edblysard wrote: You can't tell me an experienced loan officer didn't know the kids were never going to be able to afford the loan, so the "buck" starts right there.
You can't tell me an experienced loan officer didn't know the kids were never going to be able to afford the loan, so the "buck" starts right there.
That's not what I'm trying to tell you.
I'm trying to tell you that the Federal Government changed the rules so that the loan officer, the person approving the loan, didn't have to worry whether the loan would be paid off or not. This decoupling by our Federal government of loan approval from the responsibility to exercise due dilligence in making the loan was bound to explode, and it did.
The criteria for granting a loan was changed from "will they be able to make the payments" to "will we be able to sell the loan to a government sponsored enterprise". (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.)
Of course the lending institution could have been altruistic and foregone the money from granting and selling such loans, but then they would have been in trouble with Federal regulators who had laws requiring banks to make such loans.
NKP Guy:
And if the Feds and states were really serious about getting the most bang for the buck on infrastructure spending, they'd repeal the Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Act. I have a friend who works for a major road/bridge contractor which also does a lot of private paving and related. The hourly wage my friend is paid (which is decent for this area to begin with) just about doubles when he does the government road work as required by this law. The irony is this so called "Prevailing Wage" is supposedly set based upon all the work being done in the area but the required pay rates only exist on government funded projects! In other words, the taxpayers are getting nailed by this law and government infrastructure spending don't go nearly as far as it could without it.
NKP guy wrote: Attn: fiscal conservatives,The economic house is burning down; no more need for long expositions on economic theory.As far as spending on infrastructure and the effects of public investment: Harry Hopkins once said to someone complaining about the deficits the government was piling up trying to alleviate the effects of the Depression on the Joe Sixpacks of the country, "People don't eat in the long run; they eat every day." That is the kind of thinking and leadership we need now. Massive spending on infrastructure would help out America in both the short and long term, no matter what theory says right now. Theory got us to where we are.
Attn: fiscal conservatives,
The economic house is burning down; no more need for long expositions on economic theory.
As far as spending on infrastructure and the effects of public investment: Harry Hopkins once said to someone complaining about the deficits the government was piling up trying to alleviate the effects of the Depression on the Joe Sixpacks of the country, "People don't eat in the long run; they eat every day." That is the kind of thinking and leadership we need now. Massive spending on infrastructure would help out America in both the short and long term, no matter what theory says right now. Theory got us to where we are.
We seemed to have suddenly burned up several trillion dollars during the last year or two. I can't understand how you can attribute that to economic theory. I seems pretty practical to me. As far as your suggestion that we are talking about economic theory, I won't speak for others, but I can assure you that I am talking about historical facts and economic axioms, not theories.
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: blue streak 1 wrote: Fifth: Without the push of additional capital to speed up our public transportation sector the average US citizen will spend a larger percentage of total income on inefficient transportation than the above mentioned countries. Although I do not like all the public financing that will be needed the competition from the other countries mentioned means the US cannot compete from a level playing field. I think that although Phillips does not say so directly he may be thinking along these lines. Why does the government, using public money, make transportation more efficient compared to transportation financed by private capital? Government is inherently inefficient and undisciplined because they operate with other peoples' money, so their participation is bound to take a big slice of the action for their overhead. The difference is that public projects are usually supported because there is a need in which free enterprise won't or can't make a profit.
Bucyrus wrote: blue streak 1 wrote: Fifth: Without the push of additional capital to speed up our public transportation sector the average US citizen will spend a larger percentage of total income on inefficient transportation than the above mentioned countries. Although I do not like all the public financing that will be needed the competition from the other countries mentioned means the US cannot compete from a level playing field. I think that although Phillips does not say so directly he may be thinking along these lines. Why does the government, using public money, make transportation more efficient compared to transportation financed by private capital? Government is inherently inefficient and undisciplined because they operate with other peoples' money, so their participation is bound to take a big slice of the action for their overhead.
blue streak 1 wrote: Fifth: Without the push of additional capital to speed up our public transportation sector the average US citizen will spend a larger percentage of total income on inefficient transportation than the above mentioned countries. Although I do not like all the public financing that will be needed the competition from the other countries mentioned means the US cannot compete from a level playing field. I think that although Phillips does not say so directly he may be thinking along these lines.
