oltmanndOf course! I feel so foolish.....
Well, I wasn't gonna say anything...but...
MurrayoltmanndBucyrusnot only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us. Is a mocking horse related to a stalking horse or a rocking horse? Or, and iron horse? Eleanor Roosevelt would never mock ones horse.
oltmanndBucyrusnot only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us. Is a mocking horse related to a stalking horse or a rocking horse? Or, and iron horse?
Bucyrusnot only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us.
Eleanor Roosevelt would never mock ones horse.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I don’t believe that world free trade is just an issue of either we have it, or we don’t. While free trade is pure and ideal, it opens the door to the mother of unleveled playing fields. Dismissing this by saying nothing is perfect is denial IMHO.
Regarding the ethanol pipeline’s affect on the railroads, it would obviously hurt them because of taking away ethanol shipments by rail. In a larger context, it would also hurt them by depressing the economy by more unsustainable government spending.
When it comes to subsidies and redistribution, I am afraid that, not only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us.
selector Thanks, CNW, for attempting to steer the thread back to the topic set out by the originator.
Thanks, CNW, for attempting to steer the thread back to the topic set out by the originator.
And if that doesn't happen, and we continued our discussion about free trade instead, who cares? Who's hurt?
I say let the free market of ideas steer these threads. Any threads that stray too far from railroads into true irrelevancy to this forum will police themselves by going away for lack of interest. As this one is in the process of doing?
-Crandell
Victrola1 "In a joint statement, the companies said the study supports the idea that "a large-scale pipeline project is feasible under certain conditions and that a federal loan guarantee is necessary to move forward."Meanwhile, the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit that subsidizes ethanol production is due to expire at the end of the year, and the industry is split over what should be done." http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100720/BUSINESS01/7200359/1001/NEWS/Ethanol-boost-called-vital-to-biofuel-carrying-pipeline What affect on railroads?
"In a joint statement, the companies said the study supports the idea that "a large-scale pipeline project is feasible under certain conditions and that a federal loan guarantee is necessary to move forward."Meanwhile, the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit that subsidizes ethanol production is due to expire at the end of the year, and the industry is split over what should be done."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100720/BUSINESS01/7200359/1001/NEWS/Ethanol-boost-called-vital-to-biofuel-carrying-pipeline
What affect on railroads?
If built, this would obviously compete for and likely take business from any current unit trains moved from the midwest to the coast. Other than maybe gaining some pipe loads the net effect would be fewer cars of ethanol thus less traffic to haul and few, if any, unit trains.
On the project itself the most telling item to me is a quote from the article itself:
As for the pipeline, the Energy Department study said moving ethanol that way would cost shippers 28 cents per gallon, compared with 19 cents for rail or truck.
Even the Ethanol industry sees a drop in production coming:http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5244
Take home message:No pipeline should be built.
Dan
greyhoundsYou don't have a clue as to what I know or don't know about China. But you make the false accusation that I "really know nothing of China".
Unfortunately, your prior posts on this thread support this statement.
schlimmAnd China has not let the Yuan float in the currency markets. Not so far. Just talk. No other nation is permitted to do that, regardless of holdings of Treasuries. The Yuan has been grossly undervalued for years. We should impose an across the board tariff to compensate until they do.
If the US imposed an "across the board tariff", would not China just stop financing America's deficits? That would cause another sharp recession over here, wouldn't it?
oltmanndzugmannoltmannd I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement? As much as I would love for that to happen - be realistic. The companies are not going to go for that. If for nothing else than your reasoning: "Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits." That is the problem, we want Americans to stay on top of the educational/learning curve, yet we make schooling cost prohibitive for most. Especially people with full time jobs and families. It would be great for employers to offer employees sabbaticals, but what's in it for them? They hire people to perform work, not attend school. Same thing that's in it for them when they agree to pay increases - a contract, and workers who will work. Bet no union ever even suggested it, tho;....
zugmannoltmannd I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement? As much as I would love for that to happen - be realistic. The companies are not going to go for that. If for nothing else than your reasoning: "Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits." That is the problem, we want Americans to stay on top of the educational/learning curve, yet we make schooling cost prohibitive for most. Especially people with full time jobs and families. It would be great for employers to offer employees sabbaticals, but what's in it for them? They hire people to perform work, not attend school.
oltmannd I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement?
