General Discussion

blownout cylinder:

schlimm:

$162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009.  Great allocation of financial resources.  Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR?

That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on?

So it's the 'open market' only when it works well.  But when corporate executives get huge bonuses, the former CEO of United Heathcare got 1 Bil. as a 'parting gift', Enron manipulations of the energy market, ad nauseam, that's "stupidity?"  There is an appropriate place for the market, including HSR's and electrification, but the solution may require some government involvement as well. just as building transcontinental RR's did 150 years ago.  I, and others are only suggesting that a blind faith in the "market" as the best/only mechanism to generate solutions and automatically rejecting the government is a highly ideological rather than pragmatic position to serious national problems. 

schlimm:

blownout cylinder:

schlimm:

$162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009.  Great allocation of financial resources.  Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR?

That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on?

 

So it's the 'open market' only when it works well.  But when corporate executives get huge bonuses, the former CEO of United Heathcare got 1 Bil. as a 'parting gift', Enron manipulations of the energy market, ad nauseam, that's "stupidity?"  There is an appropriate place for the market, including HSR's and electrification, but the solution may require some government involvement as well. just as building transcontinental RR's did 150 years ago.  I, and others are only suggesting that a blind faith in the "market" as the best/only mechanism to generate solutions and automatically rejecting the government is a highly ideological rather than pragmatic position to serious national problems. 

Look. The point I made was that a 'centrally planned economy' is just as likely to be abused by those who will take advantage. You had regulatory bodies who did not do due diligence in many of these cases as well. You had gaps and loop holes taken advantage of. In the case of the former Soviet Union there was virtually no control over the upcoming--"russian mafia" that came out when the communist regime collapsed there--and look what is going on in China. Same thing. It is not the "Open Market" that does this--it is US as HUMANS that do these things.

 Centrally Planned economies are just as prone to this kind of stuff----because human beings are involved. Having had relatives that lived in the former East Germany and the Soviet Union does do certain things to a person. I prefer to take a chance on an Open Market than on something that involves a single group of authorities controlling everything----sheeesh

A pragmatic solution should involve that "OTHER"----the open market as well----

blownout cylinder:

Having had relatives that lived in the former East Germany and the Soviet Union does do certain things to a person.

Same here, blownout, but only the former DDR (Thuringia) in my case . 

Abuses can take place anywhere.  I'm not sure that the bonuses paid to executives are really even abuses. Certainly not illegal.  Seems to me it is an intrinsic part of a system with little in the way of checks and balances (stockholders here have little voice). The decisions are made by "a single group of authorities controlling everything".  And clearly abuses and corruption happen in all governments, rather less so in democratically elected ones.  Most industrialized economies in the world are mixed, not purely market-driven, and they work pretty well.  Probably the solution to our RR questions lies in some pragmatic, mixed approach as others wiser than myself suggested: use government bond-power, use private corporations to run the operation and pay back on the bonds.

You should be able to in the case of Transportation as such. The question would be though in what manner? I'd like to see a combination of ways being used here through open market/government body/consumer body scenarios. It would be also financially funded through a variety of means as well. Also including a mix of open market/government bond issues/IPO's and such. I just get piculous when someone thinks that transportation would be better served through certain forms of government fiat---as if any government has handled that well

daveklepper:

Do you let the market decide when it comes to police, firemen, traffic lights, water, sewerage, etc?   Some people do think transportation should be treated similarly.

I don't think in the case of police and such that a truly open market would necessarily work but then some do like those positions---

Both private sector and public sector (central planning) business activities have their share of corrupt individuals, but the fundamental difference is that central planning has a self-interest of growing the empire of the central planners, coupled with the force of law.

So when it comes to projects such as HSR, the issue is not so much whether the private sector or the public sector would be the least corrupt.  The issue is that if there is no genuine public need for HSR, the private sector will realize that, and therefore not pursue HSR.  Whereas the public sector is liable to pursue HSR for the purpose of expanding its own empire even if there is no public need for HSR. 

Ok.  Scenerio: Air pollution is out of control, very dangerous situation exists in your area.  All land has been used up by industry and homes. Two reasons you can't build new or expand your highway system for autos or trucks.  Airports cannot be enlarged in any way for the same reasons, but passenger demand is up.  There are no navigable rivers or canals nearby.  Railroad technology is further ahead than what is being used, tracks and rights of way are underutilized.  What is the natural determination and how does letting the market determine the future work here?

daveklepper:

Do you let the market decide when it comes to police, firemen, traffic lights, water, sewerage, etc?