Fifth: Without the push of additional capital to speed up our public transportation sector the average US citizen will spend a larger percentage of total income on inefficient transportation than the above mentioned countries.
Although I do not like all the public financing that will be needed the competition from the other countries mentioned means the US cannot compete from a level playing field. I think that although Phillips does not say so directly he may be thinking along these lines.
Why does the government, using public money, make transportation more efficient compared to transportation financed by private capital? Government is inherently inefficient and undisciplined because they operate with other peoples' money, so their participation is bound to take a big slice of the action for their overhead.
The difference is that public projects are usually supported because there is a need in which free enterprise won't or can't make a profit.
But the projects that private enterprise cannot make a profit on are the ones that amount to a subsidy to the users. Sure government can do that better than the private sector with those kind of endeavors because the private sector does not have the power to take money away from people. So the government is better with projects that redistribute wealth rather than make a profit, but how far do you want go with redistribution?
You have referred to need as though it is the government's responsibility to eradicate it.
greyhounds wrote: edblysard wrote: I do place part of the blame on the lenders...who in their right mind lends $200,000.000 to a couple of kids each making a buck over minimum wage?Our Federal Government, that's who. They arranged to assume the risks of such loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, their "government sponsored enterprises". This removed the risk of lending from the initial lenders. The Feds also required such loans as part of the banking laws.No banker in his/her right mind would have made such a loan unless induced/forced to by the government.You can't tell me an experienced loan officer didn't know the kids were never going to be able to afford the loan, so the "buck" starts right there. edblysard wrote: But the concept of "socialism" being something new to America is a little late.After all, the Social Security Act was signed before WWII, and that's a perfect example of "social engineering" at work, or not working, depending if you have to try and survive on it.The "looming" Social Security crash is going to make this look like a tempest in a teapot. Social Security is a house of cards just like the government created housing problem is. The government sells it with outright lies. Such as, "you pay half and your employer pays half." And the bogus concept of a "Social Security Trust Fund". It all comes out of what you earn and accounting tricks are used by the government to mislead the population into believing "your employer pays half." There is no such thing as a "Social Security Trust Fund".If you think the problems created by government are bad, just wait until you see their "solutions".Thats why I hold a large part of my investments in CDs and bonds...and love the Railroad Retirement board!
edblysard wrote: I do place part of the blame on the lenders...who in their right mind lends $200,000.000 to a couple of kids each making a buck over minimum wage?
I do place part of the blame on the lenders...who in their right mind lends $200,000.000 to a couple of kids each making a buck over minimum wage?
Our Federal Government, that's who. They arranged to assume the risks of such loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, their "government sponsored enterprises". This removed the risk of lending from the initial lenders. The Feds also required such loans as part of the banking laws.
No banker in his/her right mind would have made such a loan unless induced/forced to by the government.
edblysard wrote: But the concept of "socialism" being something new to America is a little late.After all, the Social Security Act was signed before WWII, and that's a perfect example of "social engineering" at work, or not working, depending if you have to try and survive on it.
But the concept of "socialism" being something new to America is a little late.
After all, the Social Security Act was signed before WWII, and that's a perfect example of "social engineering" at work, or not working, depending if you have to try and survive on it.
The "looming" Social Security crash is going to make this look like a tempest in a teapot. Social Security is a house of cards just like the government created housing problem is. The government sells it with outright lies. Such as, "you pay half and your employer pays half." And the bogus concept of a "Social Security Trust Fund". It all comes out of what you earn and accounting tricks are used by the government to mislead the population into believing "your employer pays half." There is no such thing as a "Social Security Trust Fund".
If you think the problems created by government are bad, just wait until you see their "solutions".
Thats why I hold a large part of my investments in CDs and bonds...and love the Railroad Retirement board!
23 17 46 11
Who says? Both have been very effecient and very ineffecient. Both have even turned profits and both have gone under (and I think that is what you are really talking about). The difference is that public projects are usually supported because there is a need in which free enterprise won't or can't make a profit. But to say that government operations are inherintly inefficient and undiscipline out of hand, is wrong.