As much as I would love for that to happen - be realistic. The companies are not going to go for that. If for nothing else than your reasoning: "Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits."
That is the problem, we want Americans to stay on top of the educational/learning curve, yet we make schooling cost prohibitive for most. Especially people with full time jobs and families. It would be great for employers to offer employees sabbaticals, but what's in it for them? They hire people to perform work, not attend school.
Bet no union ever even suggested it, tho;....
Well, teachers' unions I'm sure, but they are required by law to continue education (at least in my state). Even they don't usually get to take sabbaticals to do it, though...
Now are we talking about training (directly related to the job) or more broader education? I got a bunch of training for free (actually got paid for it) at my job. But if a union suggests that their members be entitled to broader education (with sabbatical)? The non-union crowds will have a field day with that one.
I think it's a great idea, but I don't ever see it happening.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
oltmanndschlimm It is about having a government and corporations that stand up for AmericansAmericans are not intrinsically worth more than others. The problem is the upheaval caused by the rate of change. The change is progress. It is a problem that is hard to deal with. The solution is not, and cannot be to slow the rate of change - unless, of course you like how Cuba and N. Korea turned out. Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less.
schlimm It is about having a government and corporations that stand up for Americans
Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less.
Don, Americans may not be worth more than others, but their country and government sure have been better than anybody else's for more than 200 years -- for which you can thank the Founders, God, luck or maybe even the American people.
Most Americans would probably agree that, if they are no better than anybody else, the people they put in charge, if they are doing their job, are bound to seek their advantage. In the expectation that every other government in the world is, according to its best lights, attempting to do the same for its own people.
Arguing a close call, Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver famously exploded to an umpire, "All I want is my fair advantage!" Earl's request was unreasonable, because the umpire was not on his payroll. Such a request is not out of order when made to our politicians and business leaders.
As I said in an earlier post, the success of "free trade" is, from its fruits, not self-evident.
schlimmBut if wealth transfers occur, many Americans would prefer the transfer occur within the US rather than transfer wealth to another country, be it Brazil, Saudi Arabia or China.
greyhounds: You only reconfirm what I stated. You prefer to continue to allow China to engage in unfair practices because you are afraid any temporary compensatory tariffs will upset China and cause them to go to war with us? Please! Yes, by all means go fishing with your Made-in-China fly rod!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Greyhounds: Although your example of what happens re; ethanol made in Iowa and someone paying more for gas in NJ is true, it confirms my conclusion. You see money and jobs as equivalents, which totally disregards the other monetized and non-monetized aspects of jobs. You prefer to appease China at the expense of American workers' jobs without really knowing anything about China. While China has not engaged in any wars since Korea, other than border skirmishes with Viet Nam and the old Soviet Union, compared to our almost continuous state of war, the risk of armed conflict with that nation seems unlikely.
Greyhounds: Although your example of what happens re; ethanol made in Iowa and someone paying more for gas in NJ is true, it confirms my conclusion. You see money and jobs as equivalents, which totally disregards the other monetized and non-monetized aspects of jobs. You prefer to appease China at the expense of American workers' jobs without really knowing anything about China. While China has not engaged in any wars since Korea, other than border skirmishes with Viet Nam and the old Soviet Union, compared to our almost continuous state of war, the risk of armed conflict with that nation seems unlikely.
Well, here you go. You are unable to deal with the facts in discussion, so you resort to an attack on the source of the facts.
You don't have a clue as to what I know or don't know about China. But you make the false accusation that I "really know nothing of China".
The facts you don't deal with include the certainty that your proposed tariff would cause ecnomic hardship/unemployment in China. This will not make the Chinese people happy. How they react, how the totalitarian government of China deals with any unrest, and what international actions that government make take is beyond knowing.
Appease is certainly the wrong word. There's a big difference between appeasement and intentionally backing some country in to a corner.
