I was using Gary as a generic rather than specific example that is representitive of alot of stations that were once a community gathering place or in smaller communities, the social heart of them. What is heartening is to see just how many are actually being restored..as community centers...the restoration in Aberdeen, is particularly interesting as they are restoring the canteen where they as a community fed the troops going off to WW2..my dad among them. My brother in law is a psychiatrist who tells me that there is a psychological dissassociation at play as alot of areas become carbon copies of each other with the exact same franchises, the exact same malls,,,in other words regional character had become diluted to the point of surrealism. One positive note I do belong to The National trust for Historic Preservation and they have some great programs in place....Restore America is one of them...Home and Garden TV has invested in America as a community to the tune of several million dollars.
HGTV's Restore America
This month's Restore America site: The Wauregan Hotel, Norwich, CT
HGTV's Restore America is a multi-million dollar public affairs initiative by Home & Garden Television to support the National Trust and preservation efforts throughout America. This national campaign to raise awareness of preservation will recognize restoration efforts at twelve sites all over the country.
For 2006-2007, HGTV's Restore America initiative has awarded grants ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 to fund twelve community revitalization projects. The Restore America grants are intended to further the restoration or rehabilitation of a historic structure for residential use in an effort to spur community revitalization. Grants may be used for professional services fees or bricks and mortar expenses. Each site will be saluted with public service announcements broadcast on HGTV.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
What does "once and future" mean?
I have never understood what that expression is trying to say..
thanks,
Scot
Erie Lackawanna wrote: underworld wrote: The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out. underworldIt all depends on your definition of "by." It's on the line to the tunnel and fairly close. I
underworld wrote: The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out. underworld
The Gary Station is still there. It's my favorite building that I see when going to Chicago. The Detroit Station is also still standing. It's not by the tunnel though....it's a bit south of the old Tiger Stadium. There may be a fund raiser for the Detroit Station if all of the details can be worked out.
underworld
It all depends on your definition of "by." It's on the line to the tunnel and fairly close. I
Now we all agree!
About that. You can see it when approaching from the south....just past the refinery area (also known as Zug Island). It is a very stuunin structure if you ever get to see it up close.
Its about 1.5 to 2 miles from the exit, correct?
Poppa_Zit wrote: wallyworld wrote: Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...I punt.This is getting too irrational and weird. I refuse to dignify it with a response.
wallyworld wrote: Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...
Theres no misconstruing your meaning and the picture you assemble is as clear as ice water. I could provide you with a laundry list to match yours full of companies that do exactly what I said they do for long term purposes, but it's rather pointless isn't it? You can make a profit and you can take a portion of it and reinvest it in the community in which you operate. Hitler created the autobahn and put alot of germans back to work and printed enough money to bring down the price of bread..anything else he did was...well...beside my point. By the way, Henry Ford was, and still is a s__t and by your logic of seperating effective behavior from profit making is schitzoid at best...I was successful enough to have retired some time ago..... very comfortably as far my issues with success that you managed to have weasled in there..how about you? off topic are we? Shame on you Mr Zit...
I punt.
This is getting too irrational and weird. I refuse to dignify it with a response.
(......munch, munch.......)
What'd I miss?
doghouse wrote: Erie Lackawanna wrote: doghouse wrote: wallyworld wrote: Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.http://davidplowden.com/ There is an abandoned station that sits near the exit to the tunnel under the Detroit river from Windso. The yard belongs to one of the canadian rr's. Is this the one? YesIt looked familiar. Been in it(2003) . The office tower as well. Tragic to loose this wonderful piece of history. Is it still standing? Last I heard it was to be torn down.
Erie Lackawanna wrote: doghouse wrote: wallyworld wrote: Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.http://davidplowden.com/ There is an abandoned station that sits near the exit to the tunnel under the Detroit river from Windso. The yard belongs to one of the canadian rr's. Is this the one? Yes
doghouse wrote: wallyworld wrote: Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.http://davidplowden.com/ There is an abandoned station that sits near the exit to the tunnel under the Detroit river from Windso. The yard belongs to one of the canadian rr's. Is this the one?
wallyworld wrote: Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.http://davidplowden.com/
Michigan Central looks much like the Buffalo Terminal....David Plowden, who has taken some of my favorite railroad photographs, has a book out on the theme of buildings in the heartland reverting to their natural state. It's called a Handful of Dust. The photo below is the Michigan Central ruin. Using my imagination, I could see it as a once bustling, noisy place full of activity.
http://davidplowden.com/
There is an abandoned station that sits near the exit to the tunnel under the Detroit river from Windso. The yard belongs to one of the canadian rr's. Is this the one?
Yes
It looked familiar. Been in it(2003) . The office tower as well. Tragic to loose this wonderful piece of history. Is it still standing? Last I heard it was to be torn down.