A form of that has happened - Subscription fire departments.  You pay your money, you get fire protection.  You don't pay your money, your neighbors stand around and watch while the fire department protects their property and lets your burn.

Let's not forget Conrail - that half-hearted attempt to save a bunch of railroads that otherwise would have been abandoned (never mind "If the South had Won the Civil War" - imagine what would have happened if all those NE railroads had been shuttered.)  The public (us) kept that afloat until (!) it started making money.

henry6:

Ok.  Scenerio: Air pollution is out of control, very dangerous situation exists in your area.  All land has been used up by industry and homes. Two reasons you can't build new or expand your highway system for autos or trucks.  Airports cannot be enlarged in any way for the same reasons, but passenger demand is up.  There are no navigable rivers or canals nearby.  Railroad technology is further ahead than what is being used, tracks and rights of way are underutilized.  What is the natural determination and how does letting the market determine the future work here?

By having human beings who note the above and work on developing the means to deliver the services necessary to expand train service---you see, I do not think that an "Idea"--"Open Market" does one thing or another. Have you ever physically "SEEN"--ie with the eyes--an "open market" act on something itself? No. It does not exist as a physical entity. But we seem to have forgotten that humans do things in the arena/idea called an open market. There is that free will thing here too, right?

I think this central planning thing is a little overwrought precisely because we have some who think that there is a serious need to do HSR and there may very well be some demand but where is it?. Me? I'd like someone not affiliated with one group or the other to come up with a market survey that we can start from----

henry6:

Ok.  Scenerio: Air pollution is out of control, very dangerous situation exists in your area.  All land has been used up by industry and homes. Two reasons you can't build new or expand your highway system for autos or trucks.  Airports cannot be enlarged in any way for the same reasons, but passenger demand is up.  There are no navigable rivers or canals nearby.  Railroad technology is further ahead than what is being used, tracks and rights of way are underutilized.  What is the natural determination and how does letting the market determine the future work here?

Well in that scenario, a public sector response is called for.  It is a crisis similar to a natural disaster.  Such crisis contingencies are well within the scope of appropriate government application. 

However, I don’t believe you can cite one example of an actual situation where the details of your scenario either exist or have ever existed.  Moreover, I think it is highly unlikely to ever occur.  It sounds like a made up crisis to justify getting HSR by government fiat.   

Bucyrus, that is almost the exact conditions that exist in the Northeast!  NJ can't build anymore roads; the NY Metropolitan area has poor air quality, clogged roads, jammed airports, no place to build more but plenty of underutilized rail ROW's.  Its like that virtually from Portland, ME to Norfolk, VA!  The scenerio is too real. 

But more to my other point.  Nothing has ever been accepted by the public which hasn't been "sold" to them through a well planned and executed marketing program.  Everything we encounter, use, abuse, enjoy, rely on, whatever, has been marketed so that we accept what those in charge of whatever, wants us to believe.  Look at the hell being raised right now with the new concepts of *** cancer screening...after years of marketing one idea, now another has popped up and has to be marketed until settled.  We were told about our cars and the highways as the way to be free, be able to travel at will, to be American.  But now that concept has to be changed and remarketed.  To make a change or promote someting new or different, you've got to market and sell, market and sell, market and sell.  Until the next change comes along.

henry6:

Bucyrus, that is almost the exact conditions that exist in the Northeast!  NJ can't build anymore roads; the NY Metropolitan area has poor air quality, clogged roads, jammed airports, no place to build more but plenty of underutilized rail ROW's.  Its like that virtually from Portland, ME to Norfolk, VA!  The scenerio is too real. 

But more to my other point.  Nothing has ever been accepted by the public which hasn't been "sold" to them through a well planned and executed marketing program.  Everything we encounter, use, abuse, enjoy, rely on, whatever, has been marketed so that we accept what those in charge of whatever, wants us to believe.  Look at the hell being raised right now with the new concepts of *** cancer screening...after years of marketing one idea, now another has popped up and has to be marketed until settled.  We were told about our cars and the highways as the way to be free, be able to travel at will, to be American.  But now that concept has to be changed and remarketed.  To make a change or promote someting new or different, you've got to market and sell, market and sell, market and sell.  Until the next change comes along.

