schlimm Bucyrus: Don't take this personally, but I really don't think Mr. Keynes' ideas are nearly as discredited as you portray them. Although Friedman, Hayek, von Mises and others from the Austrian School reigned supreme in the 1980's into the new century, Keynesian economics has had a considerable resurgence in recent years. And perhaps without the help of some of the elements of Keynesian economics, recovery from the Great Depression may have never occurred, notwithstanding the views of revisionists.
Bucyrus: Don't take this personally, but I really don't think Mr. Keynes' ideas are nearly as discredited as you portray them. Although Friedman, Hayek, von Mises and others from the Austrian School reigned supreme in the 1980's into the new century, Keynesian economics has had a considerable resurgence in recent years. And perhaps without the help of some of the elements of Keynesian economics, recovery from the Great Depression may have never occurred, notwithstanding the views of revisionists.
Actually, the one event that really boosted our economy was probably our involvement in the Second World War. Prior to that we were still struggling. But it was one event that pretty much employed the masses and gave our industry the shot in the arm it needed. Do I recommend such a thing today? Not really, considering the cost in human suffering it brought about. OTOH, we didn't exactly go looking for it, either, conspiracy theories not withstanding. I don't support the idea of a rebirth of the CCC, either, despite the fact that I think our society needs a lesson in the value of hard work. I would like to see something that tightens the standards for receiving government assistance, but that's because I have never really been unemployed in my 30-some years of working, not for more than a couple of weeks, anyway. Were I from a different background, I might feel differently. Let's just say I don't mind helping the "can'ts", but am tired of supporting the "won'ts."
Bucyrus Many people believe in Keynesian economic theory. Every bit of Keynesian stimulus has the side effect of growing government, no matter whether it works or not to stimulate the economy. So government loves it, embraces it, believes in it, and preaches it. That’s a big faction of Keynesian boosters even if nobody else believed it. I only judge it by how it is defined. In scientific, economic terms, it seems like nonsense to me. We are presently conducting the largest-ever practical test of the validity of Keynesian theory. But even if it fails, I doubt that the boosters will admit failure. Most of them have a vested interest in the practical application of the theory whether it works or not.
Many people believe in Keynesian economic theory. Every bit of Keynesian stimulus has the side effect of growing government, no matter whether it works or not to stimulate the economy. So government loves it, embraces it, believes in it, and preaches it. That’s a big faction of Keynesian boosters even if nobody else believed it.
I only judge it by how it is defined. In scientific, economic terms, it seems like nonsense to me. We are presently conducting the largest-ever practical test of the validity of Keynesian theory. But even if it fails, I doubt that the boosters will admit failure. Most of them have a vested interest in the practical application of the theory whether it works or not.
Essentially, the keynesian economic did in fact hold true it just took spending on WWII to prove it. I am sure you are aware of the theory, and that many speculate that the "new deal" did not work because there simply was not enough government spending, for which WWII saw great amounts of government spending and really saw the economy rebound.
Maybe we should start selling bonds to fund infrastructure.
I do not think the current high speed rail plan is going to work, because there is no.....well thought out plan, commitment, ambition, etc. If the government wants this to succeed, they need to start treating this plan as what it is, transportation reform which should not just consists of high speed rail, but mass transit systems and given as much attention as the interstates were given.
uphogger Actually, the one event that really boosted our economy was probably our involvement in the Second World War. Prior to that we were still struggling. But it was one event that pretty much employed the masses and gave our industry the shot in the arm it needed. Do I recommend such a thing today? Not really, considering the cost in human suffering it brought about. OTOH, we didn't exactly go looking for it, either, conspiracy theories not withstanding. ......
Actually, the one event that really boosted our economy was probably our involvement in the Second World War. Prior to that we were still struggling. But it was one event that pretty much employed the masses and gave our industry the shot in the arm it needed. Do I recommend such a thing today? Not really, considering the cost in human suffering it brought about. OTOH, we didn't exactly go looking for it, either, conspiracy theories not withstanding. ......
