IC Land; You present over-generalizations and exaggerations. I do doubt if the 30' of books about land grant railroads and corruption are largely about the corruption. You also have made some sweeping generalizations about all the legislative corruption around land grants. You seem to be driven by an agenda to demonize that legislative action both in particular and general as well as any government subsidies, which in this case were repaid. Check me if I err, but I am not aware of a major eastward push from California prior to the CP. The SP 2nd transcon was completed in 1885. Also the CP was not leased by the SP until 1885, 16 years after the Golden Spike, although both were controlled by the Big Four and since 1870 had merged operations. If it was as unnecessary as you imply, why was it leased?
California: 1860 population 380K, 1870 570K, 1880 864K, 1890 1.2 mil.
Oregon: In 1860 population 52K, 1870 91K, 1880 175K, 1890 318K.
Looks to me like rail linkage led to tremendous growth.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmYou present over-generalizations and exaggerations. I do doubt if the 30' of books about land grant railroads and corruption are largely about the corruption. You also have made some sweeping generalizations ..... You seem to be driven by an agenda ...
Well, OK, I'm not blind; I see what kind of discussion you're having now. Let me know if you have anything else you need from me on this material.
schlimmCalifornia: 1860 population 380K, 1870 570K, 1880 864K, 1890 1.2 mil. Looks to me like rail linkage led to tremendous growth.
Well, before I turn in, let me have a little fun as I see that the presentation wasn't "quite" what it seemed.
California's average decennial growth rate over the two decades before the transcontinental railroad arrived was 279%. In the three full decades after the transcontinental railroad arrived, California's average decennial growth rate was a paltry 139%. That post-transcontinental growth rate was substantially lower than California's average decennial growth rate, 1860-2000, of 157%. So, that presents an interesting picture: California's growth rate was significantly lower during the thirty years after the arrival of the transcontinental connection than during the twenty years before, or compared to the average growth rate enjoyed by California over its 140 year decennial history.
Until the 1970s, the closest California came to growth rates that low were during the depression years of the 1890s and the 1930s. In other words, California approached Depression era growth rates (122% in both instances) after the arrival of the transcontinental connections. That raises questions, for me, rather than providing satisfying answers.
Absolute numbers can look like "tremendous growth" but perhaps they only offer an opportunity for an exaggeration. What they don't show is that, for some reason, California was much less the promised land after the transcontinental connection than it was before that connection was made. And it took thirty years to recover to the higher rates of growth; actually the decade ending in 1910 with 160% -- nearly forty years.
Something happened. What was it?
Presumably, California was no less sunny and attractive. Think that something ... economic ... may have happened? Markets perhaps ... fell? Farming was perhaps ... less attractive as the result of commodity gluts? I don't know. I can only see that things slowed up considerably compared to before, and compared to the following period.
I do think this is an interesting example of "numbers" looking "a little different" when put into a context. And, without more, I would not know what either the "tremendous growth" meant, or the sharp decline in the rate of growth meant. Only that they happened. And I have no doubt that railroads brought people to places; that was not among my points which were directed to economics, not demographics.
Paul_D_North_Jr Thanks, ICLand, for that research, the citation, and the informed and thoughtful reply.
Thanks, ICLand, for that research, the citation, and the informed and thoughtful reply.
And thank you for your kind remarks.
Beats being accused of everything under the sun as the reward for spending a few hours at the library. It is amazing to me how a few facts proposed to support a proposition can erupt into accusations of personal agendas, and generalizations and oh my.
In any case, it was time well spent as far as I am concerned.
I came away with a whole new perspective on the matter, and I am impressed at just how much research has been done on the subject of Land Grants, including several volumes of congressional hearings at different points in time.
Even though I grew up in "Land Grant" country, and have dealt with land grant issues peripherally most of my adult life, it hadn't occurred to me that the Land Grant process itself had created dysfunctional farming units, whereas strictly Homestead Act sales along the non-Land Grant railroads had allowed the original Homesteaders to make rational aggregations of land around conceptually sound units of agriculture that could take into account key local topological features crucial to successful farming.
