If the powers-to-be at Trains know that politics(as it concerns railroading) is such a hot bed subject with passionate opinions on both sides, why do they consistently let only one side be repeatedly promoted in the magazine?
Why not revive the "Trains Turntable" column which featured one reader's or industry expert's opinion in a page length format? Every Turntable would not need to have a political aspect to it, just as Phillip's column doesn't always have a political component. However, it may provide the balance that is lacking from the magazine.
Jay
selector wrote: But, in an open forum with an intended, and expressed, restriction on the subject matter range, your invitation to discuss the economy as it relates to passenger rail and opinions written about it, will invite politicization of the subject. But if it turns partisan, it tends to turn personal, and eventually nasty. I believe that is what Kathi is asking responders to curtail, the political references that are not bipartisan.
But, in an open forum with an intended, and expressed, restriction on the subject matter range, your invitation to discuss the economy as it relates to passenger rail and opinions written about it, will invite politicization of the subject.
But if it turns partisan, it tends to turn personal, and eventually nasty.
I believe that is what Kathi is asking responders to curtail, the political references that are not bipartisan.
But Mr. Phillips was not just discussing the economy as it relates to railroads. He was discussing government policy and specific bipartisan politics as it relates to railroads. When this thread began in response to Mr. Phillips, knowing the rules here, we left bipartisan politics out of the discussion and focused on government systems and their economics. So I have to ask: When forms of government are discussed, does that amount to politics on this forum?
It seems to me that when Mr. Phillips advocates government socialism to bring more trains to train lovers, the conversation might naturally enough turn to discussing the pros and cons of socialism (assuming that we are allowed to discuss Mr. Phillips' work). And when you start discussing socialism, the 600-pound gorilla is today's economic bailout plan that threatens to convert the entire U.S. system overnight.
So, I did not think the thread was as over the line as the reaction to it suggests. It might have drifted a bit, but many threads here are far ranging. So far there has been nothing personal, nasty, or partisan in this thread, and I don't see how there can be a predetermination that it is headed there.
But, in an open forum with an intended, and expressed, restriction on the subject matter range, your invitation to discuss the economy as it relates to passenger rail and opinions written about it, will invite politicization of the subject. As two of the most prevalent social sciences, politics and economics are inextricably interrelated. That much we all have to contend with. But if it turns partisan, it tends to turn personal, and eventually nasty. We have to give credit to those posting the rules for this forum that they have some meagre sense of their utility, and probably based on experience. A personal search for locked threads would turn up no scant evidence to that effect.
I believe that is what Kathi is asking responders to curtail, the political references that are not bipartisan. If it can't practically be done, the subject can't practically be discussed....it seems.
Kathi Kube wrote:OK, kiddies. Here's the warning: Keep your posts related to the column and Phillips' views. Agree, disagree, whatever. DO NOT discuss politics in general here. This is why the original thread was deleted. If you can stick to discussing the column, magazine, or railroading in general, cool. If not, we'll have to lock this one up or whatever it is we do to errant threads. We, the staff of Trains, love to hear what you think about the magazine and railroading, and always welcome those opinions. If you want to rant about politics in general, please find another forum. Thanks so much.Kathi
Kiddies?
Basically, we started out discussing a statement of Phillips that I read as inclusive of me cheering the probable elevation of Sen. Biden to the Vice Presidency. Phillips then discussed the two Presidential tickets in his usual narrow context favoring Federal planning/funding of transportation in general and railroads in particular.
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.
To flesh this out we need to discuss how the economy works. I don't see how we can debate the merits of a Federal rail plan/funding without discussing how the economy works. If non rail examples are used to do this, so what? Things will relate back to the role of the Federal Government in our rail system. Nobody is calling each other names or getting really unpleasant.
It's a civil discussion dealing with the role of the Federal government in railroading. If non railroad examples are required to illustrate points, they certainly don't hurt anything.
henry6:Go check the facts and the legislation. There was a massive push for these loans with legislation passed. I am not blaming one party on this. There is blood on many hands.
I dont think this bailout is going to be enough. It doesnt address the basic problem...the American consumer is over leveraged with consumer and mortgage debt which they will have a difficult time in servicing. Thus, the underlying mortgages held by the financial companies will continue to spiral downward in value.
Four years ago I talked to a woman who processed mortgages. She worked at home and would daily receive a DLH package with applications. She was amazed and horified of the aps she received (and which were approved). She called it (the meltdown) four years ago. Pretty smart woman.
Now, do I believe the financial companies were faultless? Heck no. They took unnecessary risk and have paid dearly. There is plenty of blood on plenty of hands.
Now, get used to it...we will all pay, deeply and for a long long time.
ed
This entire subject is "Much to do about nothing"...I read Don's piece over the weekend and found nothing objectionable at all in its content. Let's move on, shall we?
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.
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.
greyhounds wrote: henry6 wrote: greyhounds wrote: [ That Mencken guy sure did know what he was talking about, didn't he now.In the first place, there is no set level of "Needs of the public for transportation" to be met. The "need", or demand, for transportation is a function of the cost of transportation. The more transportation costs, the less "need" for it there will be. People will make adjustments such as moving back into cities to avoid costly commutes. (hapening now) People won't take long weekends in Vegas. People will substitue canned vegetables grown in the summer closer to where they live instead of using fresh produce trucked 3,000 miles year 'round. Etc.Saying the "Needs of the public for transportation" is bogus because there is no set level of need - like everything else, the demand varries with the cost. It's a way to generate a false crisis atmophere.Likewise, falsely claiming that private enterprise lacks to ability to meet the "needs" is bogus. Just as the level of "need" moves around with the cost, so does the ability of private firms to obtain resources to meet those needs. The more revenue brought in, the more resources available to get that revenue. Absent government interferance, supply and demand always balace over time. There may be temporaty spot dislocations (as now with gasoline in the southeast) but over time they always balance.This cry of the "Public's needs can't be met - oh what a crisis" is just a ploy to hand over power and resorces to the government. As I said, Mencken knew well of what he spoke. If I read you right, you are saying that if you yourself don't have a need for a service or product, therefore there is no need for it no matter who or what else might want or need it, threfore nobody gets it. Water, sewer, electricity, roads, food, clothing, anything and everything else?And by the way, it is businesses, private enterprises, big business railroads, who are seeking government help in giving them a platform from which they can make money. Further, upon reading Philiip's statement in question, it is clear that he only said that people who like trains were happy, not all people who like trains, but people who like trains. It is like saying people who like to eat like steak but not saying that all people who like to eat like steak.Well, you don't read me right. That's not at all what I said.What I said is straight out of the first two weeks, if not the first day, of an Economics 101 class. The fact that you don't understand what I wrote is not your fault. I sincerly believe that the US population is intentionally kept ignorant of economics by the public education system (controlled by politicians) so that the politicians can manipulate the population into giving those politicians more power and money.Phillips is just a vehicle used by the politicians to spread their propaganda. There's always a crisis, government is the only salvation, and we must always give government more power and money or we'll all be up a creek without a paddle. Your call to put "individual politics" aside is basically a call to put individual liberty aside. One day you may realize that you are the prey. And they'll run you right into their trap with their phoney crisis that come one after the other. As to the "big business railroads" seeking government money. So what? They'll seek a government guaranteed monopoly if they think they can get it. A corporation exists to increase the wealth of its shareholders. Now that may sound bad, but if you understand that Economics 101 class, you'll understand that, absent government intervention, that works to the public's benifit. They have to tailor their services to the public's demands at a price where a significant segment of the public will freely choose to use those services in order to increase the wealth of the shareholders. This free market incentive works to promote the general welfare far better than any government planning could ever work.Once you admit that a dog is a dog, you can't get upset that it barks. Once you realize that a "big business" corporation exists to increase its shareholders' wealth you can't get upset that it tries to do so. If the dang government stays out of the way that corporation will have to serve the public in the best way possible in order to do that. If the government involves itself the public will suffer. As with everything, there are exceptions. Nobody owns the air and companies shouldn't be free to polute it. But the provison of services by transportation companies should have no government planning or interference.
henry6 wrote: greyhounds wrote: [ That Mencken guy sure did know what he was talking about, didn't he now.In the first place, there is no set level of "Needs of the public for transportation" to be met. The "need", or demand, for transportation is a function of the cost of transportation. The more transportation costs, the less "need" for it there will be. People will make adjustments such as moving back into cities to avoid costly commutes. (hapening now) People won't take long weekends in Vegas. People will substitue canned vegetables grown in the summer closer to where they live instead of using fresh produce trucked 3,000 miles year 'round. Etc.Saying the "Needs of the public for transportation" is bogus because there is no set level of need - like everything else, the demand varries with the cost. It's a way to generate a false crisis atmophere.Likewise, falsely claiming that private enterprise lacks to ability to meet the "needs" is bogus. Just as the level of "need" moves around with the cost, so does the ability of private firms to obtain resources to meet those needs. The more revenue brought in, the more resources available to get that revenue. Absent government interferance, supply and demand always balace over time. There may be temporaty spot dislocations (as now with gasoline in the southeast) but over time they always balance.This cry of the "Public's needs can't be met - oh what a crisis" is just a ploy to hand over power and resorces to the government. As I said, Mencken knew well of what he spoke. If I read you right, you are saying that if you yourself don't have a need for a service or product, therefore there is no need for it no matter who or what else might want or need it, threfore nobody gets it. Water, sewer, electricity, roads, food, clothing, anything and everything else?And by the way, it is businesses, private enterprises, big business railroads, who are seeking government help in giving them a platform from which they can make money. Further, upon reading Philiip's statement in question, it is clear that he only said that people who like trains were happy, not all people who like trains, but people who like trains. It is like saying people who like to eat like steak but not saying that all people who like to eat like steak.
greyhounds wrote: [ That Mencken guy sure did know what he was talking about, didn't he now.In the first place, there is no set level of "Needs of the public for transportation" to be met. The "need", or demand, for transportation is a function of the cost of transportation. The more transportation costs, the less "need" for it there will be. People will make adjustments such as moving back into cities to avoid costly commutes. (hapening now) People won't take long weekends in Vegas. People will substitue canned vegetables grown in the summer closer to where they live instead of using fresh produce trucked 3,000 miles year 'round. Etc.Saying the "Needs of the public for transportation" is bogus because there is no set level of need - like everything else, the demand varries with the cost. It's a way to generate a false crisis atmophere.Likewise, falsely claiming that private enterprise lacks to ability to meet the "needs" is bogus. Just as the level of "need" moves around with the cost, so does the ability of private firms to obtain resources to meet those needs. The more revenue brought in, the more resources available to get that revenue. Absent government interferance, supply and demand always balace over time. There may be temporaty spot dislocations (as now with gasoline in the southeast) but over time they always balance.This cry of the "Public's needs can't be met - oh what a crisis" is just a ploy to hand over power and resorces to the government. As I said, Mencken knew well of what he spoke.
That Mencken guy sure did know what he was talking about, didn't he now.
In the first place, there is no set level of "Needs of the public for transportation" to be met. The "need", or demand, for transportation is a function of the cost of transportation. The more transportation costs, the less "need" for it there will be. People will make adjustments such as moving back into cities to avoid costly commutes. (hapening now) People won't take long weekends in Vegas. People will substitue canned vegetables grown in the summer closer to where they live instead of using fresh produce trucked 3,000 miles year 'round. Etc.
Saying the "Needs of the public for transportation" is bogus because there is no set level of need - like everything else, the demand varries with the cost. It's a way to generate a false crisis atmophere.
Likewise, falsely claiming that private enterprise lacks to ability to meet the "needs" is bogus. Just as the level of "need" moves around with the cost, so does the ability of private firms to obtain resources to meet those needs. The more revenue brought in, the more resources available to get that revenue. Absent government interferance, supply and demand always balace over time. There may be temporaty spot dislocations (as now with gasoline in the southeast) but over time they always balance.
This cry of the "Public's needs can't be met - oh what a crisis" is just a ploy to hand over power and resorces to the government.
