I buy all the economic arguments, but please god don’t let economists determine international airport siting. There is a reason Cusco has an airport and nothing up the skinny high altitude valley does and it has nothing to do with money.
Ollyantambo sits around 14000’ according to the map I am looking at. That altitude is above the service ceiling of most unpressurized planes and you would need at least a 2 mile long runway for jets plus a path for climb out, instrument approaches, etc.
A potentially politically feasible version of this proposal is the good old “milk the tourists” strategy. Where I live it’s common for city-run attractions to be pay-what-you wish for locals and market price for everyone else. Peru could implement a similar strategy, half the tickets reserved for the cheap, rationed system to which only Peruvians have access to, half auctioned off to a private firm for distribution to anyone at any price. This system would not provide all the benefits of privatization, but it’s probably better than the status quo and would face opposition from only the most diehard leftists.
Maybe, but that doesn't work that well for advance ticket sales that you need for Machu Picchu. You want advance sales because people need to know they have a ticket to plan travel. But having those tickets linked to a specific person that must show ID makes transferability difficult-- something you also want for advance sales because life often gets in the way of your advance plans.
But I agree that system works (and is used) for many other admissions that are not realistically capacity constrained and thus don't require advance sales.
Would you think the best way to handle the privatization of national landmarks to be an auctioned sale of the land or a lease auction with terms that need to be renewed every so often?
Intuitively, it seems like a national sale of an asset best serves the national interest when there is at least some recourse for the public if the landmark purchaser can’t deliver a quality service.
How would Peruvians guarantee a return on rents from their cultural heritage?
The decision to nationalize versus privatize ultimately hinges on whether the damages of a government monopoly
outweigh the damages of externalities from free riders.
What steps towards privatization best walk the line in providing returns to the Peruvian nation as a whole, while avoiding the quagmire of less than stellar national operation?
Surely there is a better process than just hoping the hotels get built and then taxing them if they do.
Cause or effect: The conflict is delivered toward the end .. an assumption that if we were all just honest, we would obviously admit to wanting luxury hotels in as many places as possible so that - like a economics professor from a prestigious university with three boys - we’d get the most bang for our vacation buck. For the past several centuries, luxury hotels have come as a result of economic vitality .. this seems to operate in reverse: a few luxury hotels will bring economic vitality. Bryan could be right but the lingering question asks: is this Good? As an economist, the answer is “of course it’s good”. Later, just let the government hire an economist to better understand the externalities - presumably, not someone with such a busy vacation schedule.
I buy all the economic arguments, but please god don’t let economists determine international airport siting. There is a reason Cusco has an airport and nothing up the skinny high altitude valley does and it has nothing to do with money.
Ollyantambo sits around 14000’ according to the map I am looking at. That altitude is above the service ceiling of most unpressurized planes and you would need at least a 2 mile long runway for jets plus a path for climb out, instrument approaches, etc.
You actually can get the experience you describe wanting *today* by doing a privately guided tour-- which we did with our family a few years ago.
Same goes for Disneyland
A potentially politically feasible version of this proposal is the good old “milk the tourists” strategy. Where I live it’s common for city-run attractions to be pay-what-you wish for locals and market price for everyone else. Peru could implement a similar strategy, half the tickets reserved for the cheap, rationed system to which only Peruvians have access to, half auctioned off to a private firm for distribution to anyone at any price. This system would not provide all the benefits of privatization, but it’s probably better than the status quo and would face opposition from only the most diehard leftists.
Wouldn't the Peruvians just sell their allocated tickets at the market price to others?
A simple ID check should suffice
Maybe, but that doesn't work that well for advance ticket sales that you need for Machu Picchu. You want advance sales because people need to know they have a ticket to plan travel. But having those tickets linked to a specific person that must show ID makes transferability difficult-- something you also want for advance sales because life often gets in the way of your advance plans.
But I agree that system works (and is used) for many other admissions that are not realistically capacity constrained and thus don't require advance sales.
Would you think the best way to handle the privatization of national landmarks to be an auctioned sale of the land or a lease auction with terms that need to be renewed every so often?
Intuitively, it seems like a national sale of an asset best serves the national interest when there is at least some recourse for the public if the landmark purchaser can’t deliver a quality service.
How would Peruvians guarantee a return on rents from their cultural heritage?
The decision to nationalize versus privatize ultimately hinges on whether the damages of a government monopoly
outweigh the damages of externalities from free riders.
What steps towards privatization best walk the line in providing returns to the Peruvian nation as a whole, while avoiding the quagmire of less than stellar national operation?
Surely there is a better process than just hoping the hotels get built and then taxing them if they do.
Cause or effect: The conflict is delivered toward the end .. an assumption that if we were all just honest, we would obviously admit to wanting luxury hotels in as many places as possible so that - like a economics professor from a prestigious university with three boys - we’d get the most bang for our vacation buck. For the past several centuries, luxury hotels have come as a result of economic vitality .. this seems to operate in reverse: a few luxury hotels will bring economic vitality. Bryan could be right but the lingering question asks: is this Good? As an economist, the answer is “of course it’s good”. Later, just let the government hire an economist to better understand the externalities - presumably, not someone with such a busy vacation schedule.
Perhaps the buyer can turn it into Epstein Mountain in homage to Epstein Island.
You could do the same for Petra and the Pyramids of Giza.
Or Louvre and any monument in Europe?