This is suggestive that the very high failure rate of homesteaders when the railroads "opened" up the country is likely directly connected to the fact of Land Grants themselves and the checkerboard nature of their distribution: a process that increased the likelihood of failure when farmers did move West. Kind of a Murphy's Law of good intentions gone horribly awry.
That would make an interesting research paper, and perhaps it has already been done, but it alters my perception considerably of the practical effect of Land Grant railroads on the people it was "supposed" to help the most, and the process of settlement that was supposed to be the key.
Perhaps sometime I will get an opportunity to look more closely at it and see how far the idea goes. Given the reception here, I doubt that new information would be welcome or useful, but, we'll see.
IC: I really was not seeking an argument. I thought your discussion a while back on Staggers and merger metrics was very informative. My quibble with you here was that I thought you were coming to a judgment about the Land Grants from too narrow a perspective. I was not changing the topic or daisy chaining, merely raising questions about other historical impacts. I think we were talking at cross purposes.
The older wind farms were bad for birds and the blades did in fact spin like a Cuisineart. The towers were built as open steel frames which made nice bird nesting places, and the blades were smaller and spun fast so they killed lots of birds.
Newer units have a single piece tower that is not attractive to the birds, though it looks a lot nicer to humans, and the bigger blades turn slowly eliminating the bird hit hazard.
The famous Altamont Pass wind farm is an example of the bad older design and has given current wind farms a bad rap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_energy_converter5.jpg
Don't forget that oil and other forms of energy are also heavily subsidized. A recent study indicated that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline would be about $15.00 without all the tax payer funded subsidies. Think of the cost of running the military that defends the shipping lanes and gave us access to Iraq's oil as but one example.
subsidy |ˈsəbsidē|noun ( pl. -dies)1 a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive : a farm subsidy | they disdain government subsidy.• a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.• a sum of money paid by one government to another for the preservation of neutrality, the promotion of war, or to repay military aid.• a grant or contribution of money.2 historical a parliamentary grant to the sovereign for state needs.• a tax levied on a particular occasion.ORIGIN late Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French subsidie, from Latin subsidium ‘assistance.’
As long as you're on the subsidy kick, add the trucking industry - latest ASCE reports say they are still not paying their fair share of road use taxes and have rung up a huge deficit since the 1950's when it was really bad.(and railroads were paying diesel fuel taxes to support road construction
Back in 1989 or so the D&H abandoned their Penn Division line that ran from Nineveh Junction, NY, just below my house, to Lanesboro, PA. They soon tore up the tracks and I started pushing to convert the right of way into a hiking and bike trail. I wrote letters to the editor, put up a web page on the topic and talked to local politicians.
http://nineveh-junction.com/rail-trail/
The section of the line from Lanesboro to Simpson, PA had been abandoned earlier and a group in Pennsylvania had already acquired that part of the right of way and had begun work to create a trail. The New York trail would have met theirs at the state line and become part of a trail system that would one day extend to the Susquehanna river near Scranton, PA.
We had some community support and the local pols were interested. We also had some local opposition. Some of this was from people who had already begun squatting on the line. One opponent plowed the right of way under, put a building on it and planted grass so you couldn't even tell the rail line had been there. If you tried to walk the right of way in his area he would set his dogs loose on you.
The opponents put out stories about people dumping garbage on the trail (they already were on the undeveloped right of way), and how the hikers would make noise, and how rapists and child molesters would take over the trail. Fear often works well in these cases.
We had many meetings and the opponents would always show up and spout their nonsense.
