selector wrote:Imagine Walmart building two of its Super Stores across a highway from each other. Doesn't seem at all likely with private money.
Selector,
Not right across the street from each other, but here in Acworth, GA Walmart has two Super Stores just over a mile from each-I believe the closest in the US. Both are on the same highway, US 41, not even 5 minutes from each other during the worst of rush hour traffic.
Closeness resulted when Cobb County would not approve zoning for the second store. So Walmart went to the city of Acworth which approved the zoning on different land which is closer to the older store. Both have remained open for over 2 years which surprised me.
Jay
henry6 wrote: tstage wrote: Crandell,It sounds to me that what happened with the CPR is similar to what happened with the US Transcontinental Railroad back in the 1860s. Corruption and greed were at the real heart of the operation.And, after the railroad was completed, they had to go back and rebuild it again because of shoddy workmanship. Tom HMMMMMMM....And that was private enterprise. With the help of government initiatives, of course. To read some of the above posts 1). government didn't really get involved until much later in our history, and 2). private enterprise will always do it better and do it right! And if I remember my history correctly there was a lot of boondogling and other financial shenagans going on in the venture, too. But I am being told today that government was the boondoggler and big business was Mr. Clean. HMMMMMM...something just isn't adding up!
tstage wrote: Crandell,It sounds to me that what happened with the CPR is similar to what happened with the US Transcontinental Railroad back in the 1860s. Corruption and greed were at the real heart of the operation.And, after the railroad was completed, they had to go back and rebuild it again because of shoddy workmanship. Tom
Crandell,
It sounds to me that what happened with the CPR is similar to what happened with the US Transcontinental Railroad back in the 1860s. Corruption and greed were at the real heart of the operation.
And, after the railroad was completed, they had to go back and rebuild it again because of shoddy workmanship.
Tom
HMMMMMMM....And that was private enterprise. With the help of government initiatives, of course. To read some of the above posts 1). government didn't really get involved until much later in our history, and 2). private enterprise will always do it better and do it right! And if I remember my history correctly there was a lot of boondogling and other financial shenagans going on in the venture, too. But I am being told today that government was the boondoggler and big business was Mr. Clean. HMMMMMM...something just isn't adding up!
The construction of the UP was full of financial shenanigans, but not much boondoggling.The subsequent operation of the UP after construction was complete was totally on the up and up. The construction and operation of the CP was pretty much clean all around.
The biggest boondoggle in the whole deal was that they got paid a gov't bonus for miles completed, and because the gov't couldn't decide the meeting point between the two road, they graded past each other on parallel paths for over 200 miles!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I would not say that everything done by government is a boondoggle and everything done by the private sector is successful. But there is a fundamental difference between the business economics of the two sectors. Garr makes the point that when private business fails it loses its money and when the government fails, it loses the public's money. That is an important part of the fundamental difference, and I would add that another part of the difference between government and the private sector is that the government operates without financial risk precisely because it does use someone else's money. Whereas the financial risk that is inherent in the private sector using its own money makes it more careful to avoid risk. The private sector has an incentive to work harder and be more prudent because it is risking its own money.
And beyond that, a major difference between the economics of the two sectors is that government always wants to get bigger, and it does so simply by spending money. So when the government builds a bridge, even if the bridge falls down, or is not needed, or costs ten times more than it should have, the government will still have succeeded in expanding its power and scope simply by spending the money. So in regard to this primary motive of enlarging government, and feathering its own nest, the bridge is really beside the point.
Also beside the point is whatever this trillion-dollar bailout is supposed to fix. First and foremost, the money will grow the government, and a bigger government is liable to come back and tell us that a trillion was not enough.
It was all done before the CPR existed or drove a single spike. It was under the auspices of Sir Sanford Flemming, hired by Sir John A., and later Alexander MacKenzie, and was all government patronage. One thing that did go very wrong with the whole affair, was Hugh's bribing George Ettiene Cartier and others with money provided by Jay Cook, the Chicago Financier, who wanted to annex the Canadian NW for the use of the Northern Pacific. So, yes, private capital was at work, but only in the way of bribes. The money went, ostensibly, to campaign funding for relection. I don't know all the facts or details, but that is my recollection.
garr wrote: henry6, There is one big difference. If private enterprise creates a boondoggle, it is ultimately the investors' money at risk. If the US government creates a boondoggle, it is my money along with millions of other tax payers' money. If my money is going to be wasted, I want to be the one blowing it--not some politician buying votes or greasing the palms of his/her cronies.Jay
henry6,
There is one big difference. If private enterprise creates a boondoggle, it is ultimately the investors' money at risk. If the US government creates a boondoggle, it is my money along with millions of other tax payers' money. If my money is going to be wasted, I want to be the one blowing it--not some politician buying votes or greasing the palms of his/her cronies.
Understood. But the post was made to answer the accsations or insinuations above which indicated that all government work was boondogle and if private big business had done it there would be no problem. Neither point is 100 per cent true. And also the point is about the discussion that there was no government support, intervention, or oversight to anything in transportation until the 20th Century, which is false as seen the the examples I produced. What has happend this discussion now is that it is in so many pieces in so many places, that the total statements and counterstatements are scattered and piecemeal. I wonder how much further it can go before it is totally incomprehensible by being scattered so much.
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.
Not all government RR building turned out bad. Three quick examples: State of Ga's the Atlanta - Chatanooga Western and Atlantic RR of civil war fame Operated by NC&STL - L&N - Family lines - now operated by CSX. The CNO&TP built by the city of Cincinnati operated in later years by Southern RR and now NS. The North Carolina RR from Charlotte - Morehead City operated by Southern and now the new NS. All these propertys pay good although not what they are really worth to their owners.
