Perhaps it was an oversight, but you might want to show the numbers before WJC in Bush I and after in Bush II.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm And the only President who in recent times "got it" was Bill Clinton. As the economy improved, he had budget surpluses; it only took his non-Keynsian successor one year to return to deficits.
And the only President who in recent times "got it" was Bill Clinton. As the economy improved, he had budget surpluses; it only took his non-Keynsian successor one year to return to deficits.
The Federal Government had a surplus (revenues exceeded expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. It was $69 billion (rounded) in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, $236 billion in 2000, and $128 billion in 2001. The surplus as a per cent of revenues was 4% in 1998, 7% in 1999, 12% in 2000, and 6% in 2001.
The operating budget, which excludes the Social Security and the Medicare Trust funds, as well as several smaller trust funds, had a surplus only in 1999 and 2000. For 1998 and 2001 it was in the red. The surplus in 99 and 00 is mostly attributable to the Social Security Surplus, i.e. Social Security has collected more in premiums than it has laid out in benefits since approximately 1984. However, this changed in 2010.
Expenditure data for the U.S. Government is available at the Office of Management and Budget. It goes back to 1789, although before 1900 it is a bit sketchy.
If economists knew what they were talking about, they would be investors and not economists. Had a fellow from Cargill talk to a class a few years back. He talked about agricultural marketing and how prices were set. Determined 5% from the crop, 5% from the weather, 5% from the demand 5% from the availability of transportation and 90% by "market psychology". Even their math has some weaknesses.
Study economics all you want but it is not a science and should not be the basis for very questionable decisions to put the country in a deep debt.
Rail infrastructure is what created our economy in the 19th century. China has decided to follow that suit. We have decided to pour dollars into war.
Falcon48 Bucyrus: Sam1: "It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars." Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns. Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed. Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick. Turning one dollar into two by spending was recently claimed by democrats to be the result of unemployment compensation. You mention the people on the left promoting Keynesian economics. That is a natural alliance because government run stimulus grows government as a side effect of what it does to the economy. So it is not surprising that most leftists are Keynesians and vice versa. However, our current stimulus spending is being done by borrowing money from the future production and prosperity of the private sector so it cannot possibly work as stimulus. With that kind of stimulus, all it does is grow government. As stimulus, it is a ruse. Obviously, if it worked, we would have discovered a magic wealth-creating machine. What people fail to understand about Keynes is that he was NOT an advocate of continuous deficit spending by the government. His view, essentially, was that government should have a balanced budget, but it should balanced over the course of a business cycle rather than over an arbitrary time period (like a year) that didn't have any correspondence with economic activity. In other words, when times were good, government should run surpluses. When times were bad, it's OK for government to run deficits, as long as it all balances out in the course of the business cycle. The trouble is that politicians have seized upon Keynes acceptance of deficits in bad times to justify deficits all the time, which is certainly not what Keynes advocated.
Bucyrus: Sam1: "It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars." Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns. Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed. Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick. Turning one dollar into two by spending was recently claimed by democrats to be the result of unemployment compensation. You mention the people on the left promoting Keynesian economics. That is a natural alliance because government run stimulus grows government as a side effect of what it does to the economy. So it is not surprising that most leftists are Keynesians and vice versa. However, our current stimulus spending is being done by borrowing money from the future production and prosperity of the private sector so it cannot possibly work as stimulus. With that kind of stimulus, all it does is grow government. As stimulus, it is a ruse. Obviously, if it worked, we would have discovered a magic wealth-creating machine.
Sam1: "It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars." Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns. Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed. Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick.
"It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars."
Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns.
Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed.
Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick.
Obviously, if it worked, we would have discovered a magic wealth-creating machine.
What people fail to understand about Keynes is that he was NOT an advocate of continuous deficit spending by the government. His view, essentially, was that government should have a balanced budget, but it should balanced over the course of a business cycle rather than over an arbitrary time period (like a year) that didn't have any correspondence with economic activity. In other words, when times were good, government should run surpluses. When times were bad, it's OK for government to run deficits, as long as it all balances out in the course of the business cycle.