And to the topic of TRAINS Magazine and Don Phillips points of view, continue on to the article by Mat Van Hattam with some great sketches of each of the European systems and how theymeet effeciency standards and why.
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.
Jumping GGEEEE Hosenpfefers, gone one day and the whole thing growd so big, where do I start? OK, Bucuryus, re: compettition between capitalism and public projects. There is a choice the public can make by voting for and or using the publicly funded projected or product or buying the capitialist's product or project. So, I think there is a competiton but it is really apples to oranges and not apples to apples: the public itself decides what they want and puts their money down. Oltmannd come up with another idea between the two, of which $1 spend witll put the most people to work. Of course if it puts me to work, its great. If it puts somebody else to work, only matters if they'll bring thier dollar back to me. Plus if he is asking which $1 is spent best, either for a train ride or to fix his house, the choice is what is best for you, what do you want to spend or have to spend your money on?
And yes, the problem with everything is not it itself but what people do with it to screw it up for the rest of us!
There is plenty of blame to go around, so that just about all in Washington has a little dirt on their hands. The blame game is amazing tho. I listened in on yesterday's opening comments by the esteemed Congressman from California and it is obvious that all blame is being laid on the door of the "past 8 years." Today was more of the same.
Personally, I have called my representative and senator, asking for a balanced budget amendment immediately. Isnt it time we set a good example in Washington about how to run an organization? Has anyone noted that California now needs a $7B bailout? We are now tossing around $1B as if it were a pillow.
I am very concerned about where this is heading. I follow finance and the markets with the same amatuer level as railroading and the past year has been just a mess. Now it is a mess out of control. Today we nationalized Commercial Paper. The Fed is now buying short term corporate debt. I cant say that in the short term it isnt a bad idea. It is definately setting a very very poor example and will no doubt be followed by other such nationalizations.
Hold on, it will be a rough ride.
Regarding Mr. Phillips ... I always read him, sometime agree with him. Remember, he has been a Washington reporter. He will deliver his point of view, as an editorialist.
I agree with the poster (truck driver) about the balance between too much and too little regulation. We just cant seem to find the right balance. Great point.
Ed, I agree with you as the lending got way out of hand. However, the combination of Congress, Fannie/Freddie, Wall Street and others certainly was a perfect storm abrewin.
ed
But the young couple across the street managed to get just such a loan...and when they couldn't keep up with the payments, much less the taxes, they simply packed up and left....
So yeah, in part the blame lies with the lenders too.
Bucyrus wrote: The only remaining question is not who caused the crisis, but whether the American peoples' potential awareness of the truth can be completely squelched by the propaganda machine. It is going to be a close call.
The machine will win. Unfortunately.
"American peoples' potential awareness of the truth" sounds like an extended oxymoron.
I'll start this with some comments.
1. I really hope this thread does not get closed. It is really interesting to watch the arguments. It is kind of maddening that I see a great number of errors in facts.
2. I've not seen the November issue so I'll try to put my 2 cents worth in on the column later. I do read Mr Phillips with great interest. Some of the items are of great interest to me personally as I work in transportation(as an Over The Road Truck Driver[yes but I'm a railfan])
3. About Mr Phillips he did cover a lot of territory in the Post when he was there. I did greatly like reading about several railroads in the Southeast as this is where my company(in MS) is based. (I personally think I would not have done as well as I've done if one of the large RR companys had its act together. I hate to tell you the number of times shippers and receivers had to put freight on the road because another mode failed to deliver[remember (unnamed RR Quality, remember the great (president of RR).
4.Anyone who's been to europe sees that governments get better service out of there Railroads on the passenger side. The reason why not so many people complain about rail service here is they seldom use it(out of sight out of mind). Except when there is a mess somewhere(10000gal spill of a brown liquid anyone?(molasses),white smoke from a tank car(condensation in winter off a carload of hot asphault covered with snow)your train is blocking the road, etc, etc). The only reason europeans get more attention on their rail service is that europeans use their service a lot more.
5. Last. I have to ask this. Have we as a country ever found a good middle ground between too much & too little regulation? As extremes I use as an example of the Rock Island. It took the ICC what 13 years to approve a merger with UP that when they approved it they put so many conditions on it that UP just walked away. Then after deregulation (I think) they were just let go to dust.