I'm sure there are others that you posters will list and I"ll add them here.
There is one big difference. If private enterprise creates a boondoggle, it is ultimately the investors' money at risk. If the US government creates a boondoggle, it is my money along with millions of other tax payers' money.
If my money is going to be wasted, I want to be the one blowing it--not some politician buying votes or greasing the palms of his/her cronies.
carnej1 wrote: Just to weigh in on this, I own copies (but no means complete volumes) of Trains going back as far as the 1950's and the magazine has always had editorial content which included political issues of significance to the railroad industry. Going back much of this was written by David P. Morgan. Over the years there have been a number of columnists with pronounced political perspectives such as John Kneiling (who was definitely to the "right of center"). The fact of the matter is that columnists are contributing editorial content and I have always read the columns as just that, the opinion of the author. TRAINS magazine is primarily an enthusiast's publication (O.C also including heavy RR industry news content). I do not think in any way the magazine has any obligation to offer "equal time"(I'd use the term "fair and balanced" but I don't wan't to infringe on anyones trademark) as far as the columnists go. They have and do, frequently publish readers letters offering critique of the columnists writings, and IMO have been pretty balanced about that...
Just to weigh in on this, I own copies (but no means complete volumes) of Trains going back as far as the 1950's and the magazine has always had editorial content which included political issues of significance to the railroad industry. Going back much of this was written by David P. Morgan. Over the years there have been a number of columnists with pronounced political perspectives such as John Kneiling (who was definitely to the "right of center").
The fact of the matter is that columnists are contributing editorial content and I have always read the columns as just that, the opinion of the author. TRAINS magazine is primarily an enthusiast's publication (O.C also including heavy RR industry news content). I do not think in any way the magazine has any obligation to offer "equal time"(I'd use the term "fair and balanced" but I don't wan't to infringe on anyones trademark) as far as the columnists go. They have and do, frequently publish readers letters offering critique of the columnists writings, and IMO have been pretty balanced about that...
carnej1,
A paragraph or two from some unknown reader does not carry the weight of a columnist. The Trains Turntable columns usually had an author's bio which was longer than today's reader letters.
A modern version of John Kneiling's Professional Iconoclast column would not be bad idea either. A lot of what we see in railroading today was first exposed to the railfan community decades ago in his column.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I recently read Pierre Burton's The National Dream about the early days of the CPR. What an eye-opener. I agree with the preceding posts about government incompetence when it comes to spending public money, but I had no idea it was so bad in Canada at the time. And all the waste and excesses, not to mention patronage, went solely to curry favour and buy votes. Both of Canada's parties at the time were equally corrupt. I wish I could feel more sanguine about them now....
As an example of the waste, many of the passes in the Rockies and Monashees, the Selkirk, and Coastal ranges were surveyed numerous times, often by different "appointees" in charge of the various missions, not because information was doubted or lost, but because elections were coming up and the "delays" of decision-making of which pass to use in the Greater Rockies meant that British Columbia could be put off until after the election. BC was insisting the the Feds honour their agreement to build a railway from the east and to Vancouver Island. Some surveyors felt the best terminuse on the mainland was Bute Inlet, while others were also considered best by their champions. Land speculation was alive and well at the time, as you can imagine.
BC had threatened to secede, and were well on the way to doing so several times. MacDonald, and later MacKenzie, had to stall them somehow, saying they needed to find the best route. That route was known for years, although ironically it was the hitherto unexplored Crows Nest route south of all of them that eventually got the nod.
It's all about politics. The ever-flowing teat of tax-milk, warm, comforting, and nurturing, is far too attractive a thing in terms of staying in power. And happily for those vying for your vote, the gross majority of voters can't be bothered to do much about it other than change their support between them from time to time.
-Crandell
greyhounds wrote: I've got a mule, and her name is Sal, Fif-teen miles on the Er-ie canal, She's a good ol' worker and a good ol' pal, Fifteen miles on the Er-ie can-al, We've hauled some barges in our day, Filled with lum-ber coal and hay, And ev'ry inch of the way we know From Al-ba-ny to Buff-a-lo OHAnd it's certainly not impossible to argue with me. I've got an ex-wife who consistantly proved that you can. Over and Over and Over.The Erie Canal was financed by State of New York with revenue anticipation bonds paid for by tolls on the barges using it. (For those few of you unfamiliar with early 19th century canal technology the mule, in this case a female referred to as "Sal", walked along side the canal and was attached to a barge (or canal boat) by a device known as "a rope". When the mule moved forward this rope device exerted a corresponding forward force equal to the strength of "Sal", or other such similar male or female mule, on the barge causing it to also move forward at the exact same speed as the mule.) If you would read what I write you would know that I specifically said that projects such as the Erie Canal, when financed by bonds paid for by the users of such projects, as the Erie Canal was, make economic sense in that the user pays for what is used. The Erie Canal was also a local state project, not a national government project. There was no benifit to Philadelphia from the canal. In fact, it hurt Philadelphia when commerce shifted from Philadelphia to New York. If the national government had tried to do it as part of a "National Plan" it would have been blocked by the people it was going to disadvantage. A national transportation plan is unworkable.Where boondogles develope, and they happen far too often, is when Federal general tax revenue is used to fund transportation projects. This divorces the user from paying for the benifits received and leads to great waste. If you've been paying attention, the Federal Government has pretty much just run out of money to waste.As a final note, I fully support the US Coast Guard. I don't know what the Coast Guard has to do with any of this, but I fully support the Coast Guard and its brave men and women. If I'm ever on a sinking ship I hope they show up. Quickly.