The trouble is that politicians have seized upon Keynes acceptance of deficits in bad times to justify deficits all the time, which is certainly not what Keynes advocated.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Bucyrus Sam1: "It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars." Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns. Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed. Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick. Turning one dollar into two by spending was recently claimed by democrats to be the result of unemployment compensation. You mention the people on the left promoting Keynesian economics. That is a natural alliance because government run stimulus grows government as a side effect of what it does to the economy. So it is not surprising that most leftists are Keynesians and vice versa. However, our current stimulus spending is being done by borrowing money from the future production and prosperity of the private sector so it cannot possibly work as stimulus. With that kind of stimulus, all it does is grow government. As stimulus, it is a ruse. Obviously, if it worked, we would have discovered a magic wealth-creating machine.
Perhaps the curtain rises again for Act II?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-to-call-for-53B-for-apf-3597272009.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=
If the government had a supply of real money and pumped it into the economy as stimulus, I see no reason why it would not work. But when the government borrows from our future and gives it to us as stimulus, the business sector sees the stimulus money, but they also see a future tax increase to pay for it. So the latter cancels out the former.
But I do remember my economics professor telling us that the discovery of Keynesian stimulus has made recessions a thing of the past.
It works by peak-shaving. You scrape some off the next peak to fill the current hole. It's a zero sum game but less painful overall. It's neither magic nor a complete waste. It's probably a bad idea to do it in the middle of a recovery, though. The problem with the gov't doing it is timing. By the time they realize they should be doing it and the money hits the economy, we're already on the way up. The "shovel ready" HSR project grants awarded a year ago are a good example.
Sam1 "It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars." Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns. Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed. Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick.
Turning one dollar into two by spending was recently claimed by democrats to be the result of unemployment compensation.
You mention the people on the left promoting Keynesian economics. That is a natural alliance because government run stimulus grows government as a side effect of what it does to the economy. So it is not surprising that most leftists are Keynesians and vice versa.
However, our current stimulus spending is being done by borrowing money from the future production and prosperity of the private sector so it cannot possibly work as stimulus. With that kind of stimulus, all it does is grow government. As stimulus, it is a ruse.
.
I also think the recent German rail head on collision between a heavy freight and a medium speed regional passenger train shows the dangers (10 dead, 23 injured) of running on track without PTC (or its German equivalent PZB) track. The freight engineer ran two red signals and ignored a call from a dispatcher. The track in question is in the former East Germany, where PZB is not widely used except lines with a speed limit over 100 mph. PZB, the safety system, which was developed in Switzerland in the 1920s and 1930s, uses magnets to automatically stop trains if they cross warning signals.
Nothing would surprise me in the mazes of bureaucracy. I wonder about the possibility of acquiring/renting some of the lightly-used ROW's between appropriate population centers, and then upgrading them in stages first to 110 mph and later to higher speeds on passenger-only tracks.
schlimm You are 100% correct about Germany. Your routing in CA looks correct as well. I thought a Trains article last year suggested that once PTC was implemented, the "overweight for safety" rule could be scrapped?
You are 100% correct about Germany. Your routing in CA looks correct as well. I thought a Trains article last year suggested that once PTC was implemented, the "overweight for safety" rule could be scrapped?
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd: I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!) So are you saying that the CA HSR uses lightweight equipment and hence is something like the BART, a one-of confined to that one line? "Heavy rail" (i.e. New York subway, Chicago El and subway, DC) is "one-of" largely on account of tunnel and platform clearances. BART, on the other hand, is some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another. CA HSR is then "one-of" on account of wanting to use lightweight equipment that cannot interoperate on rails that share freight trains? You don't want to operate conventional freight on HSR lines for a variety of reasons, but I think you are telling us that in France they used the "conventional" rail network to access downtown trains stations and the like, but we cannot do that here? I know that the FRA requirements can boost weight (think Acela vs TGV trains they are kinda, sorta patterned after). But doesn't Talgo claim they can meet the FRA regs without substantially boosting weight, and doesn't Talgo have a high-speed version, complete with electric locomotives matched to the train set? Is the Talgo HSR qualified for 150 MPH but California wants to do 220 MPH or some such thing?
oltmannd: I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!)
