henry6 We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century! Unlike other countries which have figured out that a well planned, built and operated transportation network is good for the the overall economy of the country (i.e., private business as well as traveling public), we rely on stockholders needs to determine what we can and cannot have and do. If you can't make a million for yourself, then it ain't worth the effort. The public (and the economy and business prosperity[ current needs, and future existance]) be damned! Even the Robber Barrons of Yore understood that a lot of what they were doing was aimed at the larger picture of industrial and social development of the Country as a whole. Wait a minute, am I talking transportation or health care here?
We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century! Unlike other countries which have figured out that a well planned, built and operated transportation network is good for the the overall economy of the country (i.e., private business as well as traveling public), we rely on stockholders needs to determine what we can and cannot have and do. If you can't make a million for yourself, then it ain't worth the effort. The public (and the economy and business prosperity[ current needs, and future existance]) be damned! Even the Robber Barrons of Yore understood that a lot of what they were doing was aimed at the larger picture of industrial and social development of the Country as a whole. Wait a minute, am I talking transportation or health care here?
You're not sure what you're talking about? Well, that makes at least two of us.
You've made up an entirely new therory of economics that is unlike anything I ever studied. I know I shouldn't let this stuff bother me, but it does.
I don't like it when people just make stuff up to support their own desires. We can have good discussions on this forum when people are polite and stick to the truth. Trouble happens when they resort to making stuff up, and IMHO you're sure doing that.
With exceptions, such as the Northeast and local commuter services where there are significant externalities that justify state/local (but not Federal) government funding, we don't have a significant passenger train network because the people largely decided they would rather drive and/or fly. They had the trains as a good option and decided not to use that option.
This isn't your personal desired outcome, so I see you as fabricating a whole new wierd economic therory to justify changing by force an outcome you don't like.
To me, that's not honest. And that bothers me.
Greyhounds, I am just stating what I see. If you never heard of it before, so what? If it bothers you, so what? If its a different way of looking at things, so what?. As you point out, it doesn't seem to be some accepted acadamic or political theory, so what? Why not look at things differently than everyone else has, why not start thinking 'outside of the box'? Is it because it clashes with your learned theories and adopted political views? If it raises questions, makes people think, or gets answers,.all the better. And if no one else ever asked the questions or thought the thoughts, so what? Does that mean I am wrong? Or is it just that it bothers you?
To follow your commuter train theory. Federal aid does play a part in its existance. And it was public monies spent on highway construction, at the expense of private enterprise, that did it. What we have refered to as "the highway lobby" (and I'm not judging them here) helped make it happen. It was marketed to the public while taking away the alternative. And the East is not the only place such transit commitments have been made...stop blaming the east coast.
You have attacked me and my integrity but you have not really corrected my thinking with concrete answers and rebuttle. Show me where and why my questions are not legitimate? I am not "changing by force an outcome" I don't like. And I am not fabricating any "new economic" theory. I do have to agree with your insinuation that I am apparently not bright nor intellegent, at least not enough to invent new economic theories! If it came through my mind, someone else, somewhere, sometime, had to have planted it there.
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.
I will add my own limited two cents at this point: unless we look seriously at human behaviour, including economic behaviour, but also general commuting and moving for convenience and recreation behaviour, and use systems thinking in attempting to find a way to incorporate some considerable passenger rails that actually come partway toward paying for themselves, we might as well be counting waves on the shore.
As long as people can afford to buy cars, and replace them at times, and can afford a few liters of gas to get them within five blocks of their intended destination, there is zero incentive to use passenger rails. Who wants to be forced to take what amounts to a two hour investment in rail service, but then have to deal with the time of local transit in order to actually get out to where they need to be? And with the associated expense?