Just this week I learned a local snowmobile club raised enough money and has purchased the right of way. They will be using it for motor bikes and running snow mobiles. I hope the neighbors prefer them to peaceful hikers and bicyclists.
zinker The older wind farms were bad for birds and the blades did in fact spin like a Cuisineart. The towers were built as open steel frames which made nice bird nesting places, and the blades were smaller and spun fast so they killed lots of birds. Newer units have a single piece tower that is not attractive to the birds, though it looks a lot nicer to humans, and the bigger blades turn slowly eliminating the bird hit hazard. The famous Altamont Pass wind farm is an example of the bad older design and has given current wind farms a bad rap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_energy_converter5.jpg
My dad told me a story about the first Wind Turbine in Ohio. It was built directly in the path of the migration of the Monarch Butterfly. They learned two things.
They had to shut the turbines down every year since to let the butterfly past. Score one for the Envirnmentalists...
-Morgan
zinker Don't forget that oil and other forms of energy are also heavily subsidized. A recent study indicated that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline would be about $15.00 without all the tax payer funded subsidies. Think of the cost of running the military that defends the shipping lanes and gave us access to Iraq's oil as but one example.
Anytime somebody wants to feed at the public trough, they come up with a study that proves that they should get a subsidy because everybody else is getting one.
In this case, I don't think its about arguing that they should get a subsidy, because everyone else is rather, its a counter to the argument that "This shouldn't exist because it requires a subsidy."
As the person that initially brought the land grants up, I should respond I suppose.
ICLand makes a correct assessment when he mentions that HSR seems to be more about Social issues than economic ones. That is exactly correct. And land grants were no different.
The Transcontinental Railroad was built, because it was deemed valuable to the nation that California be connected by rail. Partially for practical reasons, the Overland route and the Sea route were both long and dangerous. And social/political purposes such as uniting the nation and picking sides on the issue of slavery. Certainly there were economic goals as well that may not have been valid and certainly there were less than savory interests that fully intended to bilk the system. The Same men after all built the CP as built the SP and in both cases, they were in it for the money and were less than scrupulous.
But again, these are social purposes. I would argue that building the transcon earlier than economics dictated had, or was at least assumed to have social value to this nation independent of economic value.
I say this not intending to suggest that Land grants in general or in the specific form granted were needed, only that the railroad was perceived to be needed RIGHT THEN! and that therefore measures that produced that result were deemed prudent.
I suppose it would be an interesting debate as to whether the social needs for the Transcon ultimately made the economic suffering worth it. Populists like Stephan E. Ambrose would probably have said yes. Others probably wouldn't.
Also, as for growth in California, The numbers prior to the Transcon are greatly influenced by the Gold Rush. And in fact that gold rush and the subsequent comstock load are what drove the Big 4 to build the CP moreso even than the government grants. After all, there was obvious economic value in a railroad into Nevada or at least a graded wagon route. At least so my coffeetable histories tell me. In either case, it seems pretty obvious that it is the loss of Gold fever and easy money that puts the brakes on emigration post Transcon. Of course, the emigration history of California is a curious one. Like, why did the Spanish putter around in boring useless Baja for so long and ignore Alta California which was more lush and productive? That's far off topic though.
It seems pretty clear to me from the history I've read (which isn't all that much) that the Transcon is a social response to the growth of the far west, not an attempt to spur such growth. It further seems obvious to me that the relative productive value of the interior land between the west coast and The then midwest frontier was not of any interest to the government at all. It had political value in the brewing fight that became the civil war, but little economic value. Nobody in congress voted for landgrants to spur the development of say Nebraska. At least not in the case of the UP/CP grants.
And to tie this all back to HSR and the intercity rail in Wisconsin, my point was that requiring a subsidy is not a valid reason to mark a project of no value. The Social value of transportation as expressed in subsidies dates back to the 19th century and further essentially all transportation is subsidized. I was likely headed down a rat hole by trying to question the actual economic value to anyone at all. Not because there isn't any, but because its really a social value anyway.
The dominance of personal cars was spurred by subsidies of the highway system enacted for social reasons, the subsidization of airports and air travel has social value not economic value. The purpose of subsidies is to enable an activity that has questionable economic value as a business or high risk, but significant social value.