I've got a mule, and her name is Sal, Fif-teen miles on the Er-ie canal, She's a good ol' worker and a good ol' pal, Fifteen miles on the Er-ie can-al, We've hauled some barges in our day, Filled with lum-ber coal and hay, And ev'ry inch of the way we know From Al-ba-ny to Buff-a-lo OH
And it's certainly not impossible to argue with me. I've got an ex-wife who consistantly proved that you can. Over and Over and Over.
The Erie Canal was financed by State of New York with revenue anticipation bonds paid for by tolls on the barges using it. (For those few of you unfamiliar with early 19th century canal technology the mule, in this case a female referred to as "Sal", walked along side the canal and was attached to a barge (or canal boat) by a device known as "a rope". When the mule moved forward this rope device exerted a corresponding forward force equal to the strength of "Sal", or other such similar male or female mule, on the barge causing it to also move forward at the exact same speed as the mule.)
If you would read what I write you would know that I specifically said that projects such as the Erie Canal, when financed by bonds paid for by the users of such projects, as the Erie Canal was, make economic sense in that the user pays for what is used. The Erie Canal was also a local state project, not a national government project. There was no benifit to Philadelphia from the canal. In fact, it hurt Philadelphia when commerce shifted from Philadelphia to New York. If the national government had tried to do it as part of a "National Plan" it would have been blocked by the people it was going to disadvantage. A national transportation plan is unworkable.
Where boondogles develope, and they happen far too often, is when Federal general tax revenue is used to fund transportation projects. This divorces the user from paying for the benifits received and leads to great waste. If you've been paying attention, the Federal Government has pretty much just run out of money to waste.
As a final note, I fully support the US Coast Guard. I don't know what the Coast Guard has to do with any of this, but I fully support the Coast Guard and its brave men and women. If I'm ever on a sinking ship I hope they show up. Quickly.
The point is that govenrments at any and all levels have participated in the building, maintenance, operation and advancement of all transportation at all times in our history. Yes, the State of New York (governemtent) did bond, build, and operate (still does) the Erie Canal. Bonds and tolls all were handled through the State government agency, yes, so it still was (and is) a state and its agency as the catylist and the owner/operator.
As for the Coast Guard, they police all coasts, harbors and waterways and were a function of the Department of Commerce until very recently, and not a seperate military service nder the Department of Defense. This was a set up based on the Congress's duty to regulate interstate commerce and not on the part of the Department of Defense or indiviual military organizations.
Argueing with you is easy. Making a point and trying to figure out what your point is and means is difficult and frustrating. You appear to not accept anything but what you believe. Your point about the Erie Canal being paid off by private enterprise is fine, but you ignore that it was, and is, a state government that planned, built, maintains, operates, and administers the whole thing. Private enterprise needed it but the state had to provde it. And did successfully. Granted, today, it is a canal for the liesure class with user monies nowhere paying for it and little if any commercial traffic on any but a small part of it in the Hudson Valley.
henry6 wrote:Ok, greyhounds and oltmannds, is everything the government has ever done been nothing than boondogle? Has there ever been anything ever done that is positive? Do you think we would have gotten as far as we have if it weren't for any level of government? What would you have done different with toll roads adn turnpikes when abandoned in the 1700's? Who should have and would have built the Erie Canal? Who would or should have run the coast guard? Who and how were rivers and streams and harbors to be made navigable for commerce? Should that part of the Constitution where Congeress is given the authority over interstate commerce be abolished? Is there anything positive about anything that has ever been done? Your negativisims about everything is puzzling as well as disturbing: no one can argue with either of you and niether of you will give an inch to history, basics of society, reality of existance, or anything else! Should we just sit on our thumbs and wait for Doomsday? Or was that July 4, 1776 and I, and the rest of us, missed it?
henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote: Gov't constuction and ownership of transportation facilities is really a 20th century thing. Our highways grew out of the "good roads" movement which was a populist push for better roads for....bicycles! The gov't always had a hand in transportation infrastructure, but "owned and operated" is really something fairly recent. This is simply not true...our governments have been a part of transportation since before the Revolution owning and operating military and post roads, the National Road, the Natchez Trace. etc. Then there was chartering and bonding legislation, eminent domain, easments, tax breaks and incentives, and so forth. Turnpikes and other toll roads came into the mix picked up from private enterprise. There were public roads before the horse and trolley cars thus governments were receiveing benifets from the private sector after the public roads had been built (trolley lines had to plow snow off roads to operate, before that no one did; when trolleys were gone, governments assumed the role of plowing). Local, state, and even Federal governments allowed tax benifets and easements to encourage and allow for the building of roads and highways and even manufacturing facilities long before the 20th Century pehenomonen. How many towns were paying off bonds yet in the late 1980's and 90's they owned for getting a railroad to build through back int he 1800's, even when the rails had been ripped out decades earlier? Then there are the canals, waterways and harbors. Governments chartered and often built canals, dredged rivers and harbors, built dams and locks and levees, and patrolled them. We all know the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard (originally an arm of the Commerce Department and not the War Department nor any of its Service agencies). No! Governments in this country built, owned and operated transportation in addition to chartering and granting and loaning, virtually from the day Europeans set foot on North America.
oltmannd wrote: Gov't constuction and ownership of transportation facilities is really a 20th century thing. Our highways grew out of the "good roads" movement which was a populist push for better roads for....bicycles! The gov't always had a hand in transportation infrastructure, but "owned and operated" is really something fairly recent.
Gov't constuction and ownership of transportation facilities is really a 20th century thing. Our highways grew out of the "good roads" movement which was a populist push for better roads for....bicycles!
The gov't always had a hand in transportation infrastructure, but "owned and operated" is really something fairly recent.