As I said, Mencken knew well of what he spoke.
If I read you right, you are saying that if you yourself don't have a need for a service or product, therefore there is no need for it no matter who or what else might want or need it, threfore nobody gets it. Water, sewer, electricity, roads, food, clothing, anything and everything else?
And by the way, it is businesses, private enterprises, big business railroads, who are seeking government help in giving them a platform from which they can make money.
Further, upon reading Philiip's statement in question, it is clear that he only said that people who like trains were happy, not all people who like trains, but people who like trains. It is like saying people who like to eat like steak but not saying that all people who like to eat like steak.
Well, you don't read me right. That's not at all what I said.
What I said is straight out of the first two weeks, if not the first day, of an Economics 101 class. The fact that you don't understand what I wrote is not your fault. I sincerly believe that the US population is intentionally kept ignorant of economics by the public education system (controlled by politicians) so that the politicians can manipulate the population into giving those politicians more power and money.
Phillips is just a vehicle used by the politicians to spread their propaganda. There's always a crisis, government is the only salvation, and we must always give government more power and money or we'll all be up a creek without a paddle. Your call to put "individual politics" aside is basically a call to put individual liberty aside.
One day you may realize that you are the prey. And they'll run you right into their trap with their phoney crisis that come one after the other.
As to the "big business railroads" seeking government money. So what? They'll seek a government guaranteed monopoly if they think they can get it. A corporation exists to increase the wealth of its shareholders. Now that may sound bad, but if you understand that Economics 101 class, you'll understand that, absent government intervention, that works to the public's benifit. They have to tailor their services to the public's demands at a price where a significant segment of the public will freely choose to use those services in order to increase the wealth of the shareholders. This free market incentive works to promote the general welfare far better than any government planning could ever work.
Once you admit that a dog is a dog, you can't get upset that it barks. Once you realize that a "big business" corporation exists to increase its shareholders' wealth you can't get upset that it tries to do so. If the dang government stays out of the way that corporation will have to serve the public in the best way possible in order to do that. If the government involves itself the public will suffer.
As with everything, there are exceptions. Nobody owns the air and companies shouldn't be free to polute it. But the provison of services by transportation companies should have no government planning or interference.
I agree in principle except that corporations are made up of, and run by people. And, people have this unfortunate tendency to pay attention to their own ego. And, sucessful ones sometimes start reading their own press releases and believing their own balogna. The founders of our country had some wonderful insight into human nature and set up our governement so that it would be really hard of the egos of a few to do much damage. In relig-o-speak this is the notion of "original sin." Accountability one of the ways to combat this human tendency.
It is apparent, that sometimes the accountability of a corporation's executives to the owners via the corporation's board is broken. If it wasn't, how else could an Enron or WorldComm/MCI happen? Look at how hard CSX's executives fought some of their owners over a vote for who should be on the board. Although the really tight interlocking of boards was done away with by Teddy R. their still are some pretty shady relationships. Board of companies often have execs of some of their big suppliers and customers. Board members can server on multiple boards. The potential for conflict of interest is not zero.
But, w.r.t Don Phillips, he like passenger trains and would like the US to have more. Me, too. But that doesn't mean I agree with him down the line. I do like reading him as I do like to have my thinking challenged (which is why I read and post here, too!) .
As for trying to pass opinion off as fact, there are no sinless!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
wpsf37 wrote:It was good to meet you, too, eolafan! You gave us a lot to think about that day.
henry6 wrote: greyhounds wrote:Once you admit that a dog is a dog, you can't get upset that it barks. Once you realize that a "big business" corporation exists to increase its shareholders' wealth you can't get upset that it tries to do so. If the dang government stays out of the way that corporation will have to serve the public in the best way possible in order to do that. If the government involves itself the public will suffer. How do you read the investment bankers and this mortgage crisis based on the government staying out of the way and the corporations serving the public? Or did big business handle everything right and the people should lose thier homes and thier investments and the entire Wall Street dissolve?
greyhounds wrote:Once you admit that a dog is a dog, you can't get upset that it barks. Once you realize that a "big business" corporation exists to increase its shareholders' wealth you can't get upset that it tries to do so. If the dang government stays out of the way that corporation will have to serve the public in the best way possible in order to do that. If the government involves itself the public will suffer.