Last I knew, the Detroit Police Department took ownership, with the inention of restoring it and turning it into a new police headquarters.
Poppa_Zit wrote: wallyworld wrote:Again there is only an artificial seperation between the character of a company founder like Ford and how that character and effective behavior impacted the larger community was my point. The point of business is only profit is a fallacy and a illusion born of a reductionist argument. That was and is an important point that we disagree on. While the robber barons of old were more identifiable, they have not gone away but they are more adept in keeping under the radar of public perception. Some are easily recognizable because they toot their own horns as community members abit too loudly...On the other hand, the fact that there are some companies who do not consider community investment as a charity case but rather a prudent long term investment is another important point..I have worked with several in Illinois and Wisconsin specifically in construction management for community building by providing affordable senior, low income and AIDs facilities. So, I think your statement that a firms sole responsibility is profit and is distinct from character whether individual or corporate as well as from philanthropic activities is just simplistic and reductionist and wrong. They may chose not to involve themselves but that is another matter. Well, we'll disagree because you are still misconstruing what I wrote. I'll repeat it so it can't be twisted again: "...pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout." I still say the first order of any business is to make a profit. Anything else is secondary and a bonus. Being able to voluntarily exercise one's philanthropic urges is one of those bonuses. You seem to have issues with successful business owners. Do you know the salaries of the top people/owners of your "community-builders"? They cannot operate at a loss, now can they? They don't build affordable housing to make money? And just how to they consider "community building" as a "long-term investment"? How will that investment pay off, if not in future revenue? What's the difference in working toward immediate profit or making a long-term profit?Even the top honchos at the nation's biggest charities knock down some pretty hefty salaries. In 2005, the average yearly salary for the CEO of over 4,200 charities was nearly $150,000.Full report at Charity Navigator
wallyworld wrote:Again there is only an artificial seperation between the character of a company founder like Ford and how that character and effective behavior impacted the larger community was my point. The point of business is only profit is a fallacy and a illusion born of a reductionist argument. That was and is an important point that we disagree on. While the robber barons of old were more identifiable, they have not gone away but they are more adept in keeping under the radar of public perception. Some are easily recognizable because they toot their own horns as community members abit too loudly...On the other hand, the fact that there are some companies who do not consider community investment as a charity case but rather a prudent long term investment is another important point..I have worked with several in Illinois and Wisconsin specifically in construction management for community building by providing affordable senior, low income and AIDs facilities. So, I think your statement that a firms sole responsibility is profit and is distinct from character whether individual or corporate as well as from philanthropic activities is just simplistic and reductionist and wrong. They may chose not to involve themselves but that is another matter.
Well, we'll disagree because you are still misconstruing what I wrote. I'll repeat it so it can't be twisted again: "...pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout."
I still say the first order of any business is to make a profit. Anything else is secondary and a bonus. Being able to voluntarily exercise one's philanthropic urges is one of those bonuses. You seem to have issues with successful business owners.
Do you know the salaries of the top people/owners of your "community-builders"? They cannot operate at a loss, now can they? They don't build affordable housing to make money? And just how to they consider "community building" as a "long-term investment"? How will that investment pay off, if not in future revenue? What's the difference in working toward immediate profit or making a long-term profit?
Even the top honchos at the nation's biggest charities knock down some pretty hefty salaries. In 2005, the average yearly salary for the CEO of over 4,200 charities was nearly $150,000.
Full report at Charity Navigator
wallyworld wrote:Tax benefits, enviromental concessions and a general lower standard of living reflected in the wages, and working conditions make this to my way of thinking, largely a throwback or continuation of Robber Baron exploitation. They can't get away with that nonsense here so they moved it over there..
Good point, exploitatively low wages are not the sole motive, I'll conceed.
Avoidance of enviro regs, and being able to escape affirmative action, (and the whole "alledge discrimination as a tool to guide ones career path" mentality) certainly play a part.
I think that what the discussion of tariffs vs no tariffs actually boils down to, is one of dividends versus wages.
I personally doubt that this nation will do the smart thing, because the "dividend lobby" seems to have this government bought and paid for.Meaning wage earners in this country will continue to take it on the chin
But eventually it will come back and bite them in the cushion duster.
Poppa,
I wasn't demonizing Ford, nor aggrandizing him, just pointing out the fact that how he is presented to the world at large and how he really acted are vastly different...and he was a very interesting and complex man.
One who was, by any benchmark, highly successful in a fiercely competitive market by using all the tools available to him at the time.
James Hill, Pullman, Gould, all did the same thing, took advantage of the opportunities available at the time.
While some here rant and rave about the land grants, simply put there would be no major population in the western US, with the exception of the costal areas, with out the railroads and the use of land grants.
Morality aside, it worked, generated business, built towns which later became major cities, and helped move several million people into those areas.
Take Bill Gates, AG's arch nemesis of sorts...