I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!)
So are you saying that the CA HSR uses lightweight equipment and hence is something like the BART, a one-of confined to that one line?
"Heavy rail" (i.e. New York subway, Chicago El and subway, DC) is "one-of" largely on account of tunnel and platform clearances. BART, on the other hand, is some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
CA HSR is then "one-of" on account of wanting to use lightweight equipment that cannot interoperate on rails that share freight trains? You don't want to operate conventional freight on HSR lines for a variety of reasons, but I think you are telling us that in France they used the "conventional" rail network to access downtown trains stations and the like, but we cannot do that here?
I know that the FRA requirements can boost weight (think Acela vs TGV trains they are kinda, sorta patterned after). But doesn't Talgo claim they can meet the FRA regs without substantially boosting weight, and doesn't Talgo have a high-speed version, complete with electric locomotives matched to the train set? Is the Talgo HSR qualified for 150 MPH but California wants to do 220 MPH or some such thing?
The most intriguing equipment is Talgo, but the existing equipment is operating under a waiver and the newer stuff hasn't undergone the squeeze test. Given how "reasonable" the FRA seems to be in negotiating the performance standard for train operation when granting the HSR money, I'm not optimistic that a reasonable accommodation for HSR equipment on existing track can be made.
I'm really wondering what CA will do once the first leg of their HSR line is built down the Central Valley? If this were Germany, the ICE equipment would just use the old route, then hop on the new route as it was built. But, looking at some maps, it appears that one would have to take a San Joquin part of the way and then take a taxi over to the HSR station to continue the trip. Somebody prove me wrong. Please!
The basic problems with the NE are (1) old catenary south of NYC, limiting speeds to 135 mph even where track conditions would permit 150mph, and (2) the almost unimprovable stretch of Metro North between New Rochelle and New Haven, with lots of curves, clearances restricting use of tile trains, and lots and lots of commuter traffic. The first problem will be solved because it is on a high priority of Amtrak's wish list. The second seems doomed for continuation until many billions are available for new route through a very built-up area possibly requiring underground construction.
Just one country probably would qualify: Switzerland. Any air travel is primarily between Switzerland and other countries, not local, save helos. Autos have limitations due to the slower, narrower roads available there, and having to go around, not through mountains. Rail travel seems to be a prime mover, perhaps due to the smaller distances, and capability to carry more for less fuel. I do not know if major government funding supports rail, or private companies, but roads certainly do.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic: some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another. Russian rail is wide, 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 5⁄6 in) while Europe, China and the US are all the same, 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in).
Paul Milenkovic: some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
Russian rail is wide, 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 5⁄6 in) while Europe, China and the US are all the same, 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in).
And BART is broad gauge http://295bus.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-bart-broad-gauge.html
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
Ya know, there was one grade crossing several years ago, but I don't know if it still exists. Curves! They've got a few...remember the line is a 19th and 20th Century creation so lots of curves exist although some have had some kind of straightening and banking. However, it would really be difficult to do much more without appropriation of lots of land, a too costly propsition at this time Tilt was tested but not so accpeted that it was adopted. You really don't have too many straightways which allow for those attractive 200+ mph speeds that make people drool and envious of the Japanese and French. Buy some land, straighten out the curves and keep people off the property and you might have a crack at HSR there but, no, not a real reality.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Also, what is that keeps the NEC out of the realm of "true" HSR? Do they have any grade crossings, or have those all been eliminated? Do they have substantial segments with curves, and what about tilt trains? Would a catenary upgrade mean anything (assuming there is the money to do it), or are their a whole bunch of speed restrictions up and down the line to not make it worth it? What is the nature of the speed restrictions they are dealing with?
oltmannd I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!)
schlimm Don: Ride ICE trains and you will find a lot of them are going 240 kmh/150 mph or better in many stretches, not just on new stretches of track, such as Frankfurt to Cologne. They more than cover OE and contribute to the cost of construction. Regional trains are subsidized as a social necessity, partially for longer distance commuters, partially to reduce Autobahn congestion. The complaint the DB gets is that the trains make too many stops and take too long b/c they go into the bigger cities, unlike the TGV's in France, which have fewer stops en route and have outlying stations that don't require slow running.