-Crandell
And Bucyrus, are you saying that if something doesn't make a financial profit, it shouldn't be done? That's exactly one of my points. If a bridge needs to be built across a body of water and building it won't provide a profit to the owner/operator, then are you saying it need not be built? I don't buy that. If commerce can be conducted by private business and industry which would both create jobs, enhance an economy and social structure, and make a profit for those businesses and industry, then why not have a consortium build it. The consortium in place is government. Should we keep inventing new levels of bureaucies ( Authorities like NJ-NYPort Authory, et al.) and should they be private for profit companies or non profit government agencies?
henry6And Bucyrus, are you saying that if something doesn't make a financial profit, it shouldn't be done?
More or less, but profit is not the issue. The issue is whether the users will pay for the project, or whether the cost will be spread out to people who have no need for the project. The profit component is just the necessary indicator that someone in the private sector has recognized that there was enough need by people willing to pay to have their need satisfied.
I use the criteria of whether or not some endeavor will provide a profit if it is done as being the qualification of whether the endeavor is needed. In other words, if the people who want to use the bridge are not sufficient in number or unwilling to pay for the bridge through their use, then the bridge is not worth building.
Anybody can make the argument that their want is shared by others, and therefore it should rise to the level of a societal need that must be fulfilled. But under that criteria, there is no limit to the societal needs, and yet there are limits to society’s funds.
So then where is the line, the decision point, that a bridge or highway or airport or rail line need be provided? If we know the value of each of those things, why is the railroad the only one we say has to be with private funds while the others might be publicly funded?
I am of the opinion that there has to be a meeting of the minds as to what is good of the entire community, both business and people. So there has to be a point where government action is deemed necessary so that business can flourish which in turns allows people to flourish.
This arguement that if I don't use it then I don't want to pay for it doesn't work anymore. I don't use I80 west of Mt. Pocono, so why should I pay for it all the way to the West Coast? Or I don't use airplanes, so why should I pay for the airports? The list goes on and on. But in the larger picture, those questions don't make sense. Because I do, somehow, somewhere along the line, get the benefit, as does everybody. Maybe it allows a certain manufacturer to exist in my community or to bring his product to me from another. The manufacturer in my community creates jobs and fuels the local economy; the manufacturer in another community has done the same there. And the question here is how much is too much an investment in railroads...frieght and passenger...to no longer be a universal benefit? Or in air ports and air traffic control? Or highways?
henry6We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century!
Henry, your statement is true but you need to ask why the railroads did not see any possibility of a return on investment in passenger trains after WWII. First you should note that there WAS substantial investment in the immediate post war period, say 1946-1957. I think that management made an error in making that investment, but pre war they had a modest operating profit on main line passenger service so perhaps they can be excused for not seeing the Interstate Highway Act of 1958. Not sure of the date but the last new passenger equipment was ordered within months of that bill passing.
By the end of the war management could see almost 30 years of public investment in the highway system. That investment decimated the short haul and branch line passenger service. Passenger miles sold fell off a clif in the 1920's due to paved roads and the Model T. Management knew this in 1945 and they should have been able to predict that highway investment would baloon after the war putting more pressure on passenger, and freight traffic.
The war did wonders for aviation technonogy due to the forced draft of defense purchases of bombers and cargo planes. The pattern of governments at all levels investing in airports was well established by 1945. Boeing introduced the 707 about 1957.
Management has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders and bondholders. In plain language that means they have an obligation not to invest in things they believe will not make money. Their decision to invest no more in passenger equipment and services, and then to get out as quickly as they could was correct. The government could have chosen to subsidize privately operated passenger service. In fact, they began a program to remove mail from the trains in the mid to late 1960's. That was the death knell to some passenger trains and hurt all to which it happened, which was the vast majority.
The public left the passenger trains as soon as they had a better alternative. The government did much to provide those altermatives by providing "free" rights of way. Those rights of way were far from free in an economic sense, massive resources were committed to build them, but they were perceived, as intended by the proponents, to be free. What are you complaining about??