Without wanting to start a fight, and I agree with you in most ways, probably the boost was particularly effective in the first two years of WW2, from September 1939 until the USA finally joined the war in December 1941. Now before I get jumped on too heavily, it must be acknowledged that there was a fair bit of quiet support to Britain and its allies during that period, but officially the US was a neutral bystander doing good business selling material to (mostly) the Allies. Of course, after Pearl Harbor the US finally joined the war. Without that help the European theatre would probably have remained in a stalemate situation. The landings at Normandy in 1944 and liberation of continental Europe would not have been possible.
But supporting your argument is the Canadian example, since we also experienced the depression and were recovering very slowly until war broke out in 1939.
As November 11th approaches it is time to remind ourselves of the ugliness yet necessity of conflict. It takes two to make peace, only one to make war. As well as the soldiers who fought, and sometimes died, remember the families they left behind to mourn.
John
Bucyrus That’s a big faction of Keynesian boosters even if nobody else believed it. I only judge it by how it is defined. In scientific, economic terms, it seems like nonsense to me.
That’s a big faction of Keynesian boosters even if nobody else believed it.
I only judge it by how it is defined. In scientific, economic terms, it seems like nonsense to me.
Not interested in arguing the merits of neo-liberalism vs. Keynes, as the topic is beyond the expertise of almost anyone in this forum. The only objection I have is your using such strong condemnatory language for a theory that is widely respected by economists (who are, after all, the 'scientists' who examine economic matters), including many members past and present of the neo-liberal, Austrian School.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus, you claim you don't understand Keynesian economic theory? Let me try to explain as clearly as possible so you can rap your brain around it. First, what causes a recession, the process goes like this.....
Keynesian economic theory states that when a downward repeating cycle occurs, the government should step in to interrupt the spiral. This is done by the government spending money on goods and services to replace the demand that is missing in the private sector. In the 1930's the New Deal programs did this by building infrastructure, much of which is still in use today. When Pearl Harbor was struck, government spending went on steroids as factories were reactivated and people were hired to make war material. After the war, the people who had been payed by the government to produce goods and services had plenty of money to spend on peace time goods. The end result was the economic prosperity the USA enjoyed for the next 30 years.
A child can understand Keynesian Economics, I suppose you are the kind of person who would rather see the nation wallow in decay if you think it will save you from taxes.
SRen An oversupply of goods and services causes sales to drop. Due to dropping sales, businesses lay off employees and shut down production. The laid off employees stop buying goods and services. Due to dropping sales, businesses lay off more employees and shut down production. The laid off employees stop buying goods and services. Due to dropping sales, businesses lay off more employees and shut down production. Repeat at line 3.
But who wants to pay the taxes to stop the depression? At the risk of being tossed, I make the following statement. Who is spending the money the tax & spend libereral democrats or the tax cut and spend repulicans. Who is more responsible, democrats who are at least raising the money to spend or the republicans who spent money they did not have.
Yes I know I am into the political here and will probably get this tossed. If you want to be a politician keep everybody happy. If you want to be a leader fear not getting people mad.
Rgds IGN
The problem with your theory is that most of the manufacturing jobs are in Asia. When you stimulate buying and create jobs it raises the economy of Asia. When you give more money to American companies to expand, they expand in Asia. It's pure capitalism. Maximize the profits.
For those of you claiming that war is what caused the recovery you are ignoring the fact that we had been at war for 6 years when the bottom fell out of the economy.
EVERYONE in America; Governments, businesses, and citizens, have been living in a credit orgy house of cards since the '50s. Just because you can make all the payments doesn't mean that your budget is in good shape. The evil wind that blew down the house of cards was the same one that did it in the early '70s. Gasoline prices quadrupled in 6 months and suddenly people had to choose between making the payments on their huge credit load and buying gasoline to get to work.
Building and repairing the infrastructure would create AMERICAN jobs. Just pumping money into the economy creates ASIAN jobs. Even our military buys off shore these days.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Here is the problem I see with Keynesian economic stimulus. As SRen mentioned, a recession can occur because of an oversupply of goods that results in relatively less demand. It can also be caused by a reduced demand that results from other reasons. For instance, if the public is merely told that a recession is coming by someone they believe, they will reduce their demand just in anticipation of it. Therefore, society can be jawboned into, as well as out of a recession.
In a recession, if the government had a pile of money in reserve, they could indeed spend it, and that spending would constitute demand. And fulfilling that demand would stimulate the economy. On the contrary, if the government raised taxes during the recession, everybody would have less money to spend when they are already reluctant to spend money. So raising taxes deepens the recession.