This is simply not true...our governments have been a part of transportation since before the Revolution owning and operating military and post roads, the National Road, the Natchez Trace. etc. Then there was chartering and bonding legislation, eminent domain, easments, tax breaks and incentives, and so forth. Turnpikes and other toll roads came into the mix picked up from private enterprise. There were public roads before the horse and trolley cars thus governments were receiveing benifets from the private sector after the public roads had been built (trolley lines had to plow snow off roads to operate, before that no one did; when trolleys were gone, governments assumed the role of plowing). Local, state, and even Federal governments allowed tax benifets and easements to encourage and allow for the building of roads and highways and even manufacturing facilities long before the 20th Century pehenomonen. How many towns were paying off bonds yet in the late 1980's and 90's they owned for getting a railroad to build through back int he 1800's, even when the rails had been ripped out decades earlier? Then there are the canals, waterways and harbors. Governments chartered and often built canals, dredged rivers and harbors, built dams and locks and levees, and patrolled them. We all know the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard (originally an arm of the Commerce Department and not the War Department nor any of its Service agencies). No! Governments in this country built, owned and operated transportation in addition to chartering and granting and loaning, virtually from the day Europeans set foot on North America.
The level of gov't "owned and operated" transportation infrastructure in th 19th century pales in comparison to the present day. Chartering a canal or even financnig and building some just isn't quite the same thing as owning and operating every single commercial airport and highway.
I wouldn't be so fast to hold the ACE up as a paragon of operational and financial efficiency, either. They could be a poster child for gov't as inefficient service provider.....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote: Gov't constuction and ownership of transportation facilities is really a 20th century thing. Our highways grew out of the "good roads" movement which was a populist push for better roads for....bicycles! The gov't always had a hand in transportation infrastructure, but "owned and operated" is really something fairly recent. This is simply not true...our governments have been a part of transportation since before the Revolution owning and operating militaryand and post roads, the National Road, the Natchez Trace. etc. Then there was chartering and bonding legislation, eminent domain, easments, tax breaks and incentives, and so forth. Turnpikes and other toll roads came into the mix picked up from private enterprise. There were public roads before the horse and trolley cars thus governments were receiveing benifets from the private sector after the public roads had been built (trolley lines had to plow snow off roads to operate, befor that no one did; when trolleys were gone, governments assumed the role of plowing). Local, state, and even Federal governments allowed tax benifets and easements to encourage and allow for the building of roads and highways and even manufacturing facilities long before the 20th Century pehenomonen. How many towns were paying off bonds yet in the late 1980's and 90's they owned for getting a railroad to build through back int he 1800's, even when the rails had been ripped out decades earlier? Then there are the canals, waterways and harbors. Governments chartered and often built canals, dredged rivers and harbors, built dams and locks and levees, and patrolled them. We all know the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard (oringially an arm of the Commerce Department and not the War Department nor any of its Service agencies). No! Governments in this country built, owned and operated transportation in addition to chartering and granting and loaning virtually from the day Europeans set foot on North America.
This is simply not true...our governments have been a part of transportation since before the Revolution owning and operating militaryand and post roads, the National Road, the Natchez Trace. etc. Then there was chartering and bonding legislation, eminent domain, easments, tax breaks and incentives, and so forth. Turnpikes and other toll roads came into the mix picked up from private enterprise. There were public roads before the horse and trolley cars thus governments were receiveing benifets from the private sector after the public roads had been built (trolley lines had to plow snow off roads to operate, befor that no one did; when trolleys were gone, governments assumed the role of plowing). Local, state, and even Federal governments allowed tax benifets and easements to encourage and allow for the building of roads and highways and even manufacturing facilities long before the 20th Century pehenomonen. How many towns were paying off bonds yet in the late 1980's and 90's they owned for getting a railroad to build through back int he 1800's, even when the rails had been ripped out decades earlier? Then there are the canals, waterways and harbors. Governments chartered and often built canals, dredged rivers and harbors, built dams and locks and levees, and patrolled them. We all know the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard (oringially an arm of the Commerce Department and not the War Department nor any of its Service agencies). No! Governments in this country built, owned and operated transportation in addition to chartering and granting and loaning virtually from the day Europeans set foot on North America.
Well this is all over the map. The Coast Guard, railroad charters, The Natchez Trace. (The Natchez Trace was an ancient Native American pathway adopted for Eurpoean settler use because the NA's had found the best route.)
There is a very strong historical tradition of governent transportation boondogles where our money was taken from us and poured down useless ratholes that have negative economic consequences for the populace. One may cite the Tennesse-Tombigbee waterway, commercial navigation on the Snake River, and commercial navigation on the Missouri River north of Omaha.
How do these boondogles happen? Well, some politically connected campaign contributors convince some politicains that votes can be bought by spending the publics' money on projects that could never get private financing. Why couldn't they get private finacing? They make no economic sense. They make political sense in that votes may be bought - but in the end, they just pee away money that would have otherwise been used for more useful purposes. (In the case of the Tenn-Tom Waterway a more useful purpose could be defined as burning the money to roast marshmellows. At least some folks would have received a roasted marshmellow out of such use.)
We can all be thankful that there was no national port plan and that local port authorites were able to finance their own improvements through user fees instead of relying on politicians for funding. (User fees are not the same as taxes. User fees are voluntary and avoidable, taxes are niether.) The ports were able to issue revenue anticipation bonds and convert their facilities to handle containers. This displaced traditional port facilities such as New York and San Francisco. Does anyone think the new container ports such as Norfolk and LA/Long Beach would have bloomed if New York and San Francisco could have blocked them through a national transportation plan?