I would hazard a guess that the majority of this forums participants are using one of his products...not because they are better than others, which they aren't, but simply because it does the job, at a price we are willing to pay.
EMD found this out the hard way...they do build a better locomotive, but not at a price the railroads are willing to pay, hence GE filled in the niche with cheaper locomotives, both in quality and price.
Railroads took advantage of the fact, and GE is now the predominant builder.
Simple business decision, if I can buy 3 GEs at the price I would pay for 2 EMDs, and both accomplish the same thing, pulling trains, why wouldn't I take advantage of that?
Blaming the union worker for GMs current mess is silly, all the union did was take advantage of what was offered....but had GMs management instituted changes in how they built cars, and the products they built, well, if all three of the major American car makers had done so, the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
I know they did internal studies back in the late 80s that told them such a point would come about, and the studies were quite accurate, which would lead one to think that if the management of the big three knew about it, they should have done something to prevent it from happening.
They didn't, of course, and continued with business as usual.
But here's a funny fact...GM now builds more models of automobiles that get 30 mpg or better, with a higher quality rating, than Honda and Toyota do combined...yet the public still perceives that the "imports", most of which are built here in America, are more efficient gas wise and better built quality wise.
So, lets take AGs AMC corp. out to the west coast, say he does build the best mother board in the world, and has a customer in Chicago who wants to buy those mother boards in volume, big, big volume...wouldn't it make sense for AG to find the most cost efficient way to transport his product from LA to Chicago?
And, if that happened to be by stuffing them in containers and sending them by train, wouldn't that be a good business decision?
To postulate that railroads have some moral or patriotic obligation to help revitalize domestic production of anything is, in my opinion, wrong.
All railroads, or any business for that matter, can do is react to and take advantage of the current situation, and plan for the future based upon their knowledge of their market.
Railroads have one obligation...to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.
Anything beyond that is incidental.
If hauling containers that originate in Asia from LA to Chicago makes more money than picking up single car loads, then they should do just that, haul the containers.
If building lines into the Powder River basin and dragging out monster coal trains makes them more money than moving boxcars full of truck frames, they lay those tracks and let's get after it.
Simplistic, but still...what if we ended up being just what Andrew Jackson envisioned America to be...an agrarian society that imported most of its manufactured and finished goods and exported agriculture products?
23 17 46 11
Datafever wrote:Not at all. Tariffs have consequences. We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now.
Not at all. Tariffs have consequences. We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now.
Remember the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that went into law in 1930? That ultra-high import tariff made the Great Depression worse and if they had never implemented the tariff the Great Depression would not impact so many Americans.
By the way, what I find interesting is that many DaimlerChrysler, Ford and GM automobiles have far more content and final assembly done outside the USA than the majority of Honda and Toyota models! In fact, my 1998 Honda Civic HX CVT coupe was assembled at Honda's East Liberty, Ohio assembly line with at least 75% USA-assembled parts, including the engine itself (the only true imported part was the CVT automatic transmission, which was built at Honda's own transmission factory in Japan).
Datafever wrote:Okay. If you doubt me, then I forgive you.
Okay. If you doubt me, then I forgive you.
Thanks..., because I do (not that tariffs don't have consequences, because they do. I just doubt that we couldn't rise above them.)
Our ace in the hole is having the largest consumer market on the planet, right here between these shores
TheAntiGates wrote: Datafever wrote: TheAntiGates wrote:The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now. Not at all. Tariffs have consequences. We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now. Forgive me if I doubt you.
Datafever wrote: TheAntiGates wrote:The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now. Not at all. Tariffs have consequences. We'd be sitting in the middle of a huge recession with high inflation rates about now.
TheAntiGates wrote:The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now.
The real shame is, if you ask me, that we didn't start about 12 years ago. We'd be sitting pretty by now.
Forgive me if I doubt you.
edblysard wrote:Ok,Lets try this...Assume AG gets the Antigates Motherboard Company(AMC) up and running...where will the company purchase the basic product...the wafer board, the machines to drill the board, the capacitors and such...the automated solderer and laser cutters...all that stuff?And American made computers to run the program to do the work...from who would you purchase them?My bet is that almost all of that is made overseas, so you would be adding to the container traffic with the purchases...and which Americans will do to small amount of assembly needed, if any?
Ok,
Lets try this...
Assume AG gets the Antigates Motherboard Company(AMC) up and running...where will the company purchase the basic product...the wafer board, the machines to drill the board, the capacitors and such...the automated solderer and laser cutters...all that stuff?
And American made computers to run the program to do the work...from who would you purchase them?
My bet is that almost all of that is made overseas, so you would be adding to the container traffic with the purchases...and which Americans will do to small amount of assembly needed, if any?