Then 20 years later the SP-UP merger & resulting kaos followed by the Conrail buyout and breakup.
Comments from a dumb twuck dwiver.
Rgds IGN
henry6 wrote: First, I my fear is that the post has wandered too far away from the railroad theme to be sustained.I cannot agree with your assessments of what happened duirng the credit crunch. I do blame overzealous investment bankers on pressuring for loans, credit, and mortgages to people who really didn't understand what thier ulitmate burden and responsibility would be nor the consequences should things go wrong. I also don't agree that there shouldn't have been more, or at least enforced, oversight and regulation. To me, and many others, those investment bankers knew that they could get away with their personal fortunes while the government would have to hold the bag. If there had been oversight and enforcement of exisiting regulations then the government, with public monies, would not be bailing them out. And I hardly believe the government forced the pushing of these loans by lenders. About the only thing I can agree on is that the present situtation will force the price of housing down.What I really wish could have happened is that everyone with one of these so called bad mortgages were given a direct payment from 50 to 90% of thier mortgage value and put the onus of payment to the lenders on the borrowers. This would have sorted out the good and the bad boys on both sides of the problem. The follow thorugh, however, would be stricter oversight and regulations by government and the removal of the so called leaders of the financial industry with penelty for any criminal misdeeds (which have to be proven). Yes, we have lost control of our government and allowed it to lose control of our country. We have to get things back under control. I believe, unlike what has been presented here, that those in charge of our business community have, in the name of economical operations and profit, have at all costs, moved the country's money overseas. Even the Robber Barons of the 19th and 20th Century worked at building American industry and communities, not tearing them down and sending Main St., USA and its supporting factories to Asia or elsewhere. If our population cannot buy houses, cars, appliances, etc., because big business doesn't employ them, then there will be more down turns in American life and big business and its investors cannot complain about being looked at with suspicion with a feeling they be regulated. But I really feel that this crisis, coupled with a lot of economic and evnironmental matters especially in the area of transportaion, is leading to a greater middle ground of cooperation and and joint projects. The best of Capitalism and Socialism will be operate in consortium to bring the USA through the 21st Century without capitulating or giving way to anyother country. There probably will be pendulum like swings one way or the other at times, but overall, both business and government know today that survival of both is in each others hands. Each side has to trust the other a little bit more, but each side has to accept more responsiblity, too, to make it happen.
First, I my fear is that the post has wandered too far away from the railroad theme to be sustained.
I cannot agree with your assessments of what happened duirng the credit crunch. I do blame overzealous investment bankers on pressuring for loans, credit, and mortgages to people who really didn't understand what thier ulitmate burden and responsibility would be nor the consequences should things go wrong. I also don't agree that there shouldn't have been more, or at least enforced, oversight and regulation. To me, and many others, those investment bankers knew that they could get away with their personal fortunes while the government would have to hold the bag. If there had been oversight and enforcement of exisiting regulations then the government, with public monies, would not be bailing them out. And I hardly believe the government forced the pushing of these loans by lenders. About the only thing I can agree on is that the present situtation will force the price of housing down.
What I really wish could have happened is that everyone with one of these so called bad mortgages were given a direct payment from 50 to 90% of thier mortgage value and put the onus of payment to the lenders on the borrowers. This would have sorted out the good and the bad boys on both sides of the problem. The follow thorugh, however, would be stricter oversight and regulations by government and the removal of the so called leaders of the financial industry with penelty for any criminal misdeeds (which have to be proven).
Yes, we have lost control of our government and allowed it to lose control of our country. We have to get things back under control. I believe, unlike what has been presented here, that those in charge of our business community have, in the name of economical operations and profit, have at all costs, moved the country's money overseas. Even the Robber Barons of the 19th and 20th Century worked at building American industry and communities, not tearing them down and sending Main St., USA and its supporting factories to Asia or elsewhere. If our population cannot buy houses, cars, appliances, etc., because big business doesn't employ them, then there will be more down turns in American life and big business and its investors cannot complain about being looked at with suspicion with a feeling they be regulated.