Revenue anticipation bonds are private financing. They involve no tax dollars. Sometimes it is not practical to have private ownership of a transportation facility. Rivers fit this criteria. I mean no one can own the Mississippi. It's pretty much the same with ports, although there are private ports. So ports are generally run by port authorities which should receive no support from general tax funds and should not be subject to the politics of central planning. The port only makes sense if it can pay for itself which means it has to be financed through fees on users. That's the way it went with ports. And it's worked out fine.
Rivers, however, had commercial navigation improvements financed out of general tax revenues. This divorced the process of using from the process of paying for use and lead to the above mentioned boondogles.
They key here is to keep public Federal tax dollars out of transportation. And also Federal planning out of transportation. Such a use of tax dollars would divorce use form payment for use and will lead to wasteful, unneeded expenditures that produce a general harm. Federal planning will involved politics and suboptimize the outcome by wasting the tax dollars.
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: The biggest lie we have ever been told is that the mortgage crisis is the fault of Wall Street or the private business sector, and that it was due to a lack of government regulation. This is what actually happened: The government pressured lenders to make risky loans and then assumed that risk on behalf of the taxpayers.The pressure was based on the premise that minorities and low-income people were underrepresented in the arena of mortgage creation, and that the government interpreted that as discrimination. That amounts to overregulation, not under-regulation as is widely charged. Lenders naturally balked at the government pressure to make loans to under-qualified borrowers, so the government through their agencies of Freddie and Fannie, agreed to assume the risk for the loans that lenders created. With that government pressure, coupled with that government guarantee co-signing the loans, the lenders threw caution to the wind and lent money to anybody. Of course, the bad loans cannot be repaid, and the government does not have the money to cover their guarantee. So they need a trillion dollars from the taxpayers. The ones who actually caused this problem, along with most of the news media are now pointing their finger at Wall Street as a means of deflecting the blame. Do you really think that if these blame shifters really thought Wall Street was to blame, that they would offer to bail them out? If you look at who is pushing the bailout and who is dragging their feet, the ones pushing would be the last ones to bailout a greedy corporation. No, the reason they are pushing for a bailout is because they know that they have a big problem, that they caused it, and that eventually everybody will figure that out.In the big picture, this was a way for the government activism to advance the affordable housing agenda, which is actually socialized housing whereby money is taken from those who have it and used to buy houses for people who don't have enough money to buy their own house. Except, in this case, the agenda was snuck in the backdoor, under the radar, rather than being advanced in congress under the sunshine of public scrutiny. The agenda was so well camouflaged, in fact, that the public has largely not yet figured it out even after the chickens have all come home to roost. The public is being led to believe that we are now preventing a problem with the bailout. But the problem is fully created, and is way beyond the point where it could have been prevented. The bailout is the pain needed to fix the problem. It may not fix the problem. And it may even compound the problem. We are in uncharted territory. I can't believe any of this. It always was the Democrats that supposedly pushed such goodies for the lowly populace. But here we have had a Repbublican adminsitration that even its Conservative constituants complain allowed these money barrons free reign without oversight. Don't make the argument a matter of your convenience but stick to truths and facts.
Bucyrus wrote: The biggest lie we have ever been told is that the mortgage crisis is the fault of Wall Street or the private business sector, and that it was due to a lack of government regulation. This is what actually happened: The government pressured lenders to make risky loans and then assumed that risk on behalf of the taxpayers.The pressure was based on the premise that minorities and low-income people were underrepresented in the arena of mortgage creation, and that the government interpreted that as discrimination. That amounts to overregulation, not under-regulation as is widely charged. Lenders naturally balked at the government pressure to make loans to under-qualified borrowers, so the government through their agencies of Freddie and Fannie, agreed to assume the risk for the loans that lenders created. With that government pressure, coupled with that government guarantee co-signing the loans, the lenders threw caution to the wind and lent money to anybody. Of course, the bad loans cannot be repaid, and the government does not have the money to cover their guarantee. So they need a trillion dollars from the taxpayers. The ones who actually caused this problem, along with most of the news media are now pointing their finger at Wall Street as a means of deflecting the blame. Do you really think that if these blame shifters really thought Wall Street was to blame, that they would offer to bail them out? If you look at who is pushing the bailout and who is dragging their feet, the ones pushing would be the last ones to bailout a greedy corporation. No, the reason they are pushing for a bailout is because they know that they have a big problem, that they caused it, and that eventually everybody will figure that out.In the big picture, this was a way for the government activism to advance the affordable housing agenda, which is actually socialized housing whereby money is taken from those who have it and used to buy houses for people who don't have enough money to buy their own house. Except, in this case, the agenda was snuck in the backdoor, under the radar, rather than being advanced in congress under the sunshine of public scrutiny. The agenda was so well camouflaged, in fact, that the public has largely not yet figured it out even after the chickens have all come home to roost. The public is being led to believe that we are now preventing a problem with the bailout. But the problem is fully created, and is way beyond the point where it could have been prevented. The bailout is the pain needed to fix the problem. It may not fix the problem. And it may even compound the problem. We are in uncharted territory.
The biggest lie we have ever been told is that the mortgage crisis is the fault of Wall Street or the private business sector, and that it was due to a lack of government regulation. This is what actually happened: The government pressured lenders to make risky loans and then assumed that risk on behalf of the taxpayers.
The pressure was based on the premise that minorities and low-income people were underrepresented in the arena of mortgage creation, and that the government interpreted that as discrimination. That amounts to overregulation, not under-regulation as is widely charged.
Lenders naturally balked at the government pressure to make loans to under-qualified borrowers, so the government through their agencies of Freddie and Fannie, agreed to assume the risk for the loans that lenders created. With that government pressure, coupled with that government guarantee co-signing the loans, the lenders threw caution to the wind and lent money to anybody. Of course, the bad loans cannot be repaid, and the government does not have the money to cover their guarantee. So they need a trillion dollars from the taxpayers.
