"The National Park Service proposes more than doubling the entrance fees at 17 popular national parks, including Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone, to help pay for infrastructure improvements."
I don't believe raising entrance fees to contribute to the upkeep of these massive parks qualifies as Capitalism.
Believe what you want. That's what it is. The opposite would be to raise taxes to pay for public parks.
The opposite of what? Capitalism?
I would say raising prices and closing doors are both capitalist solutions based on supply and demand. Having the collective pay to keep doors open when the price is below market or when demand doesn't meet cost is entirely non-capitalist.
I don't know
Some would say communist
I say collectivism
It's making decisions to purposely override market forces in an attempt to level the playing field.
Examples include subsidizing railroads and oil companies, or price controls on utilities
Florida state parks are free to welfare recipients. I suspect there are programs like this in other states and federally, so spare me the tears as I pay my way into the parks.
The socialist's argument against capitalism again? Socialists think everything should be free, because if the government pays for everything, everyone can enjoy it. Why do they continue to ignore reality? If taxes paid for everything, the only people who would have enough money left at the end of the day to enjoy anything, would be those who don't pay taxes.
We have the Pikes Peak highway here near Colorado Springs. It it paid for, and maintained by Colorado Springs taxpayers. If someone from New York wants to drive to the top of Pikes Peak, it costs them $15 a person or $50 a car. Know what it costs a Colorado Springs resident and taxpayer? $15 a person or $50 a car.
Some are upset that the cost to visit these National Parks has gone up. If the cost of maintaining and building 10 miles of road, was the same today as it was in 1960, and if the pay for park employees was still $2.50 an hours instead of $25 an hour, I might agree. Let's not forget the amount of money people make today compared to 1960. If I made $1.25 an hour in 1960 and $15 an hour as minimum wage today, that is more than 10 times more. If the cost to go to a National park was $10 in 1960, wouldn't that mean it should be over $100 today, by comparison?
If I ever decide to visit the Grand Canyon, I won't be put off by a $70 entrance fee. It would be a small fraction of the cost of the trip. Besides, the money to operate parks has to come from somewhere, if it's not being paid by those who use those services, it's being paid for by those who don't, is that really better?