Or the government could quit subsidizing everything, work on including the cost of externalities into the price system (tax evil).

I don't get it -- why does Smith only want to play Mozart at high-crime stations? Wouldn't it be better to play it everywhere and avoid flagging certain stations as dangerous?

It would be absolutely better to play it everywhere, and this idea sounds strangely non-crazy. However, who's going to be DJing this here bit of crime-preventing culture?

I love me some Mozart, adore Beethoven and rock out to Wagner, but if I ever hear Pachelbel's Canon in D playing at a MAX station, that will probably cause more violence.

Mozart? Fuck that shit! Erik Alfred Satie!

Mozart? You want to rag on Mozart? Todd, the man was the Michael Jackson of his day: A child star with an abusive father who did groundbreaking work and died young. His music was powered by abuse, practice to the point of neglecting a normal life, and eventual death. And yet it's still very sprightly and pleasant! How can you argue with that?

How much does it cost to license all those recordings for public performance? Rightsholders for recordings of classical music are dicks (out of necessity, as selling recordings is one of the only ways they make money).

Also, everybody knows that roads aren't subsidized, because living in LO while you work downtown means you're a rugged individualist.

@Rosy Physical infrastructure has to be subsidized because the government solves coordination and free-rider problems.

@ Rosy - i'm curious if there is a (non-partisan) source that can provide some notion of what stuff should cost when externalities are factored. i assume that one persons externalities are going to differ from another's (or would it?), but it would be nice to know, for instance, generally what the difference in cost of a mid-size car vs. a bike would be. or what a watermelon should sell for in portland in january.

even though my liberalism is flaming, i admit to being intrigued by libertarianism in it's pure form, as i understand it.

finally: mozart RULZ!

Wait. I think Burgess and Kubrick did a fine job of disproving this contention in Clockwork Orange.

@eric cantona - I like that idea so much! I propose you start a blog where you post one item every day with it real price and subsidized price. Thanks in advance.

@ smirk - HA! with math being one of of my (many) intellectual deficiencies, i am going to have to pass on that offer. attempting something like that would be akin to the after effects of eating a gallon of ice cream really, really fast.

Mike, apparently there is research that shows classical music (mellow?) lowers crime, hostility, etc. given the cost to do it anywhere, needs to be limited to stations with demonstrable need.

@eldepeche -- you just use the public domain performances by dead people.

@eric -- Calculating these cost can be done.
We will start with a good explaination of externalites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality (this was good as of today, it gets vandalized every 3 days)

This is a new HBR article:
http://blogs.hbr.org/what-business-owes-th…

Everyone asks what happens when that additional $2.2 trillion enters the price decision. Price signal people about real costs and they choose. Like Smirk might choose a different brand of bike tire or to take better care of her bike when the true costs arrive. She will also get to see how subsidized roads reduced the transport costs of her goods. The neat thing is you get to see the bad actors that have been picking your pocket with low prices.

I'm not a fan of the sticker idea.

First, stickers don't tend to degrade/dispose as easily as a paper ticket and, well, they stick to things. Seems likely to increase apparent litter, even if people don't toss them aside at a greater rate than paper tickets.

Second, what if the sticker falls off? It's more secure to keep a transit ticket in my pocket. (And do I _have_ to wear the sticker, or can I just pull it out out of my pocket like a regular ticket?) It rains here sometimes.

Third, do fare inspectors want to have to lean in close to every passenger to scrutinize a sticker?

Fourth: Ticket machines. These already have a problem getting paper jams occasionally, will this problem increase with stickers?

But most importantly: This is a purported "fix" that only addresses a tiny problem with the fare system. TriMet needs to adopt a fare system for the late-20th-century and ditch paper tickets as much as possible.

Places such as Salt Lake City now use a system where anyone with a "tap-and-go" credit/debit card can use it as a pass. (And if you don't have a debit or credit card, a machine can issue you a prepaid card). Simply "tap on" and look for the green light or listen for the beep when you get on a bus or train, then "tap off" when you leave. Fares can vary by distance. (Solves other problems of our current zone-based fare system.) Fare inspectors use a simple reader where waving the card near the reader verifies fare.

So my counter-proposal to this legislator is forget about stickers and provide funding and guidance to help TriMet (and LTD and other interested transit agencies in the state) find a new, mostly-paperless fare system.

The best systems just don't let you off the bus or out of the station without paying a fare.