The ones who actually caused this problem, along with most of the news media are now pointing their finger at Wall Street as a means of deflecting the blame. Do you really think that if these blame shifters really thought Wall Street was to blame, that they would offer to bail them out? If you look at who is pushing the bailout and who is dragging their feet, the ones pushing would be the last ones to bailout a greedy corporation. No, the reason they are pushing for a bailout is because they know that they have a big problem, that they caused it, and that eventually everybody will figure that out.
In the big picture, this was a way for the government activism to advance the affordable housing agenda, which is actually socialized housing whereby money is taken from those who have it and used to buy houses for people who don't have enough money to buy their own house. Except, in this case, the agenda was snuck in the backdoor, under the radar, rather than being advanced in congress under the sunshine of public scrutiny. The agenda was so well camouflaged, in fact, that the public has largely not yet figured it out even after the chickens have all come home to roost. The public is being led to believe that we are now preventing a problem with the bailout. But the problem is fully created, and is way beyond the point where it could have been prevented.
The bailout is the pain needed to fix the problem. It may not fix the problem. And it may even compound the problem. We are in uncharted territory.
I can't believe any of this. It always was the Democrats that supposedly pushed such goodies for the lowly populace. But here we have had a Repbublican adminsitration that even its Conservative constituants complain allowed these money barrons free reign without oversight. Don't make the argument a matter of your convenience but stick to truths and facts.
Today's credit crisis stems from the housing crisis, which was all about "pushing goodies for the lowly populace" as you put it. The so-called goodies were loans that were given to people who could not pay them back. Now, the taxpayers are being asked to pay for those goodies. As usual, the pushing of goodies was motivated by the empowerment of the pushers, and not for the benefit of the recipients.
Lenders are in the business of figuring out credit risk, and they don't lend money to people who they believe can't pay them back. So you have to ask why they threw caution out the window if you want to unravel this. Keep in mind that when people lose billions of dollars, they blame it on someone else. So they are blaming Wall Street. But, even so, most of the public is having a hard time understanding why the politicians are so anxious to bailout the greed of Wall Street. It seems a little inconsistent. If Big Oil got into trouble, do you think the politicians would want to bail them out?
garr wrote: One day these may come true in the USA. However, I do not think anyone should have to work a day past the current tax freedom day (April 20th) to fund such projects.
One day these may come true in the USA. However, I do not think anyone should have to work a day past the current tax freedom day (April 20th) to fund such projects.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
karldotcom wrote: As for the current financial conditions and "panic" the country finds itself in, I recommend every member of Congress master Railroad Tycoon 2....and they would have seen it coming
As for the current financial conditions and "panic" the country finds itself in, I recommend every member of Congress master Railroad Tycoon 2....and they would have seen it coming
They certainly should have seen it coming. They created it and were in the driver's seat.
Wow, you don't log in for a couple days and a thread like this appears.
I read the columns and just rolled my eyes. I kind of expect that from several of the writers in Trains.
As for the current financial conditions and "panic" the country finds itself in, I recommend every member of Congress master Railroad Tycoon 2....and they would have seen it coming (Haven't seen any railroads go under yet, have you?)
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
penncentral2002 wrote:Apparently some people think that roads, bridges, railroads, airports, port facilities, canals, etc. magically drop from the sky and that they do not require people to spend money. The fundamental rule of economics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch - in the past, Americans understood that in regards to transportation - that is why the government subsidized railroads, built airports, built roads, improved ports, improved waterways, built bridges, etc. They knew that in order to have those things which improve commerce throughout the country and enable people to get cheaper, fresher products, the government had to spend money. The private sector is not going to build transportation facilities and definitely not a comprehensive system because it will not be profitable. The costs would be prohibitive.It is simply amazing that there are people who think they can get something for nothing. The private sector has never fully funded transportation in any civilization. User fees are simply inadequate (the gas tax is probably the fairest allocation of highway costs but even that is now inadequate to pay for needed maintainance and improvements). The fact is neither of the political parties seems to want to seriously address the looming transportation crisis (you'd think that Congress living in the Washington area would actually understand how bad the American infrastructure is given how bad the infrastructure is in the Washington area - too bad that the closest a lot of Congressmen get to seeing how average Americans actually get around is riding in a limo to take a private plane out of National). Its not hard to see why people don't seriously want to address transportation - it is expensive and will require unpleasant choices. In the 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower could get bipartisan support to build the massive interstate highway system - the only argument then was how to fund the thing. Today, such a large project would be unthinkable - even though one would be hard pressed to argue that the government's investment in the interstate highway system has not been repaid several times.In most of Phillips collumn's the primary message is quite simply - when it comes to transportation, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay for transportation through your tax dollars or dramatically increased "user fees" (which have exactly the same as taxes only they tend to operate regressively), the transportation system is not going to be any good. That such a point is apparently controversial today is simply amazing - and speaks volumes about the ignorance of the American public.
Apparently some people think that roads, bridges, railroads, airports, port facilities, canals, etc. magically drop from the sky and that they do not require people to spend money. The fundamental rule of economics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch - in the past, Americans understood that in regards to transportation - that is why the government subsidized railroads, built airports, built roads, improved ports, improved waterways, built bridges, etc. They knew that in order to have those things which improve commerce throughout the country and enable people to get cheaper, fresher products, the government had to spend money. The private sector is not going to build transportation facilities and definitely not a comprehensive system because it will not be profitable. The costs would be prohibitive.
