froggythefish t1_j7vfzft wrote
Reply to comment by Aristosus in If you “lose” a citibike by ar1680
Aristosus t1_j7vgjws wrote
Did you even read the article whatsoever? This is a partnership for government employees to receive rideshare service. Try again.
froggythefish t1_j7vgn8v wrote
To shorten your comment: the government provided funding to the company that owns citibike
Aristosus t1_j7vgzfe wrote
Paying for a service =/= funding. You have a serious fundamental misunderstanding about what public funding means.
By your logic, is WB Mason publically funded because government offices buy their paper?
froggythefish t1_j7vh85c wrote
Paying for a service implies giving money to the provider of the service. Giving money to a company is funding them. Jeez.
Yes, any company which receives tax money is publicly funded.
Aristosus t1_j7vif8e wrote
So you think that a government contract allowing federal employees to get a discount on Lyft rides translates to "citibikes are funded by the government," and that you're entitled to steal bikes at your discretion because all things paid for by the government are actually owned by everyone? Is that really it?
froggythefish t1_j7vizu0 wrote
No… I think “giving tax money to the company that owns citibike” translates to “giving tax money to the company that owns citibike”. And I think the government only really exists if owned by the people. Otherwise, it’s just a violent occupying force.
Unrelated, but if citibike wants to keep people from stealing their bikes, maybe don’t store them… in public? Like, on the street? I mean, the least you could do for some dude who can’t park in front of his job or home anymore is let them steal a bike.
Aristosus t1_j7vk6kj wrote
Has it ever occurred to you that publicly traded companies have to disclose where their money goes? It's fairly straightforward to see that the government does not pay for Citibike to exist, but I have a feeling it's a lost cause to mention that.
Now your motivations make sense though. Started complaining how bikes are "litter", and now you're suggesting publicly accessible services not be made available in public. You don't actually give a shit about people using Citibike, you're just a car driver upset that bike racks take up precious parking spaces.
froggythefish t1_j7vkjod wrote
I don’t have a car nor do I want one. I want cars banned from travel within the city. Streets used to be, and should be, an area travelled primarily by pedestrians, bikes, and trams.
I also don’t think a private company should be able to just set up shop and profit from the publicly owned street.
Aristosus t1_j7vmilo wrote
If that's true, I don't know why you'd advocate for doing something that demonstrably causes users of bike sharing services to suffer. Private companies are not inherently bad, municipalities partner with them for practicality and in the best interest of the people. Do you think things would actually be better if the MTA decided to start manufacturing their trains instead of just purchasing them? Do you think the NYPD should manufacture their own cars instead of partnering with Ford? In many cases, using the private sector is the most efficient and cheapest means to an end, especially when it comes to setting up and maintaining a bike sharing network.
I'd rather not be taxed more for a service I periodically use, at a rate that costs the public 3x to create than it would for a private company to do so.
froggythefish t1_j7vnbju wrote
I would like if the MTA made their own trains, but currently they don’t have the infrastructure or funding necessary to set up said infrastructure, necessary to manufacture and test trains. The trains would be better, as safety and quality would be put before profits and cost, since the MTA doesn’t care about profits. The NYPD should not manufacture their own cars, as the NYPD doesn’t give a fuck about safety or quality, and is more focused on just beating and killing poor people. State manufacturing is objectively cheaper than private contractors. Which is logical. The private company needs to sell the service for more than it actually costs in order to make a profit. This means it’s cheaper to make or provide than to buy.
Aristosus t1_j7vova7 wrote
You have quite a fantastical image of the government, as if "use it or lose it" policies spending all the funds in a budget aren't a thing. Or that government projects aren't actually more expensive and take longer to finish. You have to come to terms with reality, the government sucks when it comes to doing things efficiently and effectively, and at no point will building something for the government ever not be done without the help of the private sector.
froggythefish t1_j7vpbhm wrote
Weird, other nations seem to manufacture stuff in government just fine, for an extremely cheap price. If the US can’t match the efficiency of even developing nations, the US government needs to be either heavily reformed or abolished
Aristosus t1_j7vpzck wrote
Heavily reformed, abso-fucking-lutely. Abolished? No bearing in reality.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments