The AAR and Mississippi navigation (was: "comedy act....")

[Anonymous]

And as much as it makes you uncomfortable, for credibility's sake a comparison of railroads to barges is apt in terms of relative government aid.  Since you admit that all modes receive subsidy of some kind or another, would you mind contacting the AAR to remind them of that fact?  Thanks.

In the original quote from the AAR that you posted, no where did the AAR say that railroads do not receive public aid.  It said barges costs are low because their right of way is maintained by the goverment.  There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement.

Bert

Then would it be just as *honest* for the prez of the barge company to have said "we might lose some business to increasingly subsidized railroads"?

There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement either.

At least the AAR guy could have acknowledged the existence of the Waterways Trust Fund, which does pay the good part of the de jure costs of river navigation.  The bad part of course is paid by the taxpayers, and that bad part is not the de facto costs of river maintenance, it is the de facto costs of environmentalism.

I stated that environmentalism amounts to roughly half the costs of navigation maintenance, and got lambasted by the lefties on this forum.  Yet those who aren't stuck on the notion of having their ideas prefabricated for them by the MSM and the Sierra Club can observe several trends in US industrial costs and make the connection to other industrial costs. 

For example, we all agree that the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel) has basically doubled over the last few decades, right?  Can anyone here refute the notion that such a doubling is entirely due to environmental costs imposed on the US by supposedly well-meaning politicians and their pressure groups? 

So if it's more acceptable to agree that energy costs have doubled due to environmentalism, why not apply the same common sense consensus to the costs of river navigation maintenance?  Or for that matter the cost of DM&E's PRB expansion project?

Here's a nice article that expresses this idea that so makes liberals cringe with denial...

The Toxicity of Environmentalism by George Reisman

http://www.mises.org/story/1927

 

[Datafever]

For example, we all agree that the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel) has basically doubled over the last few decades, right?  Can anyone here refute the notion that such a doubling is entirely due to environmental costs imposed on the US by supposedly well-meaning politicians and their pressure groups? 

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

It would appear that you have gone overboard in trying to blame environmentalism. 

[MichaelSol]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible, the one that says demand creates higher prices, or the one that says demand creates more supply and lower prices.

 

[Datafever]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

 

So, Mr. Sol, why did you select my statement to comment on, when it was futuremodal who stated that energy costs had doubled.  It seems that your figures would be a better response to his claim. 

[Datafever]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

Also, nice of you to use deflated figures when I specifically also included inflation as a cause of the increase of energy prices.  Thank you for proving my point. 

[Anonymous]

For example, we all agree that the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel) has basically doubled over the last few decades, right?  Can anyone here refute the notion that such a doubling is entirely due to environmental costs imposed on the US by supposedly well-meaning politicians and their pressure groups? 

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

It would appear that you have gone overboard in trying to blame environmentalism. 

Really?

Do you even know the background into our current petroleum "supply and demand" conundrum?  We in the US haven't been allowed to fully explore, drill, extract, refine, et al petroleum from within our own borders in places we know oil reserves exist (aka ANWR, California coast, Florida coast, etc).  Consequently, we've gone from having 30% of our oil imported to having more than 60% of our oil imported.  With greater dependence on imported oil comes greater incidence of market manipulation by OPEC, George Soros, Hugo Chavez, et al.  With geopolitical manipulation comes more and more price speculation - futures markets have gone out of control, oil goes from $35 a barrel to $70 a barrel (and no, you can't attribute that doubling to inflation!).

Instead of only stratching the surface in regards to current oil prices (e.g. blaiming OPEC and Big Oil), dig further to find out why we are in such a position of being manipulated.  ANWR has reserves that are estimated to match what we import from the Middle East, reserves off California and Florida are even larger, but we still can't get to it.  And why is that?  (Hint:  It starts with a big green "E").

Compare the cost of baseline nuclear, hydro, and coal fired electricity generation with the cost of the so-called "eco-freindly alternatives" e.g. solar, wind, renewables.  The former average under $25 MW, the latter over $50 MW (sans subsidies).  Are you trying to tell us that this cost difference (as delivered to the end user) is purely due to inflation or the laws of economics?  Of course not.  It is clear that "eco-freindly" energy costs twice as much as standard baseline energy.  And we haven't even calculated the cost increase of those baseline sources due to environmental regs!  Put it all together, and the picture becomes much clearer - there is a substantial cost to environmental regs, costs that apparently go unnoticed to average citizens or are attributed to other goings-on.

The question then becomes - Do the added costs of such regs become mitigated by the so-called social benefits of such regs?  Take the new arsenic regs - we went from allowing 50 ppm to only allowing 10 ppm.  If no one was dying or othewise suffering from the 50 ppm regs, why was it so imperative to reduce the allowable amount to 10 ppm?  One thing was clear - billions of dollars were spent to meet these new regs.

Again, the costs of meeting eco-regs are very real, the benefits of eco-regs are theoretical at best.

What I have attempted to challenge folks here on is to estimate the actual physical costs of an act such as the simple act of removing a few cubic feet's worth of silt from a river bottom, then compare that unmitigated cost with the actual final cost of the same action.  If nothing else, it's a good mental exercise for one to contemplate.

 

[n012944]

And as much as it makes you uncomfortable, for credibility's sake a comparison of railroads to barges is apt in terms of relative government aid.  Since you admit that all modes receive subsidy of some kind or another, would you mind contacting the AAR to remind them of that fact?  Thanks.

In the original quote from the AAR that you posted, no where did the AAR say that railroads do not receive public aid.  It said barges costs are low because their right of way is maintained by the goverment.  There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement.

Bert

Then would it be just as *honest* for the prez of the barge company to have said "we might lose some business to increasingly subsidized railroads"?

There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement either.

As long as you keep the word "might" in there, you are correct.  My dog "might" drive my car today, but I doubt it.

 

Bert

[Anonymous]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

And how is it for the last 10 years?

And did increased economies of scale in generation, distribution have anything to do with this time period?  Technological improvements?

Shall we compare cost of generation for same size facilities during this same period?

[Datafever]

Are you trying to tell us that this cost difference (as delivered to the end user) is purely due to inflation or the laws of economics?

No, that isn't what I said.  I merely mentioned that those factors cannot be discounted.  I wasn't even trying to claim that environmentalism didn't have a role.  I was merely responding to your statement that environmentalism was entirely responsible for the increase in energy costs. 

[MichaelSol]

And how is it for the last 10 years?

1995, 2005, "Real costs" -- that is, adjusted for inflation.

Residential, 9.12, 8.40

Commercial, 8.35, 7.74

Industrial, 5.06, 4.97

Real prices stopped their general fall in 1970, began a negligible but general climb, then a significant climb, 1975-1985, when those prices began to fall again.

Historically, electric power costs have declined. The period 1970-1985 represents an anomaly.

There may be a case. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970.

1970, 1985

Residential, 8.0, 10.60

Commercial, 7.6, 10.43

Industrial, 3.6, 7.13

[MichaelSol]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

So, Mr. Sol, why did you select my statement to comment on, when it was futuremodal who stated that energy costs had doubled.  It seems that your figures would be a better response to his claim. 

Without wanting to get too deeply enmeshed in the discussion, my thought was to your point that the laws of supply and demand appear in your remark to justify higher costs. It looks to me that increasing demand has resulted in lower costs. That is the more typical response to a long-term demand curve involving a significant technological component to production. Your reference to "basic laws of economics" caught my eye only in the sense of asking -- which one?

As with railroading, in the face of increasing demand, productivity improvements drive prices down, not up. Indeed, the more demand, the greater the impact of productivity improvements.

And of course, price did go down, not up.