a failed businessman turned president wanted to run the country like one of his failed businesses.

[–] geissi@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

When did we start becoming concerned with a public service being “profitable”?

Late 80s, early 90s, with the rise of the rise of the Chicago School of neoliberalism.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Depends how you calculate profit.