The problem is that the government does not have a pile of money in reserve. So the government must borrow the money that it uses to stimulate the economy. When it does so, it is ultimately borrowing the wealth that the citizens will produce in the future. In other words, it is attempting to stimulate the current economy by taxing future production.
Future taxes can be a drag on the present economy just as present taxes are. The investment aspect of the economy is always looking to the future. Investment bets on the future. That is the risk of investment, and the bet is that the risk will be rewarded by profit. So pessimistic expectations worsen the odds of the bet, and slow an economy or deepen a recession already in progress.
So, today when the government spends money to stimulate the economy, the stimulation is offset by the drag that is produced by future need to pay the money back in the form of additional taxes. It is like bailing out the boat by scooping water out of the front of the boat and dumping into the back of boat. That is what I mean when I say the Keynesian economic stimulus is nonsense. The only thing that is actually stimulated is the growth of government.
Kasich has stated on innumerable occasions that this is his top priority.Years ago Taft wanted Amtrak out of Ohio altogether,and Kasich is of like mind.
If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go.
Kurn Kasich has stated on innumerable occasions that this is his top priority.Years ago Taft wanted Amtrak out of Ohio altogether,and Kasich is of like mind.
I said it on another (now-languishing) thread that also strayed off the subject and think it needs saying again. Ohioans voted with their feet on 79-mph (top speed) rail passenger service between Cleveland and Cincinnati 50 years ago. What makes anybody think they would embrace it now?
The most important consideration:
The way the HSR deal is set up, if 3-C is a bust, and Ohio decides after a few years it is unwilling to continue making up the deficit -- pegged at $17 million a year for a "successful" service -- the state gets to repay the original federal grant.
What kind of a hole would that blow in YOUR state's budget?
Kasich deserved to be elected on the basis of fiscal stewardship on this issue alone.
dakotafred I said it on another (now-languishing) thread that also strayed off the subject and think it needs saying again. Ohioans voted with their feet on 79-mph (top speed) rail passenger service between Cleveland and Cincinnati 50 years ago. What makes anybody think they would embrace it now?
I'm not sure if I agree with you on the 3C service or not, but I'm wondering what you meant exactly by your statement that Ohioans showed 50 years ago in 1960 that they didn't want passenger rail. Did a viable service still exist then?
schlimm dakotafred: I said it on another (now-languishing) thread that also strayed off the subject and think it needs saying again. Ohioans voted with their feet on 79-mph (top speed) rail passenger service between Cleveland and Cincinnati 50 years ago. What makes anybody think they would embrace it now? I'm not sure if I agree with you on the 3C service or not, but I'm wondering what you meant exactly by your statement that Ohioans showed 50 years ago in 1960 that they didn't want passenger rail. Did a viable service still exist then?
dakotafred: I said it on another (now-languishing) thread that also strayed off the subject and think it needs saying again. Ohioans voted with their feet on 79-mph (top speed) rail passenger service between Cleveland and Cincinnati 50 years ago. What makes anybody think they would embrace it now?
There might have been a "viable" rail service in 1960, but with I-71 completed just a few years later, and jet aircraft providing both speedy and frequent service, the public chose the clearly superior travel modes of auto and air.
However, arguing that rail service didn't work 50 years ago and it therefore won't work now suggest one wasn't there then or doesn't get out much now.
Population has grown.
Auto traffic is much denser.
Airlines have dramatically increased short haul fares and cut service frequencies while security measures have added up to two hours to the total flying trip time.
If one can argue that in the future trend lines for these items will reverse and that gasoline and jet fuel supplies will continue to be plentiful and cheap, then it would be reasonable to conclude that regional rail services are without merit.
Of couse, if there is a real present or future need and we decide we just can't afford the higher taxes or added debt to build now, we can just push it down the road and let our children or grandchildren pay for the building.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Looking at some old NYC timetables, I found these to be the best of mostly slow times. In a 1943-44 timetable, the best train is 5hr 15 min for the 260 miles. By 1962, there were fewer trains, the best making the run in 5 hr 25 min. A 44 mph average might have been fine in the war years, when no one drove (rationing) and the roads were poor, but clearly by 1962, even if the Interstate wasn't completed, I imagine the drive was as quick and a lot cheaper ($12.07 one way on the train vs $3.50 by car: $.20 per gallon gas, 15mpg x 260 miles). So with slow trains and cheap gas, the rails couldn't possibly compete and it would get much worse with the Interstate.