But I really feel that this crisis, coupled with a lot of economic and evnironmental matters especially in the area of transportaion, is leading to a greater middle ground of cooperation and and joint projects. The best of Capitalism and Socialism will be operate in consortium to bring the USA through the 21st Century without capitulating or giving way to anyother country. There probably will be pendulum like swings one way or the other at times, but overall, both business and government know today that survival of both is in each others hands. Each side has to trust the other a little bit more, but each side has to accept more responsiblity, too, to make it happen.
Well good, this will bring us back to Don Phillips' writing.
First, take a look at the fact that the author of the quoted posted just "can't agree" with an "assesment". But it's not an "assesment". It's what happened. Hard, cold fact. The government decoupled lending from risk and required loans to unqualified buyers. That happened.
So how is the author of the quoted post able to dispute hard, cold facts? He, like Phillips, rejects facts that don't fit his ideology. People who have ideologies are "Ideologues" A noted philospher named Eric Hoffer wrote a book about them titled "The True Believer".
To "True Believers" their ideology is like a religion. If facts don't fit the belief they either ignore or twist the facts to fit their beliefs. In the quoted poster's case it just has to be the Wall Street bad guys and not the government because that is his belief, even if the facts are otherwise. Discussions with such "True Believers" are useless because they are imune to facts and "dispute" reality at all costs if reality conflicts with their ideology. They will also create fantasy situations to support their ideologies.
Phillips does this. He once wrote in Trains that "railroads can now do anything they want to with a whispered phone call". How sinister. Why would they whisper? They don't, of course. But he was shaping the lessened economic regulation of the railroads into something sinister. Why? Because his ideology requires him to view economic freedom as sinister. If the railroads have it, then they have something sinister that they will use in sinister ways.
Like the quoted poster, Phillips worships the ideology of wise men and women of government shaping railroads (and our lives) to create the Utopia that can only be achieved by the obeying of the rule of these wise government folks. How else could the quoted poster imagine that the best elements of socialism and capitalism will be selected to guide the US through the 21st Century? Who could possibly be wise enough to make the proper selections? (as if there were any "best elements" of socialism.)
Only They (the goverment anoited) know how and where to spend our incomes. Only They know what railroads should truely do. That's always been Phillips' line. He may be critical of some specifics, but he adores the top House of Reprsentatives transportation guy, Oberstar of Minnesota.
Oberstar introduced a bill to reregulate railroads in the House. Oberstar's bill was command economics that Karl Marx and Joe Stalin would be proud of. It won't work any better than their ideas did.
What was Phillips' reporting on the bill? He reported: "What Bill?" The language of the bill would stamp Oberstar as a complete economic idiot. But criticism of Oberstar doesn't fit Phillips' ideology, so we never learned of the bill's insane contents in Trains. Phillips, like the quoted poster, simply rejects facts that don't fit his ideology.
Finally, the quoted poster says that we have allowed our government to loose control of our country. Well, we're supposed to be a free people not under the control of our government. Yes, I know I have to drive on the right side of the road and at no more than 30 MPH in urban areas unless a lower limit is posted. That's minor.
What Phillips (and the quoted poster) seeks is nothing less than tyrany. A tyrany where the actions of individuals and businesses are controlled by the government. It doesn't matter to a slave if he/she is enslaved by one or many. He/she is still a slave. Phillips and his "fellow traveler", the quoted poster, think the railroads should (and we should) give up freedoms to become slaves of the wise men/women of government.
The fact that this has never, ever, worked doesn't phase either one of them one bit. It's their ideology, stupid. (Or their stupid ideology) Take your pick.
Trains does need to have a counter columnist to Phillips. Two pages a month. Phillips on one side, the good guy on the other. Bring back George Hilton?
NKP guy wrote: Blue streak, that's an impressive posting. I agree 99% (I don't mind public financing of needed infrastucture building/repairing).One other really good thing you didn't even mention: Just imagine, if we adopted your ideas, how much employment would surge in the country! And they'd be building things we all could use (unlike weaponry). It might mean a real shot in the arm to our economy in several ways.
Blue streak, that's an impressive posting. I agree 99% (I don't mind public financing of needed infrastucture building/repairing).
One other really good thing you didn't even mention: Just imagine, if we adopted your ideas, how much employment would surge in the country! And they'd be building things we all could use (unlike weaponry). It might mean a real shot in the arm to our economy in several ways.
