Does that not explain the current move to take guns out of the hands of private "citizens"? Past time for the second Revolution.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mysak&sid=aDmGgJWMlM9E

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Wait, wait wait - somebody actually sold somebody else the Brooklyn Bridge?

Oh, leased. Well, that's okay then.

What the heck. Why fool around they could just sell off something like ... like Texas. Think of that! We could have a big party with that much cash. Oh yeah but Texas is like got private property owned by individuals but wait a minute a public bridge is owned by the public; how can it be sold? So it must be alright to sell Texas.

We could make a catalog. Need a kingly gift? Houston. Need a stocking stuffer? The Washington Monument.

with Omni-Consumer Products trying to buy the city of Detroit in the future.

And JoeNotCharles: I was thinking the exact same thing... Somebody finally fell for it! Except it was a giant corporation, and they actually are buying (leasing?) the bridge and will probably make a huge profit if they can get away with it.

Yes, indeed, infrastructure should be the province of the Governement. And that includes taxation, communication, transportation, power and health care.

That's my inner Norwegian talking...

Australia has invested hugely in building ring roads and tunnels to divert traffic away from congested areas mostly through private enterprise with high road tolls. The net result? - everybody avoids them, including trucking operators interested in keeping their operating costs low unless they are prevented from using old alternative routes because of municipal weight restrictions. Congestion in urban residential areas remains as high as it always was.

Roads/bridges are essential infrastructure in big countries- to limit access is so unhelpful to small businesses which are the main drivers of local/regional economies.

Then again, nothing surprises me anymore. Ian, you are talking like a Canadian - I mean that in the nicest possible way, I am married to one. There is a different socio/political/economic ethos in countries that do not think health care is about ability to afford it - rather a a primary governmental resposibility.

You see, I can get health care free as I need it in Australia, New Zealand and across the 25 EU countries (through my British citizenship which I have kept active) and so can my children who were both born in Australia - Americans are so surprised that they can access it for no cost on the strength of being a human being across the EU. Now thats a different zeitgeist altogether.

I digressed into health care from roads and bridges - but they amount to the same topicial umbrella about a government's role.

Many Americans I have met seem to think it can't be done but when some experience ill health abroad, they are treated FIRST, and its a revelation to them. Most of these other countries spend a lot less on health care, including pharmaceuticals, than the US.

It is not just war profiteers but profiteers across the board that the US needs to question.

PS I digressed into health care from roads and bridges - but they amount to the same topicial umbrella about a government's role.

There was an interesting article in Governing magazine, i think in January, advising state leaders not to make 99-year leases of tollways (like Indiana i think) because its impossible to project the "value" of the road that far into the future. What, in dollars, is a tollway worth in 2045? who the fuck knows? the bankers renting it?? hah!

besides that they are going to quit filling the potholes and scoop out the money. same as Bechtel water operations in south america, which may have been the straw that broke the camels back after the locals in cochabamba (sp?) rebelled, fought and regained their water, catching the notice of the rest of South/Central America.

also i've heard mysterious tales about that NAFTA superhighway thing which apparently will trace I-35 from Texas to Duluth. But it's also being financed by European banks.

i think the only economically legitimate way to finance these things is a huge tennessee valley Authority-like instrument that recirculates the benefits directly to the local area. Anything going to foreign loans... is that exploitative debt loop we've heard about (not thru the media tho) ...
--
Hongpong.com

There is precedent for this.

It isn't fresh in my mind, so all the i's may not be dotted, but what I remember is.....

Many years ago LA had a streetcar system. Right-of-way was purchased by (I think it was) Standard Oil. They were able to block use of 'key' segments by public transportation. People stopped using the streetcars because they could only go so far before having to get out and walk a block or two to pick up another streetcar.

During this period a subway system for the LA area was in the works. Subway development would have been a lot easier then than it is now. There is a tunnel in downtown LA that was built as the first part of this network. As I recall, it is just southwest of China Town.

Standard Oil used right-of-way control to stop development of the LA subway system. The LA plan was later implemented in Toronto.

Car (i.e. gas) dependency in Los Angeles isn't an accident.