Do the interstate highways pay for their upkeep? Maybe a solution to the USA transportation and infrastructure issue is to privatize the interstates. Make them all toll rodes, with tolls adequate in each instance to pay for their upkeep. Maybe even pay the appropriate real estate taxes. And for the lightly traveled portions, these would exclusively be the individual states' responsibility for upkeep. The cash to the Federal Government from the individuals and corporatons that can see profit in the most traveled sections would also help reduce the deficite. Then maybe all intercity public transportation, rail, bus, and air, can start early a living hauling passengers. In truth, none do now. Not only Amtrak but all are subidized one way or another at the present time.
I was still in residence in Cleveland in 1960, but my main experience with the New York Central was east-west. So I refreshed my memory of Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy with a couple of Official Guides from 1951 and 1962.
The offerings, both schedule frequencies and equipment, from 1951 are enough to break your heart. From Cleveland departures at 8:05 a.m., 12:30 p.m., 5:45 p.m. (to Columbus only), 12:10 a.m. From Cincy it was 9:15 a.m., 4 p.m., 7:50 p.m. and 11:50 p.m.; there was also a Columbus departure for Cleveland at 8:10 a.m.
By 1962 the service was down to a pair of overnight mail trains and the (New York City-Cincy) Ohio State Limited, which was wee-hours southbound and the railroad didn't even bother to board out of Cleveland back in 1951.
The Central didn't just walk away from this business, which used to be an important part of its bread and butter. The walking was done by the customers, about which the Central was in stubborn denial until Al Perlman manned up.
Even after his arrival on the scene, the Central stuck with some fantastic trains for a long time where they were justified. As a college student in the 1960s I enjoyed many an outstanding ride on such as the westbound Chicagoan and the eastbound Fifth Avenue Special and New England States.
daveklepper Do the interstate highways pay for their upkeep? Maybe a solution to the USA transportation and infrastructure issue is to privatize the interstates. Make them all toll rodes, with tolls adequate in each instance to pay for their upkeep. Maybe even pay the appropriate real estate taxes. And for the lightly traveled portions, these would exclusively be the individual states' responsibility for upkeep.
Do the interstate highways pay for their upkeep? Maybe a solution to the USA transportation and infrastructure issue is to privatize the interstates. Make them all toll rodes, with tolls adequate in each instance to pay for their upkeep. Maybe even pay the appropriate real estate taxes. And for the lightly traveled portions, these would exclusively be the individual states' responsibility for upkeep.
Not very realistic, Dave. Remember the chain and the weakest link. The interstates are a system or they are nothing. The traveler between Minneapolis and Seattle expects I-94 to be the same road in North Dakota as it is in Minnesota and Washington State.
dakotafred daveklepper: Do the interstate highways pay for their upkeep? Maybe a solution to the USA transportation and infrastructure issue is to privatize the interstates. Make them all toll rodes, with tolls adequate in each instance to pay for their upkeep. Maybe even pay the appropriate real estate taxes. And for the lightly traveled portions, these would exclusively be the individual states' responsibility for upkeep. Not very realistic, Dave. Remember the chain and the weakest link. The interstates are a system or they are nothing. The traveler between Minneapolis and Seattle expects I-94 to be the same road in North Dakota as it is in Minnesota and Washington State.
daveklepper: Do the interstate highways pay for their upkeep? Maybe a solution to the USA transportation and infrastructure issue is to privatize the interstates. Make them all toll rodes, with tolls adequate in each instance to pay for their upkeep. Maybe even pay the appropriate real estate taxes. And for the lightly traveled portions, these would exclusively be the individual states' responsibility for upkeep.
Yes but I-94 in Illinois and further east is a Tollway, as is I-35 in Oklahoma for example.
beaulieuYes but I-94 in Illinois and further east is a Tollway, as is I-35 in Oklahoma for example.
I-35 in Oklahoma is free.
I-44 is part of the Oklahoma Turnpike system.
Parts of I-35 in Kansas are tolled.