More importantly, you continually ignore the fact that your proposed tariff will also cause economic hardship/unemployment in the US. It will increase the prices people must pay for goods. That means they're going to have to buy fewer goods. This will reduce employment for railroad workers, truck drivers, etc. It will even reduce unemployment in the US manufacturing sector. People will reduce consumption of goods manufactured in the US because they're paying more for other goods. They can't spend the paycheck twice.
These tariffs, such as you propose, do tremendous harm. There will be some few in the US who would benefit, but those benefits will pale in comparison to the harm done in the US.
This is reality. You can't/won't/don't want to deal with this reality. So you attack the source and not the facts.
With that, I'm out of here. Gone Fishin'.
schlimmoltmanndPart of the solution is lifelong education as the norm. It is completely unreasonable for a young American to figure on doing the same job or line of work for their entire life. They'd better plan on keeping themselves valuable by constantly enhancing their education and skill set. As someone very familiar with community colleges, I have to say that your assumptions are unrealistic. In any large population, there is a wide distribution of cognitive abilities. College level work is simply not for everyone. To pretend everyone displaced from more traditionally physically demanding jobs can retrain for jobs more technologically advanced is wishful thinking. We are faced (already face) a large number of individuals who are no longer qualified for many of the jobs that exist. Those folks who used to make a living wage for a family working at textile mills -- what can they do now? Go to McDonald's?
oltmanndPart of the solution is lifelong education as the norm. It is completely unreasonable for a young American to figure on doing the same job or line of work for their entire life. They'd better plan on keeping themselves valuable by constantly enhancing their education and skill set.
As someone very familiar with community colleges, I have to say that your assumptions are unrealistic. In any large population, there is a wide distribution of cognitive abilities. College level work is simply not for everyone. To pretend everyone displaced from more traditionally physically demanding jobs can retrain for jobs more technologically advanced is wishful thinking. We are faced (already face) a large number of individuals who are no longer qualified for many of the jobs that exist. Those folks who used to make a living wage for a family working at textile mills -- what can they do now? Go to McDonald's?
schlimmoltmanndBut, 200 airline employees get displaced for each 100 railroad workers hired to operate the HSR line. Do you not do the HSR project because of the impact it has directly on 200 airline employees? I'm not sure if your example is intended to be analogous to the original topic of a subsidized ethanol pipeline or international free trade. If the latter, it is false. Jobs lost or exported overseas are not available for displaced the US domestic workers. However it is quite likely some California airline workers could find similar jobs with the HSR (ticketing, stewards, etc.). And as Bucyrus points out, if you gut the US economy, how does that benefit anyone here (except financiers holding stock in the international corporations? Following an ideology blindly to the detriment of our citizens is not the job of our government and the public should wake up to the dangers of "not free trade."
oltmanndBut, 200 airline employees get displaced for each 100 railroad workers hired to operate the HSR line. Do you not do the HSR project because of the impact it has directly on 200 airline employees?
But, 200 airline employees get displaced for each 100 railroad workers hired to operate the HSR line.
Do you not do the HSR project because of the impact it has directly on 200 airline employees?
I'm not sure if your example is intended to be analogous to the original topic of a subsidized ethanol pipeline or international free trade. If the latter, it is false. Jobs lost or exported overseas are not available for displaced the US domestic workers. However it is quite likely some California airline workers could find similar jobs with the HSR (ticketing, stewards, etc.). And as Bucyrus points out, if you gut the US economy, how does that benefit anyone here (except financiers holding stock in the international corporations? Following an ideology blindly to the detriment of our citizens is not the job of our government and the public should wake up to the dangers of "not free trade."
BucyrusNow let’s say that China, India, and much of the rest of the third world suddenly moves into manufacturing and are a smashing success. They are able to produce all of the goods and services that the world wants at the lowest possible price, with the only exception being the services that must be produced on the customer’s site such as house building and agricultural production. In worldwide terms, this new economic paradigm will provide the greatest good to the most people. The only downside, however, is that this will destroy the majority of the U.S. economic base in the process. Do you think there should be any concern or hesitation to accept this new world free trade model just because it will destroy a few of the most advanced countries?