It is simply amazing that there are people who think they can get something for nothing. The private sector has never fully funded transportation in any civilization. User fees are simply inadequate (the gas tax is probably the fairest allocation of highway costs but even that is now inadequate to pay for needed maintainance and improvements). The fact is neither of the political parties seems to want to seriously address the looming transportation crisis (you'd think that Congress living in the Washington area would actually understand how bad the American infrastructure is given how bad the infrastructure is in the Washington area - too bad that the closest a lot of Congressmen get to seeing how average Americans actually get around is riding in a limo to take a private plane out of National). Its not hard to see why people don't seriously want to address transportation - it is expensive and will require unpleasant choices. In the 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower could get bipartisan support to build the massive interstate highway system - the only argument then was how to fund the thing. Today, such a large project would be unthinkable - even though one would be hard pressed to argue that the government's investment in the interstate highway system has not been repaid several times.
In most of Phillips collumn's the primary message is quite simply - when it comes to transportation, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay for transportation through your tax dollars or dramatically increased "user fees" (which have exactly the same as taxes only they tend to operate regressively), the transportation system is not going to be any good. That such a point is apparently controversial today is simply amazing - and speaks volumes about the ignorance of the American public.
PC2002,
Some people are just more fiscally conservative than others.
The federal government should spend money on highways, rivers, airports, and, in some instances, railroads. The problem arises when the federal government's past indulgences in spending (social programs, ear marks, bail outs--today's $700B, the '80's S&L, post 9/11 airline, Chrysler,--vote buying projects and the interest payments on the money financed to pay for these programs) leaves so little for needed current day projects. What percent of any person's salary should the federal government be allowed to take for taxes?
In an ideal world, we would have 220 MPH trains running along and between the high density corridors. Stations would be located in airports so that airplanes could cover the long gaps in the so called flyover country. The highways would have electronic tracks embedded in the pavement so that sensors in our vehicles could allow hands and foot free driving.
One day these may come true in the USA. However, I do not think anyone should have to work a day past the current tax freedom day (April 23rd) to fund such projects. Plus, I do not think we should pass the tab for such ideals to our children or grandchildren.
Once the federal government realizes that it can not be the answer to everyones' problem and makes the correct spending choices we will start moving toward the "ideal" day.
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: But getting something for nothing is exactly what tends to happen when the government funds projects that would not be profitable for the private sector, and therefore would not get funded by the private sector. For much of government taxpayer funded transportation, the users are being massively subsidized by a much larger majority who don't or can't use it, but still must help pay for it. Socialism is sold as a free lunch. I would not cite the fact that the government publicly funds a lot of things as evidence that those things could not be funded by the private sector or are even vital to our needs. One big reason that a lot of things get funded with public money is that the government ever seeks to expand its power by publicly funding as much as they can possibly convince us to allow them to. They would do it all if we just got out of their way. But the question has to be asked and answered: what happens if the Federal (or any of our governments) didn't build roads, operate airports and airways, or supprt passenger or freight rail? If the lack of funds for any of these projects or programs means that a factory cannot open or operate (thus not employing the people nor returninng investment to the owner), if an item cannot be manufactured because either raw materials can't be brought in or finished product cannot be taken out for delivery (thus not employing people nor returning investment to the owner plus depriving society of that product), then where does a society turn to have goods and services and jobs? You cannot expect any one individual, no matter how much money he has or hasn't, to shoulder the entire burden for all of society. There has to be responsibility and assignment of responsibility or else we are nothing with nothing. If what has been said here, to the effect that if there isn't a profit, then it doesn't have to be done, would leave us without food, heat, building supplies, etc. Theoretically, as stated above, there is no return on investment in roads since private turnpikes can't do the job on its own otherwise all roads, even the street you live on, would be privately owned and you would have to pay a fee that gives a return on investment to the owner. Perhaps if that is what mankind started with and continued with up to now, it might be workable. But since 99.999% of the roads in this country from your home street or road to the Interstate highway system, are public projects, its too late to turn back. Likewise, airports (usually munincipaly owned in this country but privatized in Europe) and the airways are government operations, how do we turn back? The waterways...rivers and canals...moving millions of tons of raw materials in pathways deisnged and operatead by the Army Corps or Engineers and policed by the U.S. Coast Guard; how can we turn that around and why? And with railroads, particularly with passenger services and emerging tight freight corridorsusually not making a profit but if not provided by public monies would dump a bigger burden on other forms or transportation or close factories and towns, what is the alternative? Even the Robber Barons of the 19th and 20th centuries understood who they were and what thier social responsiblities had to be so that they themselves could survive along with thier enterprises then and for the future. The Constitution charges Congress with the regulation of interstate commerce...should that be repealed?
Bucyrus wrote: But getting something for nothing is exactly what tends to happen when the government funds projects that would not be profitable for the private sector, and therefore would not get funded by the private sector. For much of government taxpayer funded transportation, the users are being massively subsidized by a much larger majority who don't or can't use it, but still must help pay for it. Socialism is sold as a free lunch. I would not cite the fact that the government publicly funds a lot of things as evidence that those things could not be funded by the private sector or are even vital to our needs. One big reason that a lot of things get funded with public money is that the government ever seeks to expand its power by publicly funding as much as they can possibly convince us to allow them to. They would do it all if we just got out of their way.
But getting something for nothing is exactly what tends to happen when the government funds projects that would not be profitable for the private sector, and therefore would not get funded by the private sector. For much of government taxpayer funded transportation, the users are being massively subsidized by a much larger majority who don't or can't use it, but still must help pay for it. Socialism is sold as a free lunch.
I would not cite the fact that the government publicly funds a lot of things as evidence that those things could not be funded by the private sector or are even vital to our needs. One big reason that a lot of things get funded with public money is that the government ever seeks to expand its power by publicly funding as much as they can possibly convince us to allow them to. They would do it all if we just got out of their way.