This is a falacy. Public works don't "create jobs". At best, they transfer jobs from one project to another. More likely, they destroy some jobs because of government waste.
Nothing important. Just needed the replies by email to stop.
Carry on.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
oltmannd wrote: NKP guy wrote: Blue streak, that's an impressive posting. I agree 99% (I don't mind public financing of needed infrastucture building/repairing).One other really good thing you didn't even mention: Just imagine, if we adopted your ideas, how much employment would surge in the country! And they'd be building things we all could use (unlike weaponry). It might mean a real shot in the arm to our economy in several ways. If I give the gov't a dollar and they spend in on railroad construction or if I keep the dollar and spend it on an addition to my house, which provides the most employment and why?
If I give the gov't a dollar and they spend in on railroad construction or if I keep the dollar and spend it on an addition to my house, which provides the most employment and why?
Spending it on the house does. If you give it to the government, they will need five more to administer it.
selector wrote: oltmannd wrote: selector wrote: Marginal tax rates near 50%. Here is one (only, and likely tending to one-sided) view on it.http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/sweden.shtmlFor the US Federal tax and spending as percentage of GDP see chart #11 here: http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
oltmannd wrote: selector wrote: Marginal tax rates near 50%. Here is one (only, and likely tending to one-sided) view on it.http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/sweden.shtmlFor the US Federal tax and spending as percentage of GDP see chart #11 here: http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
selector wrote: Marginal tax rates near 50%. Here is one (only, and likely tending to one-sided) view on it.http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/sweden.shtml
Marginal tax rates near 50%. Here is one (only, and likely tending to one-sided) view on it.
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/sweden.shtml
For the US Federal tax and spending as percentage of GDP see chart #11 here: http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
If I ever get too happy, I just look at those slides....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Just received the November issue but have followed these posts.
First - I am not an editor so I will not comment on Phillips' writing style - everyone's different. Biden has debated McCain about AMTRAK and we know their positions with Obama voting for and McCain voting against the RR safety and AMTRAK authorization bill. (Biden was out for the VP debate). Phillips' question is whether either ticket will do something intelligent about transportation overall.
Second: I believe Phillips does admire the European RRs setup after having read Phillips' columns for many issues.
Third:. What has made this country such an economic power house has been speedy transportation and communications. Ben Franklin's starting the post office, Pony express, Telegraph, RPOs, first Air Mail, Cheap long distance telephony. Also Goods and people by canals, RRs, Dredged waterways, Interstate highways, first Jet passenger aircraft, etc. All this speed has allowed goods and services to be located in the areas for each good and service that was perceived as the best location for that item.
Fourth: After WW II the rebuilding of the infrastructures in other countries are now beginning to affect the US. As a result of the devastation inflicted by WWII on many countries their infrastructure has had to be rebuilt from the ground up. I believe there is an overall transportation crisis in this Nation (Canada and Central America to a lesser extern) but it is coming from competition. What competition you ask. That is the EU, Japan, China, (Indonesia and Australia to a lesser degree). The competition is the Government subsidization of the transportation infrastructures of the EU and the named countries.
Fifth: Without the push of additional capital to speed up our public transportation sector the average US citizen will spend a larger percentage of total income on inefficient transportation than the above mentioned countries. Eisenhower found out how hard it was to move the military across the US on roads and when he became president he rightly pushed the interstate highway system however he did not include the RRs and the ICC 79MPH ruling and unnecessary rate regulation did not help RRs to move freight. Now with PTC on the way and much more double tracking would upgrade the RRs to give 100+ MPH average passenger speed and Freight 50+. This would speed up the above mentioned personal communications and allow intermodal to really blossom and the truckers would do what they do best - pickup freight and move it to intermodal locations. Although I do not like all the public financing that will be needed the competition from the other countries mentioned means the US cannot compete from a level playing field. I think that although Phillips does not say so directly he may be thinking along these lines.
Sixth: What results would this have? Infrastructure would be much larger. Needed rolling stock(both freight and passenger) for a given level of service would be reduced( Maybe 25 - 30% less for passenger) or carrying more revenue car and locomotive miles. Speedier service would decrease transit times.