Mac
greyhounds solzrules This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not. I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. Yeah. Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like. It's been a part of my life for almost half a century. I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money. I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew. My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived. No more. Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US. He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting. But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently. I'm "Howling"? I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't. 1) I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy. In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network. The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US. How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason. This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him. I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie. I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally. I'm "Howling"? If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same. Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things. He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things. If that's the way they want to go, that's fine. It's their magazine. But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money. I think the December issue is decent. But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves. Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains. Check page 33. The top photo. There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist. That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive. It would be nice to learn something about it. But there's nothing written at all about the machine. It's a nice photo. And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos. (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train. No mention of that either.) The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too. We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc. The photo on pages 42-43 is nice. But there's more information about the church than the train. The train is incidental. What train is it? Where is it going? What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it? I want to know about the train. That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine. (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.) The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains. I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view. His December editorial indicates he doesn't. And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs.
solzrules This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not. I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid.
This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not. I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid.
Yeah.
Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like. It's been a part of my life for almost half a century. I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money. I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew. My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived. No more.
Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US. He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting. But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently. I'm "Howling"?
I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't. 1) I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy. In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network. The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US. How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason. This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him. I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie. I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally. I'm "Howling"?
If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same. Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things. He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things. If that's the way they want to go, that's fine. It's their magazine. But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money.
I think the December issue is decent. But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves. Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains.
Check page 33. The top photo. There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist. That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive. It would be nice to learn something about it. But there's nothing written at all about the machine. It's a nice photo. And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos. (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train. No mention of that either.)
The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too. We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc. The photo on pages 42-43 is nice. But there's more information about the church than the train. The train is incidental. What train is it? Where is it going? What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it? I want to know about the train. That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine. (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.)
The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains.
I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view. His December editorial indicates he doesn't. And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs.
Points noted..Yet, you will continue to post on a free forum provided by that publication?..interesting
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 greyhounds solzrules This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not. I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. Yeah. Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like. It's been a part of my life for almost half a century. I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money. I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew. My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived. No more. Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US. He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting. But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently. I'm "Howling"? I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't. 1) I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy. In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network. The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US. How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason. This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him. I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie. I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally. I'm "Howling"? If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same. Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things. He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things. If that's the way they want to go, that's fine. It's their magazine. But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money. I think the December issue is decent. But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves. Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains. Check page 33. The top photo. There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist. That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive. It would be nice to learn something about it. But there's nothing written at all about the machine. It's a nice photo. And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos. (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train. No mention of that either.) The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too. We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc. The photo on pages 42-43 is nice. But there's more information about the church than the train. The train is incidental. What train is it? Where is it going? What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it? I want to know about the train. That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine. (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.) The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains. I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view. His December editorial indicates he doesn't. And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs. Points noted..Yet, you will continue to post on a free forum provided by that publication?..interesting
I am looking forward to reading Wrinn’s editorial, but I can’t find the magazine yet on the newsstands. I happen to agree with most of Greyounds' views on the direction of the magazine, but I don’t see how that is inconsistent with posting in their free forums. In fact, if I were publishing a magazine, I would sure want feedback, both positive and negative to help me match the market preference as well as possible.
Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines. His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew. Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.
henry6 Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines. His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew. Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.
You do not need to subscribe to any of the magazines in order to post here.
Perhaps the editorial direction of Trains is changing because of the current harsh realities of the publishing industry. Is it possible that the magazine management believes they have more to gain from going in this (new?) direction than they do from being a magazine of statistics and information with a neutral editorial content?
Secondly, perhaps the aging demographics of the magazine's readership tell us that "new ocassions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth." I'd rather that Trains not only survives, but flourishes, and that may well mean a new editorial direction. I don't know.
I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons. So if the magazine wishes to promote high speed rail, and doing so helps it survive the very dismal state of magazine publishing today, then so be it.
NKP guyI will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons.
What dismays me is railfans who are willing to overlook financial irresponsibility and ruinous public spending if they get new trains in the deal.