But the question has to be asked and answered: what happens if the Federal (or any of our governments) didn't build roads, operate airports and airways, or supprt passenger or freight rail? If the lack of funds for any of these projects or programs means that a factory cannot open or operate (thus not employing the people nor returninng investment to the owner), if an item cannot be manufactured because either raw materials can't be brought in or finished product cannot be taken out for delivery (thus not employing people nor returning investment to the owner plus depriving society of that product), then where does a society turn to have goods and services and jobs? You cannot expect any one individual, no matter how much money he has or hasn't, to shoulder the entire burden for all of society. There has to be responsibility and assignment of responsibility or else we are nothing with nothing. If what has been said here, to the effect that if there isn't a profit, then it doesn't have to be done, would leave us without food, heat, building supplies, etc. Theoretically, as stated above, there is no return on investment in roads since private turnpikes can't do the job on its own otherwise all roads, even the street you live on, would be privately owned and you would have to pay a fee that gives a return on investment to the owner. Perhaps if that is what mankind started with and continued with up to now, it might be workable. But since 99.999% of the roads in this country from your home street or road to the Interstate highway system, are public projects, its too late to turn back. Likewise, airports (usually munincipaly owned in this country but privatized in Europe) and the airways are government operations, how do we turn back? The waterways...rivers and canals...moving millions of tons of raw materials in pathways deisnged and operatead by the Army Corps or Engineers and policed by the U.S. Coast Guard; how can we turn that around and why? And with railroads, particularly with passenger services and emerging tight freight corridorsusually not making a profit but if not provided by public monies would dump a bigger burden on other forms or transportation or close factories and towns, what is the alternative? Even the Robber Barons of the 19th and 20th centuries understood who they were and what thier social responsiblities had to be so that they themselves could survive along with thier enterprises then and for the future. The Constitution charges Congress with the regulation of interstate commerce...should that be repealed?
There are a range of ways we can handle the ownership and operation of transportation facilities. They can range from all public to all private with all shades of gray in between. which is best depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to maximize the size of your economy and transportation tends to be a catalyst, that is you get more economic output than it costs you, then totally public might make sense. If you are trying to minimize the cost of providing transport, then totally private might make sense.
The problem is that the cost to produce a unit of transport under public ownership is almost always higher than private ownership. Gov't is an inefficient service provider - no free market forces shaping their behavior.
So, perhaps the best way to do transport is a hybrid approach, where you keep the catalytic effect of transport as a "common good" while employing free market forces to shape the efficiency of the product and delivery.
Just becasue we are doing things a certain way now ("free" highways, for example) doesn't mean their's not a better way (sell the interstates to the states and let them make them toll roads if they want to, or sell them to the truckers, or sell them to the railroads, et. al.). Or even change the way we fund local roads - from property tax to yearly "odometer" tax.
I am not advocating a return to a perfect state where the production of all goods and services are produced in the private sector. I agree that it is too late to turn back. And even if we could turn back, there are some functions that might work better if socialized. National defense for instance, seems like a good example.
You asked: "What happens if the Federal (or any of our governments) didn't build roads, operate airports and airways, or supprt passenger or freight rail?
What happens is that these things will get done by the private sector at lower cost to us all, and our society will be happier, healthier, and more prosperous than it would be if the government did all those things.
You said: "If the lack of funds for any of these projects or programs means that a factory cannot open or operate (thus not employing the people nor returninng investment to the owner), if an item cannot be manufactured because either raw materials can't be brought in or finished product cannot be taken out for delivery (thus not employing people nor returning investment to the owner plus depriving society of that product), then where does a society turn to have goods and services and jobs?"
There won't be a lack of funds. If the production of these goods and services is really needed, investors in the private sector will be motivated by the potential profit to invest their money.
You said: "You cannot expect any one individual, no matter how much money he has or hasn't, to shoulder the entire burden for all of society."
Providing goods and services to society is not a matter of shouldering the burden. If provided by the private sector, it is not through the burden of donations or volunteerism. It is motivated by profit. Even if done by the government, it is not a matter of shouldering burden. Government has nothing to contribute. All they have is the power to redistribute wealth from one citizen to another.
You said: "If what has been said here, to the effect that if there isn't a profit, then it doesn't have to be done, would leave us without food, heat, building supplies, etc."
But those things do need to get done, so there will be a profit motive to the providers, and they will get done. But even if they are provided by a capitalist, the recipients need to do their share. They have to earn the money to purchase these essentials. Everybody has to do their part in a free market system.
penncentral2002 wrote: greyhounds wrote: I sincerly believe that a Federal transportation/rail plan moved along with Federal funds is a terrible idea that would have terrible results if implamented. At least one other person seems to regard it as an absolute necessity.Apparently some people think that roads, bridges, railroads, airports, port facilities, canals, etc. magically drop from the sky and that they do not require people to spend money. The fundamental rule of economics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch - The private sector is not going to build transportation facilities and definitely not a comprehensive system because it will not be profitable. The costs would be prohibitive.It is simply amazing that there are people who think they can get something for nothing.
greyhounds wrote: I sincerly believe that a Federal transportation/rail plan moved along with Federal funds is a terrible idea that would have terrible results if implamented. At least one other person seems to regard it as an absolute necessity.
I sincerly believe that a Federal transportation/rail plan moved along with Federal funds is a terrible idea that would have terrible results if implamented. At least one other person seems to regard it as an absolute necessity.
Apparently some people think that roads, bridges, railroads, airports, port facilities, canals, etc. magically drop from the sky and that they do not require people to spend money. The fundamental rule of economics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch -
The private sector is not going to build transportation facilities and definitely not a comprehensive system because it will not be profitable. The costs would be prohibitive.
It is simply amazing that there are people who think they can get something for nothing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.