I 44 in Okalahoma is a nice drive...I35 thru Kansas will bore you out of your gourd!
Gray fields, horizon to horizon, not a tree to be seen, they even hid the mobile home parks!.
23 17 46 11
Sorry, I wasn't clear about which part of Dave's proposal I was objecting to. The toll part is OK. But abandoning federal participation in portions that don't meet their expenses is impractical, for the reason I gave. I-94, for instance, would be worthless to the Minneapolis-Seattle traveler or trucker if North Dakota and Montana weren't up to snuff.
dakotafred Sorry, I wasn't clear about which part of Dave's proposal I was objecting to. The toll part is OK. But abandoning federal participation in portions that don't meet their expenses is impractical, for the reason I gave. I-94, for instance, would be worthless to the Minneapolis-Seattle traveler or trucker if North Dakota and Montana weren't up to snuff.
I guess the traveller will either have to detour or take a different mode of transportation. The trucker too will have to take a different route or maybe drop his trailer at a BNSF intermodal terminal.
After all the majority consensus seems to be no subsidies at all. Or does that only apply to rail transportation?
Jeff
eolafan I just read in the railroad news section of this site that Ohio's Governor elect just had a new conference today and announced that the proposed passenger service linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati "is dead". Well, when the time comes for his next campaign I hope the voters remember how the traffic is and how long and tiring the drive is down I-71 from Cleveland to Cinc.
I just read in the railroad news section of this site that Ohio's Governor elect just had a new conference today and announced that the proposed passenger service linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati "is dead". Well, when the time comes for his next campaign I hope the voters remember how the traffic is and how long and tiring the drive is down I-71 from Cleveland to Cinc.
OK so then what effect will this have on the "High-speed Passenger Rail Initiative" where the Federal Govt established that State participation would be requisite if the states expected service tuned to their needs?
Does this make Ohio a "run-thru" state, or kill the interstate plan completely?
My 2 cents worth about highway vs rail. The two need to work together. When you start to have a highway system fill up(I-71 in oh , I-95 in the NE, I-5 in Ca as examples) you need to think about what is going to give you the most bang for the buck.
The amount of rail capacity in the New York City area keeps transportation costs down. If NYC did not have the subway system there is just not enough room for all the people there to drive.
This is what is making the rail renaissance in Los Angeles.Simply put there is just not enough resources to keep building highways.(land, money) .
If you can build a double track railroad it will have the capacity of something like an 8 lane freeway for a lot less money. and less land. On the other hand building a double track railroad to serve a town of 100 people in the middle of nowhere with not even any freight is a waste of resources. ( Amtrak running the turbo train to West Virginia from DC was a waste fast train on a slow route to nowhere)
In the Ohio case what is it costing the state of Ohio to add a 3rd lane to I-71? What will it cost to add a forth? The traffic is there now for the 3rd lane. And I'm talking just the cars
And I drive a truck for a living.
Not sure what else to say
Phoebe Vet The problem with your theory is that most of the manufacturing jobs are in Asia. When you stimulate buying and create jobs it raises the economy of Asia. When you give more money to American companies to expand, they expand in Asia. It's pure capitalism. Maximize the profits. For those of you claiming that war is what caused the recovery you are ignoring the fact that we had been at war for 6 years when the bottom fell out of the economy. EVERYONE in America; Governments, businesses, and citizens, have been living in a credit orgy house of cards since the '50s. Just because you can make all the payments doesn't mean that your budget is in good shape. The evil wind that blew down the house of cards was the same one that did it in the early '70s. Gasoline prices quadrupled in 6 months and suddenly people had to choose between making the payments on their huge credit load and buying gasoline to get to work. Building and repairing the infrastructure would create AMERICAN jobs. Just pumping money into the economy creates ASIAN jobs. Even our military buys off shore these days.
I agree pretty much with what you say, but take exception to your second paragraph. Comparing this war to WW2 is not practicable in this instance. We are not producing anywhere near the materials that we were back in 1940-45. Back then we were supporting total war on two fronts, three if you count our support of the Soviet Union. We produced arms and material for our allies as well as our own forces. What we are pursuing in Iraq and Afghanistan is limited war at best. I can't say how much we are buying from foreign suppliers for our military, but it should be little or nothing. I can relate to the house of cards and currently have no credit cards. I just don't believe in them.