How do you read the investment bankers and this mortgage crisis based on the government staying out of the way and the corporations serving the public? Or did big business handle everything right and the people should lose thier homes and thier investments and the entire Wall Street dissolve?
alphas wrote:Right now the magazine only offers Phillips as a political columnist so Trains is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as subscribing to his viewpoint.
Perhaps I'm less attuned to political matters than a responsible citizen should be; however I don't perceive Trains as subscribing to any particular political viewpoint.
Bucyrus is on the right track, pardon the pun. If Trains wants to start including politics in its magazine, a wise decision would be to have a legitimate 2nd columnist who isn't so big government prone and generally doesn't think that Europe is superior to the USA in just about everything. Right now the magazine only offers Phillips as a political columnist so Trains is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as subscribing to his viewpoint.
doghouse wrote: Bucyrus wrote: CN conductor wrote: Jamie,You need to take a chill pill. So Mr. Phillips has a different political view point from you, get over it! I can't believe that anyone would refuse to resubscribe to TRAINS magazine because of one sentence written in one writer's colmn. I wonder, would you feel better if TRAINS found a railroad columnist version of Rush Limbaugh? How about a column for Mr. Phillips and one for a version of Mr. Limbaugh? We would then have balance in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine.RE: Mr. Limbaugh. Didn't know he knew much about trains.
Bucyrus wrote: CN conductor wrote: Jamie,You need to take a chill pill. So Mr. Phillips has a different political view point from you, get over it! I can't believe that anyone would refuse to resubscribe to TRAINS magazine because of one sentence written in one writer's colmn. I wonder, would you feel better if TRAINS found a railroad columnist version of Rush Limbaugh? How about a column for Mr. Phillips and one for a version of Mr. Limbaugh? We would then have balance in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine.
CN conductor wrote: Jamie,You need to take a chill pill. So Mr. Phillips has a different political view point from you, get over it! I can't believe that anyone would refuse to resubscribe to TRAINS magazine because of one sentence written in one writer's colmn. I wonder, would you feel better if TRAINS found a railroad columnist version of Rush Limbaugh?
Jamie,
You need to take a chill pill. So Mr. Phillips has a different political view point from you, get over it! I can't believe that anyone would refuse to resubscribe to TRAINS magazine because of one sentence written in one writer's colmn. I wonder, would you feel better if TRAINS found a railroad columnist version of Rush Limbaugh?
How about a column for Mr. Phillips and one for a version of Mr. Limbaugh? We would then have balance in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine.
RE: Mr. Limbaugh. Didn't know he knew much about trains.
Horsefeathers!
Do you think his call in number is 1-800-282-2882 by accident? Heck of a doubleheader!
EDIT: Retracted this post.
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
zardoz wrote: greyhounds wrote: In the words of H. L Mencken:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"NOW we know who's idea it was to form the Department of Homeland Security.
greyhounds wrote: In the words of H. L Mencken:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"
In the words of H. L Mencken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"
NOW we know who's idea it was to form the Department of Homeland Security.
We seem to have the mother of all hobgoblins on the front burner right now.
henry6 wrote: But if the capitalists call it a crisis situation and go asking the government for help. then are they, in effect, socialists? And if governments don't help private investors (capitalists) then where do investors turn for capital if they themselves don't have it. Then what happens to the country's infrastructure and ability to conduct business? What you, and others, don't seem to understand, is that business is at a brick wall and needs help. Would you rather they get the help from the the United States governement or from an overseas govenrment like China who could, therefore, eventually overtake the entire economy and society of the United States by buying it. The old National Traffic Safety Council once ran an ad slogan, "you could be right, dead right" And that seems quite applicable here.
