Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Socialism on a bus route
Share:
by The_Cynic | September 5, 2009 at 09:52 am
232 views | 54 Recommendations | 12 comments
Is it capitalism or socialism when a company owned by another company who then states it will not provide a social necessity unless they are subsidised by the public purse?
It is often said here and elsewhere that capitalism should be allowed to run its course because that is the only way forward. There are those, either they don't have a social bone in their body - don't understand that not everyone can afford a car of their own (irony) - cannot drive a car because of a multitude of reasons - don't understand economics - are indoctrinated - or they simply will not look at the world as it really is.
Greyhound Canada, which is a subsidiary of Dallas, Texas-based Greyhound Lines Inc., which in turn is owned by Cincinnati-based FirstGroup America, has given 30 days' notice that it will halt service in Manitoba, and the 90 days that are required in Ontario.
As of Dec. 2, it will no longer offer service north of Sault Ste. Marie through to Saskatchewan, a spokeswoman for the bus line said.
When you get to Canada there is one overwhelming feeling - its vastness. Canada is beyond big, it is enormous! So, if you don't have a car or any other vehicle how to you travel? You could, I suppose, get a horse and cart. But, as we all know, it would take days to travel between A and B.
Buses are something then that people need. Not want - need! And this is where we have a problem with Greyhound cancelling routes - they are doing this because they say that the routes are not profitable. That is capitalism at its bare, nakedness. In capitalism people don't matter - and this is not a new phenomenon.
Published: September 22, 1985
New York will give Greyhound Lines Inc. $416,000 to continue service on 12 routes linking 100 upstate communities under an agreement intended to avert threatened cancellations, the state said.
State officials acted after the United States Interstate Commerce Commission gave Greyhound permission to drop routes if it was unable to work out a new subsidy arrangement with the state.
Greyhound, which has received a state subsidy on some routes since 1983, had sought permission to discontinue four routes affecting 28 upstate communities.
From this we can see that Greyhound has been receiving State subsidies for at least a quarter of a century. If States can fund bus routes - or at least subsidise them, then that isn't your naked capitalism, free market thinking - only the free market can do what government can't - and do it more efficiently and deliver a service with little waste and a profit.
That is borderline socialism - of private companies who cannot do it alone.
With a wild sweep across the board we then come to today's current favourite - healthcare. If the States can support bus routes for people, why can they then not support a public option in healthcare? Albeit one that is, in fact, a non-profit company with those in that public option paying a premium to the company - so not really subsidised by the State, unlike a free market bus company.
Socialism is rife in the US and Canada, then - it must be with the evidence we are given - but not a socialism for the people to get the services they need - a socialism for corporations to get their hands on public money because their business model has failed.
Americans who are willing to pay their taxes for buses to run but not allow a company to form so that a need can be filled, a dire need, and this argument is shouted from the rooftops, literally.
You are willing to help those monoliths who cannot subsidise themselves but not willing to help the most needy of all your compatriots?
Why do I find something very wrong in that?
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (54)
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States
albertacowpoke
Canada
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States
Blue Crush
Toronto, Canada
Sputnic
London, United Kingdom
Bunk
London, United Kingdom
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (12)
at 10:12 on September 5th, 2009
Gee sounds like Vancouver transit!
at 10:44 on September 5th, 2009
Why do I find something very wrong in that?
Because the is something wrong with that. Your comparisons to our agreeableness for all manner of subsidies, but our seemingly disagreeableness with a public option are well taken. The monolith against health care is the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies who have a lot of investors who are making tons of money and don't want to give up the cash for the greater good. And they are willing to yell and scream in order to protect their investments. The questions is: Is Washington going to listen to them and allow them to frame the arguments. Every day there are reports of Obama's approval rating changing. The out cry now it's only 50%!!!! Well, 50% is half of the American public, and that is a lot of people. The population of the U.S. is 307,367,463.
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands. Happy people clap their hands, they don't yell and scream at town hall meetings. More happy people, those 50%, need to stand up and be counted. I hope this doesnt sound too simplistic.
at 10:47 on September 5th, 2009
Could you add an opinion flag to this please?
at 17:26 on September 5th, 2009
Someone has beaten me to it, Amy - but I should have added that before I went out. Soz.
at 12:49 on September 5th, 2009
Quite frankly the service that Greyhound is providing should have been a public option to start out with. I won't pick on a private company that is in it for the money to talk to a government to subsidize public transport, when our own trains and airlines(CN and Air Canada) cancelled services to northern communities. Some of this happened when they were Crown Corporations under former Liberal Governments.
Greyhound has made it quite clear that they can't sustain business with those lines, it is now up to the Manitoba (NDP), Ontario (Liberal) and Federal Government to come up with a solution to serve those communities.
There is more involved than just bus service, it boils down to lifelines to doctor and hospital visits.
Government is also responsible for roads, look around the country and see what some of us drive on.
I should also note that in Canada it's not a matter of socialism versus Capitalism and I hope we never get there. Most parties here govern from the centre, including the NDP in Manitoba. If they didn't they'd be looking for new employment during the next election.
Let's hope we never get as enthusiastic about right versus left.LOL
at 15:46 on September 5th, 2009
Seems like a pretty serious situation for those folks that are without transportation. It's an awful feeling to be stranded out in the boonies miles away from medical facilities and the like.
at 16:07 on September 5th, 2009
Northern Ontario and Northern Manitoba residents are especially isolated in remote hamlets and towns. In some cases in those areas you travel 200 miles before getting to another gas station.
at 17:38 on September 5th, 2009
ACP: Sounds like my kind of town! I don't think I'd like the cold weather though!
at 17:41 on September 5th, 2009
You got to love a Canadian winter. The Vancouverites and Victoriarites are sheltered Canadians, the rest of us put up with it. LOL. Besides who doesn.t like bugs in summer.
at 11:21 on September 6th, 2009
All the pictures I have seen of Canada are breathtakingly beautiful, especially in winter. But Romanticism does not serve those living in remote areas without a life line to hospitals, public services and the necessities of running a household. If anything were going to be subsidized, it should some kind of transportation in these areas. Even if it transit were scheduled once or twice a week, people could schedule appointments and plan for shopping. Many times these decisions to stop a service are an all or nothing situation, and compromises are not broached. In this case, it might take the citizenry to take action or at least some advocates. As we know governments need a nudge in the right direction sometimes.
at 14:40 on September 6th, 2009
I think governments will respond especially the provincial ones. They can put pressure on the feds for a share of subsidy.
at 04:32 on September 7th, 2009
We have similar anguish even here in ridiculously crowded Britain, where pretty much nowhere is more than 12 miles from Somewhere. Here we look at the plight of the elderly who are those for whom car ownership is generally just a Does Not Compute option. So if you've lived in a rural place for many decades you've probably found that your local amenities are closing because everyone else is happy to drive 15 miles to a supermarket or whatever, and then because everyone's driving there's no demand for a bus route and suddenly you're on your Jack Jones.
The solution? I don't pretend to know. As someone who is staunchly of the opinion that socialist policies are great in principle but generally terrible in practice I find myself hard pressed to make the argument that public transport should be funded regardless of cost.
Where would you draw the line? Should a bus route that is used 10 times a week by 3 people be publically funded? How about 5 times a week by 1 person? What if that one person really relies on that bus route for some life-saving reason?
At some point, given that money is finite, even a socialistic system would be forced to ration to the detriment of someone. The question is therefore merely which is a more efficient system of rationing.
There are other options, which sound unpalatable but are probably the way of the future: greater urbanisation and centralisation being the most obvious.