As for route sharing with existing freight railroads, there are 2 reasons for this. In the first case, the routing is to save money. Also, please do remember that many if not all of these routes used to support 110MPH passenger service. 60 years ago, such service was not abnormal at all, so no, there won't be a lot of easing curves and altering alignments. There will be a lot of additional sidings and track improvements that have lapsed in the past 60 years.
The other reason for route sharing is more practical. In some areas, such as California, there simply are no viable alternates. If you want to get from the Central Valley of California to the LA basin, your options are very limited and Tehachapi is the best one.
The HSR authorities have made some bad engineering assumptions in some cases with regards to this, but the overall issue of finding a viable route remains.
So again I say, requiring a subsidy for a passenger rail project does not invalidate said project.
YoHo1975 I would argue that building the transcon earlier than economics dictated had, or was at least assumed to have social value to this nation independent of economic value.
I would argue that building the transcon earlier than economics dictated had, or was at least assumed to have social value to this nation independent of economic value.
Society can address all of its social needs through the economic system. If everybody wants a railroad, they join forces and build it. Your description of social needs sounds you have some independent entity who is in charge of deciding what is good for society whether society realizes it or not. If not enough of society wants a railroad enough to pay for it with their own sweat and blood, who should say otherwise and what would their reason be?
YoHo1975 ICLand makes a correct assessment when he mentions that HSR seems to be more about Social issues than economic ones. That is exactly correct. And land grants were no different. The Transcontinental Railroad was built, because it was deemed valuable to the nation that California be connected by rail. ... But again, these are social purposes. I would argue that building the transcon earlier than economics dictated had, or was at least assumed to have social value to this nation independent of economic value. I say this not intending to suggest that Land grants in general or in the specific form granted were needed, only that the railroad was perceived to be needed RIGHT THEN! and that therefore measures that produced that result were deemed prudent.
The Transcontinental Railroad was built, because it was deemed valuable to the nation that California be connected by rail. ...
And that perhaps neatly sums up the connection or the "moral to the story."
There is almost nothing in the record regarding any efforts to foresee the ultimate economic results of the Transcontinental Railroad construction. Like many political programs: the advocates of the proposition could carry the day, because they were the only ones invested in the outcome of passage of the bill. Or at least being paid.
That underscores a weakness of the "system." How much time and energy can opponents, who are not "invested" in the outcome, spend on opposing these kinds of projects and developing the long term models showing ultimate economic effects .... let alone predict what might happen as a result of the "law of unintended consequence."
I am reading the same headlines this very morning: the United States spent a trillion dollars of our children's money for a "stimulus," and the results were worse than the predicted outcomes without the "stimulus." And the results are worse, as reported this morning, than for those nations -- Germany, France, Russia, India -- that tried to get by with far smaller packages or none at all; their economies are beginning to boom again while ours looks for a "double dip" even as proponents are arguing for an even BIGGER stimulus.
To me, that underscores the importance of "general principles" to be discerned from historical experience when it comes to large government projects or enterprises. And If the Land Grant enterprise had shown positive results, that certainly would leave the door open for future major government initiatives of that kind. But, the results from the literature show a devastating impact at the largest macroeconomic level, even while subjecting tens of thousands of hopeful homesteaders to an ultimately futile and devastating experience on the Western plains. As John Wesley Powell pointed out in 1893 criticizing what he was already observing as a result of the Land Grant/Homesteader fiasco, that it was "almost criminal" for the Government to have promoted the adventure in the first place.
That's the problem for any enterprise that proposes to use "other people's money" and HSR is merely the latest incarnation of an idea that carries great initial enthusiasm among its advocates; and of course "advocates" -- when it is not their money -- are likely the last persons to predict, comprehend, or acknowledge the long term mischief that such projects produce.
Could Land Grant railroads have waited 20 years until they were the rational product of existing rates of private railroad expansion and market development? Would the economy of the United States have benefited from the delay, or perhaps from some points of view, benefited immeasurably from the delay?