Is the Ohio governor-elect like the one here in Wisconsin?!!!!!! Seems to me that the 4-letter word....J-O-B-S has been a top priority for alot of these "new" politicians.Why dont they start proving it.The HSR is a perfect start to creating jobs.I just dont understand how a governor-elect can start making decisions and they have not even been sworn in as the new governor.These 2 new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin are making a very BIG mistake if they kill these projects.Anyone got some hot asphalt and feathers?
Regarding the discussion on economics, one thing that we in North America always seem to forget about the Depression/WWII scenario is that by the end of the war, the U.S. and Canada were virtually the only advanced industrialized countries left standing. Even in the other victorious allied countries much of the infrastructure, housing, etc. was badly damaged. You could still see bombing raid rubble in London in the seventies. I often wonder how much of our post-war boom can be credited to earlier government spending and how much from having virtually no foreign competition for the next couple of decades while everyone else rebuilt. And looking over the larger sweep of our history, I often think we give ourselves too much credit for being good at business when in fact much of our success came simply from being on a vast continent with virtually untapped resources, receiving massive startup investment from Europe, and with a domestic market (in the U.S., anyway) far bigger than any other modernized nation at the time. How is it possible that Germany, a more socialistic, higher-cost country than the U.S., still has a viable, competitive industrial sector in this day and age? Could it be that we were never really the business hotshots we thought we were?
Back to Ohio, it's true that wise infrastructure investements can make a difference for a long, long time. The Union Pacific was a very expensive thing to build, but we're still using it. Same for the interstates. Unless our population stops growing, this century will certainly be one of densification in North America, where our urban/suburban areas will come to look at lot like Europe and Japan do now. Combine that with the inevitable increase in energy cost as living standards for billions of Asians improve and there's no question that rail mass transit will have to grow here. But for now, put me in the camp of those that thinks we'd be better off building one or two proper, world-class HSR systems in the corridors that need them most than spreading the money around so thinly that it hardly creates a noticeable difference. Give Ohio's $400M to California for now; 3C will be built eventually.
Rewgarding the totality of the interstate system, the same was true of the uSA railroad network in the days when there were ober a hundred class one railroads and not just seven.
If "B" is a weak link between privatized and profitable "A" and "C", obviously it behooves owners of "A: and "C" to jointly own "B" and subsidize it from profits from "A" and "C" to insure profitability of "A" and "C".
There were railroad examples/
uphogger I can't say how much we are buying from foreign suppliers for our military, but it should be little or nothing.
I can't say how much we are buying from foreign suppliers for our military, but it should be little or nothing.
The Eurocopter HH-65 Dolphin is a twin-engined, single main rotor, MEDEVAC-capable Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopter operated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG). It is a variant of the French-built Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin.
Owego, NY, January 9th, 2009 -- The first Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] pilot production VH-71 presidential helicopter to begin the integration and final production process arrived at the company’s Owego, NY, facility today. Six of nine helicopters that make up the first phase of the VH-71 presidential helicopter program are now in the U.S., including four test-configured aircraft and two production aircraft.
WASHINGTON, April 30, 1987 — The Central Intelligence Agency has told members of Congress that a Japanese corporation and a state-owned Norwegian company have violated Western export controls by selling technology to the Soviet Union that makes submarines run more quietly.
Toshiba, one of the leading Japanese electronics companies, has an American subsidiary, Toshiba America Inc., which sells about $1 billion a year and employs 2,000 workers.
Kongsberg, a weapons manufacturer, is currently adapting the Penguin anti-ship missile to the SH-60B Navy Seahawk helicopter.
The train boosters always say that if we subsidize highways, we should subsidize trains. But it is a faulty conclusion. In the first place, if the cost of the highways or HSR were 100% borne by the users (through taxes), the government financing of highways or HSR would not be a subsidy.
Of course, with either mode, there will be some who are paying but not using. But the proper apples-to-apples comparison is to examine both modes and determine the extent to which the users pay for each mode. If you make that comparison, you will see that the users of HSR will be paying a very small percentage of the cost, and the rest of the cost will be paid by the non-users. With highways, that scenario is reversed.
Guys- Let's try to keep this thread civil and focused on the railroad-related topic at hand.Thanks.-Norris user/moderator
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.