But if the capitalists call it a crisis situation and go asking the government for help. then are they, in effect, socialists? And if governments don't help private investors (capitalists) then where do investors turn for capital if they themselves don't have it. Then what happens to the country's infrastructure and ability to conduct business? What you, and others, don't seem to understand, is that business is at a brick wall and needs help. Would you rather they get the help from the the United States governement or from an overseas govenrment like China who could, therefore, eventually overtake the entire economy and society of the United States by buying it. The old National Traffic Safety Council once ran an ad slogan, "you could be right, dead right" And that seems quite applicable here.
We had the same argument in the late '80's about the Japanese investing in a large number of real estate developements in the USA. That fear proved invalid. It is hard for a foriegn investor to pack up his real estate purchase in the USA and move it offshore.
As far as the federal government funding capacity improvements, a simplified analogy might be a young family with one child living in a 2-bedroom home. They are expecting twins. A new home with 3, but more than likely 4 bedrooms, is going to be needed in the not too distant future. Should the federal government fund this capacity improvement? If so, is it welfare? If the government funds private business capacity improvements, isn't it corporate welfare?
When you add a "little" of this type of federal spending with the other "little" bit of federal spending for 1,000's of other projects, huge deficits are a reality. With the happenings on Wall Street and in DC over the last couple of weeks, I don't see how it can be argued that the federal government should be the go to source for this type of spending.
Maybe if the long term payoff could be looked at, companies would be more willing to invest their own money in capacity improvements. Instead, corporate officers are more concerned about the quarterly results of their companies stock. If a large part of my pay was based upon stock performance, I would act the same way.
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: You say the so-called "transportation crisis" needs to be solved by collaboration of both public and private sectors, yet you say that the solution will be neither socialism nor capitalism. To me, that sounds like a rhetorical slogan that seeks to have it both ways. Of course the solution will be both socialism and capitalism, if it is a partnership between the public and private sectors. I agree that there will inevitably be socialist elements to any solution, but I would prefer to see as little of it as possible. I certainly don't see socialism as an ingredient that is needed due to a lack of capital in the private sector. I see socialism as an opportunistic virus that forever seeks to expand itself for its own empowerment by labeling something as a crisis and then telling us that we all have to roll up our sleeves and solve it together. And wherever socialism is applied, its operatives spread the cost to individuals according to their ability to pay. So the system takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor, and feeds on that revenue stream in the process. Dragging their feet on highway construction, shoving LRT down out throats, driving up gasoline prices, promoting the idea of a transportation crisis--these are some of the ways that the socialists work to push us toward socialized transportation, so they can make their socialism bigger. But if the capitalists call it a crisis situation and go asking the government for help. then are they, in effect, socialists? And if governments don't help private investors (capitalists) then where do investors turn for capital if they themselves don't have it. Then what happens to the country's infrastructure and ability to conduct business? What you, and others, don't seem to understand, is that business is at a brick wall and needs help. Would you rather they get the help from the the United States governement or from an overseas govenrment like China who could, therefore, eventually overtake the entire economy and society of the United States by buying it. The old National Traffic Safety Council once ran an ad slogan, "you could be right, dead right" And that seems quite applicable here.
Bucyrus wrote: You say the so-called "transportation crisis" needs to be solved by collaboration of both public and private sectors, yet you say that the solution will be neither socialism nor capitalism. To me, that sounds like a rhetorical slogan that seeks to have it both ways. Of course the solution will be both socialism and capitalism, if it is a partnership between the public and private sectors. I agree that there will inevitably be socialist elements to any solution, but I would prefer to see as little of it as possible. I certainly don't see socialism as an ingredient that is needed due to a lack of capital in the private sector. I see socialism as an opportunistic virus that forever seeks to expand itself for its own empowerment by labeling something as a crisis and then telling us that we all have to roll up our sleeves and solve it together. And wherever socialism is applied, its operatives spread the cost to individuals according to their ability to pay. So the system takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor, and feeds on that revenue stream in the process. Dragging their feet on highway construction, shoving LRT down out throats, driving up gasoline prices, promoting the idea of a transportation crisis--these are some of the ways that the socialists work to push us toward socialized transportation, so they can make their socialism bigger.