The risk now with HSR is a double-down risk: incurring debt at a time when it is unsustainable, against economic and even social benefits that cannot be reasonably measured at all. Riskier, it seems at this point in history, than Land Grant railroads were at their point in history; even considering that no one predicted a general 30 year deflation of the economy at that time.
With HSR, the uncertainty is the risks. I, for one, have no idea what those might be, at this particular point in time, and that acknowledges the known risk of increased debt.
Bucyrus YoHo1975: I would argue that building the transcon earlier than economics dictated had, or was at least assumed to have social value to this nation independent of economic value. Society can address all of its social needs through the economic system. If everybody wants a railroad, they join forces and build it. Your description of social needs sounds you have some independent entity who is in charge of deciding what is good for society whether society realizes it or not. If not enough of society wants a railroad enough to pay for it with their own sweat and blood, who should say otherwise and what would their reason be?
YoHo1975: I would argue that building the transcon earlier than economics dictated had, or was at least assumed to have social value to this nation independent of economic value.
Contrary to over 200 years of US evidence. Perhaps we don't need airports and air travel. Perhaps we didn't need mail service. Perhaps we don't need a military, perhaps the highway system is worthless.
This is becoming more of a political discussion than I am comfortable with and I suppose that was inevitable. It is impossible to accurately judge how history would have changed had we simply allowed the market to freely dictate how this country was made. It has never been so simple and never will be so simple.
As an aside, It is very difficult to make a straight comparison between Germany's recovery and the US's. Germany's people are socially different, Germany's size is different and Germany's industry is different. There are certainly lessons to be learned, but they are not as clear cut as "what Germany did is 100% what we should have done."
And I agree, its hard to know if HSR is the right choice right now. It depends on your views on a number of other topics from the Environment to Urban Planning to Social moors.
I for one think HSR is the right thing to do and I think its the right thing to do right now. I also think that expansion of medium distance and commuter trains is the right thing to do right now. So naturally, I see the application of subsidies as a good thing. Others may not read the Enviro-social-planning tea leaves the same as I do. That is their right to do so, but strictly as a tool for enacting behavioral and Urban Planning changes, Subsidies are both valid and oft used
As another aside, this one political, I wonder how many people against subsidies would be all for tax breaks? Tax breaks are a form of subsidy as the government is forgoing revenue to encourage a business with the theory that such business would not be economically viable without the tax break. Is this not the same?
YoHo1975 As another aside, this one political, I wonder how many people against subsidies would be all for tax breaks? Tax breaks are a form of subsidy as the government is forgoing revenue to encourage a business with the theory that such business would not be economically viable without the tax break. Is this not the same?
As I understand the basic theory; a "tax break" allows an entity to keep more of its own money; presumably investing with the care that people give to their own property.
A "'subsidy" allows entities to spend "other people's money" for which the theory suggests that they are much less responsible with; indeed, less responsible in the spending, because they had already determined that they, or investors, would not spend their own money on a similar endeavor.
YoHo1975 I for one think HSR is the right thing to do and I think its the right thing to do right now. I also think that expansion of medium distance and commuter trains is the right thing to do right now. So naturally, I see the application of subsidies as a good thing. Others may not read the Enviro-social-planning tea leaves the same as I do. That is their right to do so, but strictly as a tool for enacting behavioral and Urban Planning changes, Subsidies are both valid and oft used As another aside, this one political, I wonder how many people against subsidies would be all for tax breaks? Tax breaks are a form of subsidy as the government is forgoing revenue to encourage a business with the theory that such business would not be economically viable without the tax break. Is this not the same?
On the last page, I mentioned that people who want a subsidy in their interest will try to justify it by showing how many other people get subsidies. In response, you said this:
“In this case, I don't think its about arguing that they [HSR] should get a subsidy, because everyone else is rather, its a counter to the argument that "This shouldn't exist because it requires a subsidy."
But in several places earlier in this thread, you did argue that HSR should get a subsidy because highways get a subsidy. You also argued that windmills should get a subsidy because oil companies get a subsidy.