Scenario: Country A can make shoes for 100 articles of clothing. It costs them $5 to make pants and $10 to make shirts. Country B can also make 100 articles of clothing, pants that cost $20 and shirts that cost $15. Which combination of production produces the most goods at the least cost?
BucyrusRRKen The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s. So we stand idle while our economy becomes completely devastated? "Just give up and give in folks, we cannot do a darn thing about it." And yet, you both sit here talking so nonchalantly as if this is just another summer thunderstorm passing, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda. "The little people will adjust." Gee, at least I am shouting it from the mountaintop. You tell me what we should do about it. How do we fix the problem? I thought you said that too many horses have already left the barn.
RRKen The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s. So we stand idle while our economy becomes completely devastated? "Just give up and give in folks, we cannot do a darn thing about it." And yet, you both sit here talking so nonchalantly as if this is just another summer thunderstorm passing, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda. "The little people will adjust."
The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s.
So we stand idle while our economy becomes completely devastated? "Just give up and give in folks, we cannot do a darn thing about it."
And yet, you both sit here talking so nonchalantly as if this is just another summer thunderstorm passing, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda. "The little people will adjust."
Gee, at least I am shouting it from the mountaintop. You tell me what we should do about it. How do we fix the problem? I thought you said that too many horses have already left the barn.
Part of the solution is lifelong education as the norm. It is completely unreasonable for a young American to figure on doing the same job or line of work for their entire life. They'd better plan on keeping themselves valuable by constantly enhancing their education and skill set. I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement?
Now let’s say that China, India, and much of the rest of the third world suddenly moves into manufacturing and are a smashing success. They are able to produce all of the goods and services that the world wants at the lowest possible price, with the only exception being the services that must be produced on the customer’s site such as house building and agricultural production. In worldwide terms, this new economic paradigm will provide the greatest good to the most people. The only downside, however, is that this will destroy the majority of the U.S. economic base in the process.
Do you think there should be any concern or hesitation to accept this new world free trade model just because it will destroy a few of the most advanced countries?
Oltmand,
Very well said and in a context your readers should understand.
Mac
jeffhergertoltmannd Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less. Just an observation. I'd bet that both sides of the debate would agree with that. It's just that both sides think they are the targets. One side thinks the government is being used to give wealth to the wealthy. The other side thinks the government is being used to take wealth from the wealthy. Jeff
oltmannd Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less.
Just an observation. I'd bet that both sides of the debate would agree with that. It's just that both sides think they are the targets. One side thinks the government is being used to give wealth to the wealthy. The other side thinks the government is being used to take wealth from the wealthy.
Jeff
Who is obligated to help the displaced workers? The people acting through government? The people acting through charity? Or is it totally their own responsibility?
In a different time, the government would have REQUIRED the airline to keep flying the route just in case the rail line shut down for a day or two from a landslide or earthquake or other similar. So, the net benefit of the HSR rail line was kept from being available to society as a whole because the drag of now-uneeded air service was required to be kept.
schlimmBack a ways greyhounds suggested that transportation was really cheap - next to nothing - because of containers. This from today's NY Times: "Companies that lack contracts with shippers are paying even more. The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Hong Kong to Los Angeles without a contract, or the spot rate, was about $871 in July 2009, a five-year low. This month, that spot rate reached $2,624, a five-year high, according to the industry consultant Drewry Shipping Consultants, as reported by The Journal of Commerce. That exceeded even the cost before the recession, which was about $2,000"
Back a ways greyhounds suggested that transportation was really cheap - next to nothing - because of containers. This from today's NY Times:
"Companies that lack contracts with shippers are paying even more. The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Hong Kong to Los Angeles without a contract, or the spot rate, was about $871 in July 2009, a five-year low. This month, that spot rate reached $2,624, a five-year high, according to the industry consultant Drewry Shipping Consultants, as reported by The Journal of Commerce. That exceeded even the cost before the recession, which was about $2,000"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.