[nine_k]

This is a good list. But doesn't "underfunded" mean "the society refuses to pay the whole price of the service"? That is, it's sort of more expensive, but is kept both starving and alive by fiat?

Regarding public transportation, for instance: New York's MTA receives about half of its financing as a subsidy. London Tube is a statutory corporation, and can cover only 90% of its expenses from fares. Tokyo Metro is a private entity that shows a healthy profit, and Moscow metro also used to be profitable for a long time. Both Moscow and Tokyo underground infrastructure and service at least are not inferior to NYC's and London's (from my personal experience with 3 of the 4 of them).

[mrguyorama]

No, underfunded means republicans (and occasionally democrats) have hampered these groups for decades, under the guise that "government can't do anything", and then point to the kneecapped government actions as reason to believe the government can't do anything.

If you disallow the government to pay its bills, or effectively haggle, or build the kind of teams it needs, of course it will do a bad job. Meanwhile lots of countries have shown you can have in house teams in the government who make great things.

People will say "the government can't do anything" while cashing their social security check, after driving on the federal highway, drinking their usually clean water, and yelling at their kid's teachers for stupid reasons. We have had 60 years of starve the beast, this was all intentional.

[Firadeoclus]

There is no reason public transport should aim to be financed entirely by fares, or to make a profit from fares. It benefits people who rarely or never use it.

[verall]

It is not always comparable between cultures. If the Tokyo Metro was found to be blatantly profiteering, the president of the company would probably resign due to the cultural shame. In the US, it would be, "welp, that's the governments fault..."

[PuppyTailWags]

I didn't include public transportation in the list so idk.