You say the so-called "transportation crisis" needs to be solved by collaboration of both public and private sectors, yet you say that the solution will be neither socialism nor capitalism. To me, that sounds like a rhetorical slogan that seeks to have it both ways. Of course the solution will be both socialism and capitalism, if it is a partnership between the public and private sectors. I agree that there will inevitably be socialist elements to any solution, but I would prefer to see as little of it as possible.
I certainly don't see socialism as an ingredient that is needed due to a lack of capital in the private sector. I see socialism as an opportunistic virus that forever seeks to expand itself for its own empowerment by labeling something as a crisis and then telling us that we all have to roll up our sleeves and solve it together. And wherever socialism is applied, its operatives spread the cost to individuals according to their ability to pay. So the system takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor, and feeds on that revenue stream in the process.
Dragging their feet on highway construction, shoving LRT down out throats, driving up gasoline prices, promoting the idea of a transportation crisis--these are some of the ways that the socialists work to push us toward socialized transportation, so they can make their socialism bigger.
Yes capitalists can look for government handouts, especially when a private enterprise is on the verge of failure. Then they would likely make the case that their failure would hurt society more than a bailout would. Look what is happening today. But generally, if something is worth doing, capitalism can raise the capital to do it.
I don't see why you conclude that business is at a "brick wall and needs help."
If a U.S. company is in trouble and needs help, I would absolutely, without question, prefer to see them get it from foreign investment rather than from the U.S. government / taxpayers. And I would not conclude that foreign investment in the U.S. leads to a takeover by the investor.
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: If the solution uses public money, then we should all get a vote on it. So how can you take politics out of that equation? Who said politics is out? I am saying put individual politics aside, roll up your sleeves, and sit down at the table and work out the problems and do the planning together. It is what has to be done.I don't see how you can put individual politics aside while still retaining politics. When you do the planning together, there are likely to be disagreements. Resolving those disagreements is politics. I say do it with private investment. That way, you can really put politics aside, both personally and collectively. If something is worth doing, the private sector will do it. The point, and the problem, is that neither private enterprise nor public coffers have the financial ability to attack the needs of transportation on their own. They need to work together. You must forget you are a capitlist, forget you are a socialist, or however you see yourself versus the other side and work out the solution. And it is fact that private enterprise has always worked with and needed government(s) aid in order to become and operate with charters, permissions, bonding, legalities like eminent domain, etc. And even today private enterprise does likewise; railroads have been leaders of needing government help are looking to government today for solutions to some of their problems. There never has been, in this country especially, a total seperation of private enterprise and government guidence. And the needs of the public for transportation services and the needs of private enterprise to endeavor to provide those services are not clashing with each other but rather are coming together in order for there to be a prosporous future for both.
Bucyrus wrote: henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: If the solution uses public money, then we should all get a vote on it. So how can you take politics out of that equation? Who said politics is out? I am saying put individual politics aside, roll up your sleeves, and sit down at the table and work out the problems and do the planning together. It is what has to be done.I don't see how you can put individual politics aside while still retaining politics. When you do the planning together, there are likely to be disagreements. Resolving those disagreements is politics. I say do it with private investment. That way, you can really put politics aside, both personally and collectively. If something is worth doing, the private sector will do it.
henry6 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: If the solution uses public money, then we should all get a vote on it. So how can you take politics out of that equation? Who said politics is out? I am saying put individual politics aside, roll up your sleeves, and sit down at the table and work out the problems and do the planning together. It is what has to be done.
Bucyrus wrote: If the solution uses public money, then we should all get a vote on it. So how can you take politics out of that equation?
If the solution uses public money, then we should all get a vote on it. So how can you take politics out of that equation?
Who said politics is out? I am saying put individual politics aside, roll up your sleeves, and sit down at the table and work out the problems and do the planning together. It is what has to be done.
I don't see how you can put individual politics aside while still retaining politics.
When you do the planning together, there are likely to be disagreements. Resolving those disagreements is politics. I say do it with private investment. That way, you can really put politics aside, both personally and collectively. If something is worth doing, the private sector will do it.