Examples: Passenger 50 MPH Freight 75 MPH Freight
Chicago - LA 22Hr 44Hr 33hr
Washington - NY 2 4 3
NY - Boston 2-1/2 5 4
NY - Portland, Me 3-1/2 7 5-1/2
Bos, NY - Chicago 11 22 16-1/2
Chicago - New Orl 10 20 15
Chicago - Sea, PDX 22 44 33
oops; Office 2007 didn't paste correctly
henry6 wrote: Aren't most European countries a mix of capitalism and socialism unde the banner of democracy? We are but just not to the extent that they are. Yet.
Aren't most European countries a mix of capitalism and socialism unde the banner of democracy? We are but just not to the extent that they are. Yet.
The USA has never been a democracy, it was established as a Representative Republic. Big difference between the two.
Jay
For any who disbelieve my abovementioned explanation of what caused the housing crisis, you can always go with the 60-Minutes explanation last night. They blamed it all on Wall Street. They even had Wall Streeters on the segment blaming it on themselves. But I did notice that their explanation was entirely incomprehensible, unlike mine, which is totally understandable and logical. I see ABC ran a similar piece this morning blaming the bankers for lending to unqualified borrowers.
How can a borrower be unqualified when he or she has Uncle Sam co-signing the loan?
Our current problems have nothing to do with capitalism vs socialism. The problem is that both systems involve people - and people are flawed in that they all tend to believe in their own "goodness, rightness and fairness" and those who don't see it their way are obviously wrong, stupid or ignorant. So, whether you are operating in a socialsit environment or a capitalist one, unless you build in some really strong acountability, you'll just wind up with all kinds of greed and corruption - and the greedy and corrupt will generally be blind to their own errors. Remember, the Enron dudes weren't planning on skipping town with their ill-gotten gains. They had deep roots in the area. And, they really didn't believe they were building a house of cards nor did they believe they were really doing anything illegal -and therefore - they didn't beleive weren't doing anything wrong. Weak accountability from the Enron board let things roll merrily along.
So, why is capitalism generally better than socialism? If all you want to do tomorrow is the same thing you're doing today, socialism is just fine. But, if you want to generate inovation, you need a system that rewards inovation - and that is where capitalism shines.
The best example I know of in the railroad world where the difference between socialism and capitalism has been demostrated is CN. Is is bad to want some of that transformation for Amtrak?
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Yes many countries, including this one, are governed by a mix of socialism and capitalism. My point is that the two philosophies, although they can coexist, compete with each other rather than working together. And under Capitalism competition is a good thing, ya? But it does seem to work better in some countries better than here. Scandenavian countries seem to be doing ok for instance.
Bucyrus wrote: Yes many countries, including this one, are governed by a mix of socialism and capitalism. My point is that the two philosophies, although they can coexist, compete with each other rather than working together.
Yes many countries, including this one, are governed by a mix of socialism and capitalism. My point is that the two philosophies, although they can coexist, compete with each other rather than working together.
And under Capitalism competition is a good thing, ya? But it does seem to work better in some countries better than here. Scandenavian countries seem to be doing ok for instance.
I don't think that it is analogous to say that if the competition that is inherent in capitalism is a good thing (which it is), then the competition between capitalism and socialism is also a good thing. That is, if that is what you are suggesting. Capitalism also competes with such things as bad weather and organized crime. That competition is not a good thing either.
Socialism gives you high taxes, but that is somewhat expected and justified because it gives high levels of service with no direct charge. But the real problem with socialism is that it removes the motive to excel because the pie tends to be evenly divided no matter what each individual contributes to it. So you get a smaller pie as compared to a capitalistic system where each contributor is motivated to contribute to the pie because the piece they get to keep is in proportion to what they contribute. So, socialism discourages extra effort and excellence both because it does not reward them, and because it attempts to offset them with collective reward.
A society is generally better off producing the biggest possible pie even if the individual freedom and liberty necessary to produce it means that some people end up with bigger pieces than others. Those with too much will often sell or trade it off to those with less. So everybody is better off compared those in a socialist society that ends up with a smaller pie because they divide it up equally, no matter what each individual contributed to it. And usually, in that kind of system, the pie is especially small because the biggest piece goes to those who divide it up.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.