In your outline of the problem scenario, what makes you think that people will just switch to rail just because it is offered as an alternative?  Highways and cars were welcomed as a wonderful alternative to being tied to schedules of transit with its limited range of routing.  Why would people change their mind unless you outlaw cars?

As I said before, I think you have the cart and horse mixed up with your belief that human behavior is lead and controlled by marketing.  Maybe you are a marketing guy and therefore believe that.  If it were true, why don’t they just market that we all live in peace and prosperity?

Very little has ever happened without a planned or unplanned indoctrinization.  We have smoked for years even though we know it will kill us because it was made so attractive by marketing, for instance. People bought war bonds and savings bonds because they were marketed as much as being the patriotic thing as they were a good buy.  Read what I have written above about how things happen.  We don't just wake up one morning and decide we want or need something...from what we eat, drive, do, think, etc., it is implanted in our minds until we react the way the implimenter wants.  Tell me one thing we do, think, eat, drive, or whatever, except breath, that has not been introduced to us by other forces.

henry6:

Very little has ever happened without a planned or unplanned indoctrinization.  We have smoked for years even though we know it will kill us because it was made so attractive by marketing, for instance. People bought war bonds and savings bonds because they were marketed as much as being the patriotic thing as they were a good buy.  Read what I have written above about how things happen.  We don't just wake up one morning and decide we want or need something...from what we eat, drive, do, think, etc., it is implanted in our minds until we react the way the implimenter wants.  Tell me one thing we do, think, eat, drive, or whatever, except breath, that has not been introduced to us by other forces.

I assume that when you mention marketing you are including advertising, and I agree that advertising does attempt to indoctrinate, and to some extent, it succeeds.  People do have to learn about something they might want before they will attempt to acquire it, so advertising can merely serve to inform some people of something they would want without indoctrinating them to buy it. 

But I don’t think that all of the desire to consume is simply the result of marketing / advertising indoctrination.  If it were, all marketers would have a sure-fired path to wealth.  There has to be more to the formula than just brainwashing people into consuming what you want them to consume.  Something must have kicked in that told the public not to listen to the marketing for the Edsel.    

henry6:

Very little has ever happened without a planned or unplanned indoctrinization.  We have smoked for years even though we know it will kill us because it was made so attractive by marketing, for instance. People bought war bonds and savings bonds because they were marketed as much as being the patriotic thing as they were a good buy.  Read what I have written above about how things happen.  We don't just wake up one morning and decide we want or need something...from what we eat, drive, do, think, etc., it is implanted in our minds until we react the way the implimenter wants.  Tell me one thing we do, think, eat, drive, or whatever, except breath, that has not been introduced to us by other forces.

There is NO thing that has not been in one way or another 'socially constructed' as a need---excepting food --maybe. Now, what is your vision going to be? What is your ideal? And are you  sure it is yours and not some system monger? Since we are all socially constructed/created with all these ideologies stamped on us from the time we are born then I can suggest that we are born blank slates for whatever ideology to write upon us. We are not born prior to the society we are born into. It is what it is. 

Good vision this that you ended up with. Since there is all manipulation and nothing else--then you will have to fight with all other ideals and systems and such for the people's 'allegience' . You will have to market that idea just as much as everyone else does. Sorry that you do not find this society open to a planned economy or methodology as you'd like. The politicohistorical culture in THIS society is different---

Bucyrus said: But I don’t think that all of the desire to consume is simply the result of marketing/ advertising indoctrination....There has to be more to the formula than just brainwashing people into consuming what you want them to consume. .

  So what do you eat for breakfast?  Where do you have lunch?  How' bout dinner?  You have a need to eat but some marketer has forced you into the answers to those three questions!  So if need were the sole criteria for success or failure, there would only be one choice for each answer, like the whole world would have Egg McMuffins for breakfast now matter where you live.  And your market makes the choice theory is what the Edsel failure was all about: there were so many other, so many better choices, so why buy an Edsel?  But what if Edsel were the only car available?    

blownout cylinder:

 Sorry that you do not find this society open to a planned economy or methodology as you'd like. The politicohistorical culture in THIS society is different---

I am not saying its not as I'd like necessarily.  I am saying that the future has to be met and planned.  And that because of today's circumstances and the planners' foreseeable needs, things have to be different than they have for the past 50 or 60 years.  Its not a matter of just thinking outside the box, its almost a matter of rebuilding the box!  Then you have to indoctonate the masses into accepting it.