Don: Ride ICE trains and you will find a lot of them are going 240 kmh/150 mph or better in many stretches, not just on new stretches of track, such as Frankfurt to Cologne. They more than cover OE and contribute to the cost of construction. Regional trains are subsidized as a social necessity, partially for longer distance commuters, partially to reduce Autobahn congestion. The complaint the DB gets is that the trains make too many stops and take too long b/c they go into the bigger cities, unlike the TGV's in France, which have fewer stops en route and have outlying stations that don't require slow running.
The map I was looking at showed a few new high speed segments, many upgraded existing segs at 125/143 mph and a bunch of "branches" at 100 mph.
I think that model of an inter-operative network with new links added old links upgraded as time and money allow, is a good approach. Of course, here, we would be starting from 79 mph and have our FRA mixed-use issues to work through.
Meanwhile in Spain:
Have fun with your trains
Meanwhile in Russia....
This is not about socialism vs capitalism, or about government operations vs private enterprise. Whether something is run by the government (Amtrak) or privately (airlines, I guess sort-of), the question always remains whether the public out there thinks the thing they are getting is worth the money they are asked to pay for it.
The NARP model of passenger train advocacy operates on the basis that passenger trains are full of inherent goodness, solving problems from Peak Oil to the Environmental Crisis to the Anxiety Crisis in America (attributed by a recent article to social distance, the cure for which, often suggested around here, is chatting up strangers in Amtrak lounge cars).
That we don't have more trains must mean that something isn't right -- it must be the Congressional Republicans, the Concrete Lobby, the Cato Institute, or the Capitalist Roaders who think we should privatize police protection. It couldn't have anything to do with trains, because trains are by far the most perfect mode of transportation known to mankind whereas driving or flying is pure misery.
Before I pick on Anthony Haswell and the old version of NARP, one thing about NARP is that Mr. Haswell never picked on Congressional Republicans, Concrete Lobbyists, the Cato Institute, or any supposed villian. His newsletter always had the Monthly Friend of the Railroad Passenger, some politician who supported trains in some way. Most of these Friends happened to be Democrats, but he once honored Vincent Prouty, about the must stodgy of Vermont (was it?) conservatives without comment with respect to Senatory Prouty's stand on The War or Health Care or the Culture War -- Tony Haswell's NARP was really about trains, and he kept all manners of other politics completely out of it.
Yeah, yeah, Republicans who support Amtrak are "good Republicans" and the Scott Walkers or John McCain's were "evil Republicans." No, no, and no, Tony Haswell never played that game. If you did something to support trains, you got an Honorable Mention, if you did not, you got No Mention at All. It was as simple as that.
OK, now to pick on NARP, and yes, even Tony Haswell at some point got tired of the whole thing and people tell me his views changed into the "Amtrak Reform" camp. We have been at this inherent goodness of trains thing for 40 years (When is the Amtrak anniversary?) We have a national system of trains, we have the billion and a half a year, and yeah, yeah, I know it is not nearly enough money to do what people demand of it. But we don't have the Southern Pacific deliberately trying to make passenger trains miserable (Automat food service cars!) so their passenger train off petition can get approved.
Amtrak is not high cost compared to private carriage (automobiles), but autos offer the trip flexibility that people are willing to pay a lot of money for. Amtrak appears to be high cost on a cents per passenger mile basis compared to planes, and the counterintuitive matter that a Boeing 727 should have the Denver Zephyr beat on direct operating cost (no fully allocated, simply direct operating cost) was something Trains Magazine famously brought up in the 1960's.
Amtrak also appears to be a not particularly fuel efficient mode of transportation -- it is better than cars and planes, but not gobs and gobs better to justify a crash program to build up Amtrak.
If you guys want to advocate for trains by gathering in social groups complaining about how Amtrak is underfunded and it is all a grand conspiracy of the Usual Villians, fine, keep doing that -- people have been at that approach to getting more trains for forty years. I for one think that we need to look at trains critically, to read the arguments of the anti's and the critics and figure out where we really are at with trains, what are the advantages and also what are the shortcomings, and what can we do about the shortcomings.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.