Oh those pesky financial reasons. The Government says I can have a big house, even though I can not make the payments. That worked so well we are ratcheting up the debt machine and passenger service is a minute part of it. When the rest of the world figures out that US government paper is no better than derivitaves of mortgaged backed securities we will see a depression the likes of which this country has never seen while the Government raises taxes ever higher to try to cover all the entitlements. Who do you think is going to pay for it? A few years ago I read "Atlas Shrugged" and thought it was quite fancifull. Today I think it is a prophecy.
A few of us are trying to point out the financial consequences of government decisions. It seems to be a lost cause both here and in general. I hope to die before the economy really collapses, but I am not optimistic since I am only 60 years old. Thank God I do not have any kids to worry about.
I do appreciate your ideas but I disagree. You are entirely right about passenger service being "a minute part of it." That is exactly my point. Don't sweat the small stuff when we're talking about the national debt (cue to PhoebeVet).
Also, I'm older than you (61!) and I have thousands of children to worry about...they're my former students who need a competitive transportation system for their, and their children's, future. Growing the economy is the best way to pay down our national debt.
NKP guyYou are entirely right about passenger service being "a minute part of it." That is exactly my point. Don't sweat the small stuff when we're talking about the national debt
I agree that growing the economy is the best way to pay down the debt, but I don’t see how deficit spending on HSR is going grow the economy. But to your point about HSR being chump change compared to the national debt. I am not sure what minimalist number you are referring to, but we now have $8-billion on the table.
Most HSR advocates won’t be satisfied with anything less than a national system of lines and trains connecting most major cities. $8-billion is not going to even pay for the meetings that will be necessary to build that national system. The Hiawatha LRT in Minneapolis ran about $3/4-billion, and that system is a drop in the bucket compared to a national system of HSR. So don’t see how you can characterize the price tag for HSR as being inconsequential.
NKP
As a famous Illinois politician once said "A billion here, a billion there. After a while it adds up to real money."
henry6Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines. His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew. Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.
Fortunately for all of you fine folks I have't cancelled ALL of the subscriptions I had with Kalmbach - just the one that was screaming about how we need more taxes to have a really fancy high speed rail network that will do nothing other than give some people on this forum more things to talk mindlessly about.
I am glad to see that the moderators here have now taken censorship to an entirely new level and censored out words that aren't even curse words. Apparently, the use of colorful but curse free language to describe the idiocy (can I use that one?) here is just too much for some.
In any case, don't worry. As long as Kalmbach keeps Tom Murray and Jim Wrinn from writing their 'tax us for the trains' garbage out of Model Railroader I'll do just fine. To everyone's delight I will continue to offer my two cents for the immediate future.
Cheers.
I take it you don't subscribe to any airline magazines. Or highway construction magazines. Probably not contractor magazines either. Certainly you have your model magazine deliverd by UPS and not by the government owned and operated US Postal Service. Drink water from the tap or bottled water from the store? Do you even drive a car?
solzrules Fortunately for all of you fine folks I have't cancelled ALL of the subscriptions I had with Kalmbach - just the one that was screaming about how we need more taxes to have a really fancy high speed rail network that will do nothing other than give some people on this forum more things to talk mindlessly about. I am glad to see that the moderators here have now taken censorship to an entirely new level and censored out words that aren't even curse words. Apparently, the use of colorful but curse free language to describe the idiocy (can I use that one?) here is just too much for some. In any case, don't worry. As long as Kalmbach keeps Tom Murray and Jim Wrinn from writing their 'tax us for the trains' garbage out of Model Railroader I'll do just fine. To everyone's delight I will continue to offer my two cents for the immediate future. Cheers.
Words get auto censored in the program, not because they are dirty or curses, but rather because people with aggressive personality disorders use them to intentionally offend or insult people.
Since this thread has degenerated into a childish name calling fest it will probably soon be locked.