I mentioned that one way to amplify your case that you should get a subsidy because everybody else gets one is to use a very loose definition of subsidy. I offered an example of calling a tax break a subsidy. And I mentioned that you could loosen the definition of tax break in a way that everybody gets one. You can do this by saying that everybody is getting a tax break because the government is not taxing them at 100% when they have the power to tax at 100%. So, with that clever manipulation of the meaning of subsidy, everybody gets a subsidy.
Now, here in your quoted post, you swerve right into that manipulation of definition for the purpose of advancing your argument that HSR should get a subsidy because everybody else is getting a subsidy. That is what led to the discussion of land grants. You brought them up as yet another example of ubiquitous subsidies. And yet, as you make this case over and over, you say you are not making such a case. So you are making my case over and over here.
First of all, that quote was me responding to your response to another poster, but that aside.
Perhaps the distinction is subtle (I don't think it is), but I very much think there is a distinction between the argument that
"Subsidies are a valid method for encouraging a socially desirable thing to happen"
and
"Since X has a subsidy, Y should also have a subsidy."
If you cannot see that distinction, then I'm not sure we will be capable of having a meaningful conversation.
I think HSR should have a subsidy, because I think HSR is of greater social value than its current Economic value indicates. It has nothing to do with whether anything else is subsidized.
For the record, I would like to see Oil and Roads lose some of their subsidies. I don't think they need that level of subsidization as it artificially skews behavior away from the most economically, environmentally and socially rational modes of transportation. If Oil and Roads lost some level of subsidization, that would NOT change my desire to see HSR subsidized.
My discussion of subsidies in GENERAL was a historical note. You presented the argument that anything that requires a subsidy is suspect. Should not be undertaken.
I responded that this is surprising given how just about all transportation has been subsidized for essentially the entire time of the nation's existence.
This is not some sort of indication that X should be subsidized because Y is. Its an indication that subsidies are a valid and oft used method to shape transportation changes and therefore, being against HSR because of subsidies makes no sense in the face of the history of these United States!
As for Taxes, I ignored you the first time, because its a strawman argument and beating at straw men gets tedious.
Opportunity costs don't really enter into the government Tax equation and its silly to introduce them. There is a tax rate, whatever that rate is, it is Law, a Tax break says Company X need not be covered by this law. That is a subsidy. If the law changes, such that all companies are no longer taxed, then there is no longer a subsidy. If the tax rate goes up, but Company X doesn't pay still, there is still a subsidy.
Simply paying less than 100% taxes is not a subsidy. As 100% taxes is not law.
By the same token, you could argue that GE subsidizes the price of a new Locomotive, because they could charge $10,000,000 but they only charge $2,000,000. Its a Strawman argument there and its a strawman argument here.
ICLand YoHo1975: As another aside, this one political, I wonder how many people against subsidies would be all for tax breaks? Tax breaks are a form of subsidy as the government is forgoing revenue to encourage a business with the theory that such business would not be economically viable without the tax break. Is this not the same? As I understand the basic theory; a "tax break" allows an entity to keep more of its own money; presumably investing with the care that people give to their own property. A "'subsidy" allows entities to spend "other people's money" for which the theory suggests that they are much less responsible with; indeed, less responsible in the spending, because they had already determined that they, or investors, would not spend their own money on a similar endeavor.
YoHo1975: As another aside, this one political, I wonder how many people against subsidies would be all for tax breaks? Tax breaks are a form of subsidy as the government is forgoing revenue to encourage a business with the theory that such business would not be economically viable without the tax break. Is this not the same?
What about giving out tax breaks while at the same time borrowing huge amounts of money to finance day to day operations? If that isn't a subsidy, I'm not sure what would be. In this case you are taking money from future tax payers (your kids and grand kids) and using a bit of it to subsidize middle and working class folks and lots of it to subsidize the top 1% of wage earners.