The point, and the problem, is that neither private enterprise nor public coffers have the financial ability to attack the needs of transportation on their own. They need to work together. You must forget you are a capitlist, forget you are a socialist, or however you see yourself versus the other side and work out the solution. And it is fact that private enterprise has always worked with and needed government(s) aid in order to become and operate with charters, permissions, bonding, legalities like eminent domain, etc. And even today private enterprise does likewise; railroads have been leaders of needing government help are looking to government today for solutions to some of their problems. There never has been, in this country especially, a total seperation of private enterprise and government guidence. And the needs of the public for transportation services and the needs of private enterprise to endeavor to provide those services are not clashing with each other but rather are coming together in order for there to be a prosporous future for both.
Pasadena Sub wrote: Willy2 wrote: Pasadena Sub wrote: When I buy a magazine, I like to read the entire thing--including the editorials. So the question is why should I continue to pay for a magazine if I am not going to read the whole thing? JamieIt seems to me that opinions are expressed in editorials. I don't know of anyone who agrees with everyone else on everything. Thus, I presume that by this point, you've cancelled your subscription to every magazine you've ever read, to every newspaper you've every read, and you've thrown your TV, radio, and computer out the window. Where did I say I don't enjoy reading opinions in editorials that I disagree with? I simply don't like reading Don Phillips' column. Not sure why this is getting blown up into a big deal. I don't enjoy reading negative rants that I pay to have delivered to my mailbox every 30 days and I am voicing my opinion with my checkbook. Jamie
Willy2 wrote: Pasadena Sub wrote: When I buy a magazine, I like to read the entire thing--including the editorials. So the question is why should I continue to pay for a magazine if I am not going to read the whole thing? JamieIt seems to me that opinions are expressed in editorials. I don't know of anyone who agrees with everyone else on everything. Thus, I presume that by this point, you've cancelled your subscription to every magazine you've ever read, to every newspaper you've every read, and you've thrown your TV, radio, and computer out the window.
Pasadena Sub wrote: When I buy a magazine, I like to read the entire thing--including the editorials. So the question is why should I continue to pay for a magazine if I am not going to read the whole thing? Jamie
When I buy a magazine, I like to read the entire thing--including the editorials. So the question is why should I continue to pay for a magazine if I am not going to read the whole thing? Jamie
It seems to me that opinions are expressed in editorials. I don't know of anyone who agrees with everyone else on everything. Thus, I presume that by this point, you've cancelled your subscription to every magazine you've ever read, to every newspaper you've every read, and you've thrown your TV, radio, and computer out the window.
Where did I say I don't enjoy reading opinions in editorials that I disagree with? I simply don't like reading Don Phillips' column. Not sure why this is getting blown up into a big deal. I don't enjoy reading negative rants that I pay to have delivered to my mailbox every 30 days and I am voicing my opinion with my checkbook. Jamie
I think you need to answer the questions: If you don't like reading Phillips' column, then why read it? Phillips' column has been a part of Trains for many, many years, and only NOW you finally are threatening to cancel your subsciption?
Go ahead and do it then. Why keep telling us? I daresay any one of us cares about anything you threaten to do.
Maybe Trains will make available a special issue without Phillips' column just for sensitive conscientious objectors like you.
Funny thing is, the Trains folks must be very pleased. They pay Phillips to write a column once a month and all this proves it is a wise decision -- because people are reading him.
PZ
The horse left the barn when the ink was still wet on the Constitution. In 1782 the brand new Federal Government built a lighthouse at Cape Henry to provide navigation for private ships coming and going from Cheasapeke Bay. Since then governments at all levels have been deeply involved in financing and operating transportation companies. For the former we have the Erie Canal, Illinois Central, Interstate Highways and air mail subsidies. For the later we have the Virginia Central (Buckingham Branch/CSXT) and Federal Barge Lines. There are thousands of other examples in raising money for new infrastructure for rail, water, highway and air.
This is the world we live in. Going forward that is not going to change with some grand scheme to privatize everything from the Cape Henry lighthouse to the NS' project to allow double stacks between Hampton Road and Ohio. Certainly some sort of balance needs to be struck between nationalizing everything in sight and Jim Young telling CA no thanks to Donner Pass money but that is the sand box we have to play in.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.