Too bad, there are a lot of interesting points being made in the debate.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I find one of the arguments being made by some of the posters here rather odd: some seem to be trying to imply that TRAINS did not advocate for public investment in Amtrak and commuter rail until Mr. Wrinn's becoming editor. I have read trains consistently since the late 70's/early 80's and can only recall a few contributors who were contrarians on that subject (John Kneilling being perhaps the prime example)...
solzrules...I am glad to see that the moderators here have now taken censorship to an entirely new level and censored out words that aren't even curse words. Apparently, the use of colorful but curse free language to describe the idiocy (can I use that one?) here is just too much for some...
Your choices of words are sometimes going to fall in a grey area where some of the readership here find the term sufficiently ambiguous or offensive to submit an objection.
For the record, the term you used, starting with a "k" and ending with "...olisher" is not offensive to me, personally, since I think I took it as I you claim you intended...merely as a pejorative and not as an indication of sexual orientation. I would have used the term 'sycophant', but that's just me. Yet, if people at various points in the country complain because your words have a more objectionable connotation locally, it is a small thing to alter what you wrote to make it more acceptable. After all, your first intent is to get some sort of a point across, no? The alternative was to delete your remarks entirely, sans alteration.
Which would you prefer? I'll keep it in mind for the next time.
NKP guy Does America compete in the 21st century or quit the race because it costs money to make up for the lost time of the last 40 or 50 years? I'm glad to pay more taxes to keep my country competitive and strong.
I don't even think you would need to go with MORE taxes as much as TARGETTED. Or rather, prioritized.
This argument seems to be more centered on what type of a vision do you have for your country? I'd love to see a country centered on its possibilities or potentials than the ever popular cry---But it Costs $$$ !!! WAAAH!! Waiting for the dollar bill to suddenly show up and LEAD the way is not going to work here.
This is what our collective mindset has given us----we have become afraid to spend any kind of money on doing what would give us what our collective forefathers have worked so hard on---they had the vision------we have the billfold
Maybe a way looking at this is to see all of us as a type of investor---why do we not invest in our own countries? In our local innovators? Local businesses? GROW our markets? MMM?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
garrGet the country's finances in order, then talk national high speed rail. Infrastructure is important, but our elected officials need to have the discipline to say no to pet projects that take the money away from needed ones.
Couple of questions---get the countries finances in order? How? I got into a discussion on this kind of thing awhile back and came up with an interesting issue---in order to get out of a pickle one had to do something radical---this could take one of several routes---one was to just stop paying for anything and putting all that $$$ into the debt. Problem---social issues and what all else
The other soluton would be to do the second part of what you said here----that may be a hard row to hoe but the alternative is not a pleasent one---
The second question ties in with the first in that one has to find exactly WHICH projects are needed and WHICH projects are pet projects and ---WHO decides this? I tend to favour a detached observor from Mars---perhaps
solzrules The US government has no money, no surplus, no budget gimmick, that can produce the amount of money this will require. Raising taxes when the unemployment rate is at 10% in an economy that gets most of its strength from consumer spending takes money away from the consumer and puts it in the pocket of government. People can't afford this anymore.
Since the government has no money, no surplus---one could argue here that there is no income either as it all has to satisfy a humungous debt---and all else then how does one even get the day to day stuff done? Here is where these rhetorical responses trip us up ---NO money? Then explain all the government duties still being accomplished--you still have a military force do you not? they are still being paid? Or is it done through pretend money? Like scrip?
As for the consumer spending? When they do not have the cash themselves? Don't forget there is a huge consumer debt load sitting over them too. We have Ford now saying that a local plant--Ford Talbotville will be closing---1,500 people out there in a year---so much for taxpayers there---so much for a consumer market---can't buy too many iPods here can you? If the consumer really started to choke up on the debt market (some call it credit but there we go) the way the banks recently did there would be even more of an issue here----
I think we need to think other than the usual way here---do we wait until that magic time when the money will be around so things can be done then?
blownout cylinder Couple of questions---get the countries finances in order? How? ....one was to just stop paying for anything and putting all that $$$ into the debt. Problem---social issues and what all else The other soluton would be to do the second part of what you said here----that may be a hard row to hoe but the alternative is not a pleasent one--- The second question ties in with the first in that one has to find exactly WHICH projects are needed and WHICH projects are pet projects and ---WHO decides this? I tend to favour a detached observor from Mars---perhaps
Couple of questions---get the countries finances in order? How? ....one was to just stop paying for anything and putting all that $$$ into the debt. Problem---social issues and what all else
How? As I stated in one of the earlier posts on this thread, maybe a change in voter psychology to elect, i.e. value, candidates for what they DON'T spend. Yeah right!