At least the middle and working class folks will spend pretty much 100% of their cut, stimulating the economy some. The top 1% will just add their cut to their portfolios.
This definition of subsidy isn't a Dictionary one. It may be valid in practice.
In both cases, an entities bottom line is being affected as compared to what a strictly economic view would suggest.
You are making the case that a tax break will inherently engender more responsible finances. That may be true, but it doesn't answer the question of whether a tax break is a type of subsidy.
All of this also ignores the fact that in most cases, with HSR and commuter rail, we're talking about at least a government mandated if not government run service. Tax breaks tend to not be a relevant measure here. subsidies take the form of payments to keep rates low.
We're talking about a service that is mandated by law with rates that are at least influenced if not mandated by law. Economic interests have almost no meaning in such a scenario. Rates and service are set such that they provide the expected social value, not the expected returns. Presumably governments also have the ability (though rarely the will) to take a significantly longer view than even the most visionary of corporations.
Subsidies may engender greed and poor management, but if the social requirements dictate that you must have service and the service must have such and such a rate and that rate doesn't cover costs, what are your other valid options?
And that brings us back to my entire discussion on Subsidies. Clearly, the United States has and current does use Subsidies to social and infrastructure ends independent of market forces. Such Government actions are so ubiquitous that it would be impossible for an American to accurately understand a life without them.
YoHo1975 ... but if the social requirements dictate that you must have service and the service must have such and such a rate and that rate doesn't cover costs, what are your other valid options?
... but if the social requirements dictate that you must have service and the service must have such and such a rate and that rate doesn't cover costs, what are your other valid options?
A valid option is to take a second look at what social requirements dictate, and not let them dictate so much.
Let me ask you a question: What do you do when social requirements dictate something that we don't have to money to pay for?
Bucyrus YoHo1975: ... but if the social requirements dictate that you must have service and the service must have such and such a rate and that rate doesn't cover costs, what are your other valid options? A valid option is to take a second look at what social requirements dictate, and not let them dictate so much.
YoHo1975: ... but if the social requirements dictate that you must have service and the service must have such and such a rate and that rate doesn't cover costs, what are your other valid options?
A Requirement is just that a Requirement. Presumably a second, third or fourth look has been taken before any firm requirements have been set. Further, requirements are a vague term in this case. Whose requirements are they? At what level do they come from?
but again, this gets back to the quite valid question of the value of HSR in general. I believe it has value, you apparently do not. Since I believe that HSR is something of social value and something to be built as soon as possible, that we have seen a reduction in our real standard of living, because it hasn't been put in place yet, I of necessity don't really care about re-evaluating it.
Bucyrus Let me ask you a question: What do you do when social requirements dictate something that we don't have to money to pay for?
This is not a trick question or an interesting one. I can only assume you're trying to get me to say "you raise taxes" as if the specter of taxes was a boogeyman to scare children.
If A social requirement is indeed a requirement, then you either acquire the money to fund it. Probably via taxes. Something that cities counties and states do ALL THE TIME. Or, you don't do it and lose the opportunity...perhaps lose a valuable addition to the community and stagnating.
Again, if we turn the clock back 50-75 years, this argument would mean no interstates, no federal highway system. I don't know about you, but I rather like the roads I use paid for by evil evil taxes, subsidized to make it affordable for me to use.
You keep harping on one subsidy not justifying another, well I'm going to call you out on this. Why is a subsidy for HSR not reasonable while the subsidy for Highways and Interstates is?
YoHo1975 You keep harping on one subsidy not justifying another, well I'm going to call you out on this. Why is a subsidy for HSR not reasonable while the subsidy for Highways and Interstates is?
YoHo1975, you’re killing me. Just a few posts above you made a concerted effort to set me straight that you were not trying to advance your favorite subsidy by the argument that if somebody else gets a subsidy, then you should get one too.
Specifically, you put it this way as quoted from your post:
“Perhaps the distinction is subtle (I don't think it is), but I very much think there is a distinction between the argument that
I think HSR should have a subsidy, because I think HSR is of greater social value than its current Economic value indicates. It has nothing to do with whether anything else is subsidized.”