The current "problem" did not comeabout overnight, so it would be foolish to assume a workable solution could be implemented overnight as well. Where did we get our needed componentry BEFORE there were factories in Asia to draw from? Right here. I seriously don't see the legitimacy of throwing in the towel, and saying "it's too late , we're too far gone, we have to roll with the punches ever after.
Tarriffs can work quite well ,
Maintain perspective please that the tariffs do not by them selves create an overnight prohibition upon import, they just level the playing field on the cost of production.
If you are Ed Motorola, and are building walkie talkies, you can continue to buy your capacitors abroad, albeit at a price roughly equivalent (by virtue of the tariff) to your cost of procuring them domestically.
A smart way to implement such incentives would be to phase them in, incrementally. Perhaps over a 5-7 year period with a certain additional percentage kicking in each year, giving the means of production time to tool up, and an incentive to not be lagging.
And my guess is that if Ed knows that in 8 years that imported capacitor will cost him 110% of a domestically aquired one...he'll prioritize accordingly.
These sniveling excuses by some of the corporate appologists trying to plea that we are beyond some mythical point of no return, are just trying to smokescreen their ambition to preserve the status quo.
Don't blame 'em for trying, but I refuse to sympatize with them.
edblysard wrote: All based on a simple concept...made a fairly good product and sell it at a price people are willing to pay...remove all the rest of the facts and myths, and that alone would guarantee his success.
All based on a simple concept...made a fairly good product and sell it at a price people are willing to pay...remove all the rest of the facts and myths, and that alone would guarantee his success.
That was my point, Ed. That, and only that.
How we got spun off to character judgements and myths is beyond me.
What Ford did was not illegal, though, as you say. Most of our railroads -- and the steel industry, and coal mining industry -- were built the same way. That was the way one did business in that era, and thank goodness times have vastly improved for the American worker. (See George Pullman, Andrew Carnegie, Jay Gould, Connie Vanderbilt, James Fisk, Henry Flagler, Leland Stanford, C.P. Huntington, Edward Harriman, et al)
wallyworld wrote:This is a well documented historical fact-no cheap shot. Henry Ford crossed that line between being an employer and being a quasi govermental force of nature in his community.
This is a well documented historical fact-no cheap shot. Henry Ford crossed that line between being an employer and being a quasi govermental force of nature in his community.
I never disputed its accuracy. I just pointed out Ford's character had nothing to do with this discussion. The point I was attempting to make was that Ford's assembly-line concept didn't reduce jobs, as many claimed it would. Instead, the ripple effect created new industries and millions of new jobs. That's all.
Poppa_Zit wrote: wallyworld wrote: Henry Ford was a ____ who spied on his employees, had a private army of goons and held some of the most racist ideas outside of the Third Reich.. He wasn't a beneficent spiritual leader of economic growth...that is a populist romantic myth not fit for a twelve year old. I'm sure you noticed in my post I did not intend nor attempt to make value judgements on Henry Ford as a person, or of his character or beliefs. And I don't dwell in convenient myths, nor introduce them into discussions, as you have done for absolutely no good reason except to take a cheap shot at someone. So why even bring this up?I'm also sure you noticed that I used him as an example of one thing, and one thing only -- pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout. Only a 12-year-old would believe that.
wallyworld wrote: Henry Ford was a ____ who spied on his employees, had a private army of goons and held some of the most racist ideas outside of the Third Reich.. He wasn't a beneficent spiritual leader of economic growth...that is a populist romantic myth not fit for a twelve year old.
Henry Ford was a ____ who spied on his employees, had a private army of goons and held some of the most racist ideas outside of the Third Reich.. He wasn't a beneficent spiritual leader of economic growth...that is a populist romantic myth not fit for a twelve year old.
I'm sure you noticed in my post I did not intend nor attempt to make value judgements on Henry Ford as a person, or of his character or beliefs. And I don't dwell in convenient myths, nor introduce them into discussions, as you have done for absolutely no good reason except to take a cheap shot at someone. So why even bring this up?
I'm also sure you noticed that I used him as an example of one thing, and one thing only -- pure and simple, business has one purpose -- to turn as much profit as possible. Period. If the business as a result also provides jobs and improves living for people with needed products and services, so be it. But no one opens a business strictly to give their philanthropic nature a good workout. Only a 12-year-old would believe that.
This is a well documented historical fact-no cheap shot. Henry Ford crossed that line between being an employer and being a quasi govermental force of nature in his community. He is a good albeit negative example of the difficulty one has when you try to divide the business of business and the synergy-economic and otherwise between it the the larger community which surrounds it-It also indirectly poses a question still perhaps more potent today-at what cost do you make a profit? Human or otherwise. It is'nt a philothropic point of view to not isolate the business of business from the welfare of your employees and\or your customers. No man, hence no business is an island. The welfare of the community sooner than later impacts business if anything, this is a practical point of view.
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.