I do not know the financial situation north of the border, but the USA has reached the point where only 55% of the workforce pays federal taxes. This puts us close to the tail wagging the dog scenario--the ones who don't pay taxes dictating, via the ballot box, how our taxes are spent.
The USA has an "advertised" national debt of $10+ trillion, however if you throw in the unfunded programs such as the proverbial social security trust fund(if found, it would be a pile of IOU notes, not cash) the true national debt is $60+ trillion plus. How is this able to happen? By foreign countries buying our treasury notes. So far China, Germany, and Japan have been large purchasers. But what happens if they decide not to buy? What country(ies) will step up to replace them? Not too many choices out there.
This sets the American dollar up for devaluing. Thus inflation.
As far as your second question, the President could easily have this authority if the line item veto was allowed. However this is not allowed on a national level yet most, if not all, of our 50 states give their governor this power.
Jay
BTW, a detached observer from Pluto might be more appropriate since our politicians are so Goofy (I would have said Uranus but someone could take that personally)
garrHow? As I stated in one of the earlier posts on this thread, maybe a change in voter psychology to elect, i.e. value, candidates for what they DON'T spend. Yeah right!
That may work---key being "May" I'd extend that psychology a bit further though. At this point not only is government debt important but we all are in the same bucket in terms of consumer debt as well. Being something of a miserly cuss at times, I've suggested to some that one could indenture all of us into a type of slavery and dump all the money that would have been paid out to the debt instead. HOWEVER, that being said, it ain't gonna happen because----you already know what would happen with the money----in the hands of a bureaucracy? My thing now is to ask ---"how is it that we ccan forgive all kinds of debt everywhere else but here? Kinda odd don't you think?
I've also been known to ask really odd questions---like---whence money? Where did the idea: Money come from? Out of a cocked hat? Did it fall--unbidden--from the sky? I say this---it was an idea that stemmed from man--from humans. The fact that we can influence the value--as in a herd mentality--does indicate to me that there is something to the arguement that a market comprises a herd. And that we as humans have left our brains elsewhere-----
garrThe USA has an "advertised" national debt of $10+ trillion, however if you throw in the unfunded programs such as the proverbial social security trust fund(if found, it would be a pile of IOU notes, not cash) the true national debt is $60+ trillion plus. How is this able to happen? By foreign countries buying our treasury notes. So far China, Germany, and Japan have been large purchasers. But what happens if they decide not to buy? What country(ies) will step up to replace them? Not too many choices out there.
Does that total include total consumer debt? If not then ---- Also---who gets the payments on that debt?
garrBTW, a detached observer from Pluto might be more appropriate since our politicians are so Goofy (I would have said Uranus but someone could take that personally)
----same up here----
petitnj And Europe's system is subsidized and expensive to ride. The per mile cost of a train ticket is typically about 3 times the coach fare of Amtrak.
And Europe's system is subsidized and expensive to ride. The per mile cost of a train ticket is typically about 3 times the coach fare of Amtrak.
First for subsides -- typical symantics at it's worst. The FAA employes aircraft controllers -- subsidy or just gov't employees? Cities fund airports thru bond issues -- subsidy or just part of gov't debt? The Army Corps of Engineers build locks and dams, dredge canals and the like -- subsidy for barge lines or just part of their budget ?? Ditto for the Coast Guard who uses ice breakers to open up Lake Superior for the ore boats -- subsidy or just their duty to perform?? The whole subsidy issue is a pretty lame excuse to me.