*
I have highlighted in red, your two opposing positions.
I don't know what possible rules of rhetoric your using to suggest that those 2 statements are in opposition, but maybe if you keep workin that shoehorn you'll get it in there.
I'm asking you a valid question, compare and contrast the subsidies. I'm asking you to present your argument.
I've presented mine and mine is that the HSR subsidy stands on its own merits.
I'm asking you Why doesn't it? And why does this other subsidy?
Under no circumstances does such a request indicate that my personal opinion on the validity of the subsidy or why they are valid has changed or is less than what I said it was.
I'm asking you a question and you aren't answering.
At some point in this discussion we have to get down to the nitty gritty of the argument and that means learning about the subsidies. Perhaps even comparing and contrasting them just as we did with Land Grants.
Why does HSR not justify a subsidy?
Why do government funded roads deserve a subsidy?
Offer some nuance please.
"subsidize X, because Y is subsidized is not the same as Why is Y subsidy ok, but X isn't.
Hate to say it, but this discussion on subsidies seems as bogged down in semantics as the rather fruitless one on Land Grants.
One party, who opposed the use of the Land Grants as damaging, keeps suggesting that the legislators who voted for them all received financial incentives, better known as bribes; another is diametrically opposed to the use of government subsidies as a way of rationing financial resources. You, who seem to favor the use of tax money to build HSR, will never be able to find common ground with them.
I don't need to find common ground, I'd just like to get a nuanced and well thought out response.
I've encountered far too many people who stamp their feet and cry "No New Taxes." without having the faintest idea of the historical context of these types of subsidies or really the historical context of government spending in general.
In other words, the cynic in me thinks there probably are great arguments to be made against HSR subsidies, but I don't presume anyone arguing will advance them.
YoHo1975 I'm asking you to present your argument. I've presented mine and mine is that the HSR subsidy stands on its own merits. I'm asking you Why doesn't it? And why does this other subsidy? I'm asking you a question and you aren't answering. Why does HSR not justify a subsidy? Why do government funded roads deserve a subsidy? Offer some nuance please.
I'm asking you to present your argument.
Okay, you say that HSR should be subsidized only because it stands on its merits. Given that position, I fail to see why you are asking me to justify highway subsidies. What do highway subsidies have to do with HSR subsidies?
But to address your question about why I oppose HSR subsidies, but not highway subsidies:
I am not sure how the term subsidy applies to highways. Highway usage is very widespread throughout society. So is highway usage. Therefore, the cost of highways is mostly borne by the users. Is that a subsidy? It does not really seem like it is. It is true that the funds come from the government, but the government gets the funds mostly from the highway users. So the users pay for the highways. Where is the subsidy?
With HSR, everybody will pay the cost, but only a tiny fraction of those payers will ever find a use for the HSR that they are paying for. So the relatively few users of HSR will be subsidized by a much larger number of people who will not use HSR because they will have no need for it.
So, by using a very lose definition of subsidy, you can say that both highways and HSR are subsidized. But the details of the subsidy in each case are so dissimilar that is it truly comparing apples to oranges. Even if the total costs for HSR were exactly equal to the total costs for highways, there would still be a vastly greater subsidy for HSR because the user pool is so small compared to the payer pool.
I'd argue that Highway subsidies are not applied equally and therefore highway related tax dollars are also not distributed equally.
I live in a city, Portland, There are a number of US Highways and Interstates that go through town. Compared to say Bend Or.
Yet I don't pay a higher percentage in taxes to the state government despite more of the state road dollars going to Portland.
But that's neither here nor there.
So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me.
Do we know how much of the Federal HSR money as a percentage of the total is going to this project? How does it compare to the money put in by the people of Wisconsin?
I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale.
YoHo1975 I don't need to find common ground, I'd just like to get a nuanced and well thought out response.
Good luck!!!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.