I used to live in Reno, NV but now enjoy my retirement in Trieste, Italy where I make frequent trips to Venice -- by rail of course. I also have made many rail trips over Donner on my way to visit my son in San Jose. I will make a quick comparison of the two routes as in some ways they are similar. Neither route is high speed, with the first 20 or so miles out of Trieste resembling Donner in respect to the curvature, where the line hugs steep limestone cliffs along the coast, using several long stone arch bridges and several tunnels in the process. There are 32 trains each way to Venice (half via Udine, which is a longer, less direct route), Amtrak has 1 each way to Sacramento and there is only one route.
Trieste to Venice is 71 miles for a ride that lasts 2 hours 6 minutes. There are 9 intermediate stops and the trip costs $13.62 at present exchange rates. The whole thing equates to 19.18 cents per mile with an average speed of 33.8 MPH. The first 20 minutes is slow running as the limit in this portion is 30 to 60 MPH due to curves. There is a 90 MPH limit on the plains and this is normal for everyday trains. I estimate the speeds thru the curves to be 25 MPH faster than in the US and you can definetely feel the centifigal force, something you do not experience on Amtrak. Most trains are Regional work-a-day trains, altho we do get one Eurostar to Rome, a few EuroStar City trains, and several CisAlpina trains bound for Switzerland, but they do not go into Vencie Santa Lucia Station but stop in Venice Mestre on the mainland. On time arrival within 2 minutes -- 100 %, with most arrivals within 30 seconds or so.
Reno to Sacramento is 111 miles for a ride that lasts 3 hours 50 minutes. There are 3 intermediate stops and the trip costs $42.00. The whole thing equates to 37.84 cents per mile at an average speed of 28.93 MPH. The speed over Donner is 30 MPH due to grade and curvature, and except for a short stretch of 79 MPH running, the max speed allowed anywhere is 50 MPH. You do not feel the curves at all. On time arrival within 30 minutes -- ZERO. One trip was 8 hours late, with several more in the 4-6 hour range. One guy quipped once in this forum that you don't need a watch for the CZ, you need a calendar.
It's obvious that Amtrak is way more expensive and a lot slower. Amtrak's equipment is top notch compared to FS, but their frequency and on-time arrival is near zero. Once I didn't even get to my destination the same day! Amtrak's cost per mile is almost double that of FS, and altho the overall speed is roughly equal, FS generally makes a stop every 14 minutes on average, which severely restricts overall speed. Amtrak averages 1 hour 16 minutes between stops, so that is not much of an issue.
As for freight, the tunnel linking Trieste's port to the mainline passes almost directly under our building, and although I live on the 9th floor, you can still hear the rumble. I think there's about one every 1 or 2 hours, but they are short and light -- about 30 cars. But fast! Their track speed is about 10-15 MPH slower than passenger, which puts them in the 60-70 MPH range. They do not interfere with the passenger trains at all.
Phoebe VetWords get auto censored in the program, not because they are dirty or curses, but rather because people with aggressive personality disorders use them to intentionally offend or insult people.
And thank goodness you've diagnosed my problem. I have no problem offending you, since your intial comment offended me. Interesting also to note that the term 'teabag' when used in conjunction with the tea parties (I'm assuming that is what you were referring to) last summer was meant to be sexually deragatory. But, since you hold with the majority opinion here, you of course are free to comment at will but I need to be lectured to for my use of profane and obscene language (neither of which it was).
Again, go pound sand.
henry6I take it you don't subscribe to any airline magazines. Or highway construction magazines. Probably not contractor magazines either. Certainly you have your model magazine deliverd by UPS and not by the government owned and operated US Postal Service. Drink water from the tap or bottled water from the store? Do you even drive a car?
Nope. I don't drive a car, drink tap water, or read. In fact, I think I might be illiterate. As for how my magazine gets here, I just go out to the little rectangle on my front gate and it magically shows up there every month. I don't understand it, but just assume that it is heaven sent. Besides - it has pictures. Big pictures with few words (my favorite kind).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.