Euclid Overmod Euclid charlie hebdo Who is suggesting they were of little importance? Why would one consider them to be of little importance? For the love of God, if you can't learn to appreciate rhetoric, at least learn to read carefully! Do you have an anger problem?
Overmod Euclid charlie hebdo Who is suggesting they were of little importance? Why would one consider them to be of little importance? For the love of God, if you can't learn to appreciate rhetoric, at least learn to read carefully!
Euclid charlie hebdo Who is suggesting they were of little importance? Why would one consider them to be of little importance?
charlie hebdo
Who is suggesting they were of little importance? Why would one consider them to be of little importance?
For the love of God, if you can't learn to appreciate rhetoric, at least learn to read carefully!
Do you have an anger problem?
Are you serious? Most of the members barely tolerate your frequent passive-aggressive eruptions. Perhaps it would be best for you or dining car to produce some solid evidence for your assertions, though I have doubts if you can. Instead you will likely obfuscate with red herrings.
The only and I mean this in a decent way the railroads are going to reverse their slide in loadings is to adopt a more CUSTOMER Friendly service position. Instead of treating us like a diasease maybe make it so we don't spend 2 hours on the phone trying to get thru an automated system to reach a live person. Around here we get yelled at if a driver is on hold for more than 2 minutes and a customer is held up more than 1. Yet the last time I had to call BNSF it took me 2 freaking hours on their automated systems to even get to who was our contact person only to get his voicemail which was full. Forget emailing anyone there we never hear back from them at all. Yet if we are late with our payment or late releasing a car they sure love to hammer us with charges. Yet we can never get thru to the customer service department at all.
If my boss ran where I work like the UP and CSX are running their railroads I would have the FMCSA all over my rear end going non compliant with the regulations yet they are getting away with it. Deferring Maintance we just had 2 cars delivered to us that before they can go back are going to require new brake shoes installed one had a defective hand brake the other we found a leaking seal on a wheel bearing. Yet UP and BNSF didn't find these issues when they were on their property. We have already submitted the paperwork to the FRA on the issues we found.
If my explanation diminishes the importance of land grants, what is the alternate explanation that makes land grants more important?
Read Overmod's post and see if you can comprehend it.
Euclid Land grants are often, if not mostly brought up for the purpose of claiming that the railroad industry owes a debt to society because the land grants were a gift to the railroads from the public. I believe that explanation is false. Actually, as I said above, land grants were a form of contract with reciprocity at the time, and the terms were fulfilled to the satisfaction of both parties at that time. So my question to Mr. Hebdo is why he regards those terms of land grants to mean that land grants would have been “of so little importance;” as he seems to do in his response to what I said about land grants being settled to the satisfaction of both sides. Why would that conclusion make land grants relatively unimportant? If my explanation diminishes the importance of land grants, what is the alternate explanation that makes land grants more important?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Here is the citation for a well-researched, scholarly article in the Business History Review. It's not free, but Overmod might have access.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/taxpayers-or-investors-who-paid-for-the-landgrant-railroads/B20D2742D8C4B825CA6669D3A0A1E826
The 8% figure came originally from an article in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Robert S Henry, Sept. 1945, "The Land Grant Myth." Henry was a railroad executive and VP of the AAR, hardly an academic year historian.
Murphy Siding Euclid Land grants are often, if not mostly brought up for the purpose of claiming that the railroad industry owes a debt to society because the land grants were a gift to the railroads from the public. I believe that explanation is false. Actually, as I said above, land grants were a form of contract with reciprocity at the time, and the terms were fulfilled to the satisfaction of both parties at that time. So my question to Mr. Hebdo is why he regards those terms of land grants to mean that land grants would have been “of so little importance;” as he seems to do in his response to what I said about land grants being settled to the satisfaction of both sides. Why would that conclusion make land grants relatively unimportant? If my explanation diminishes the importance of land grants, what is the alternate explanation that makes land grants more important? He doesn't say that at all. You are making that part up.Maybe go back and read what he said again? Let me help:"Without some citations, I would be hesitant to conclude that land grants and government guaranteed bonds were of so little importance."
He doesn't say that at all. You are making that part up.Maybe go back and read what he said again? Let me help:"Without some citations, I would be hesitant to conclude that land grants and government guaranteed bonds were of so little importance."
He says that without some citations he would be hesitant to conclude that land grants and government bonds were of so little importance. Now I might not understand rhetoric, but I think he is saying that he does not conclude that land grants and govenment guaranteed bonds were of so little importance, but he might agree with that if he had some more proof.
That sounds like a counterpoint to someone who has attempted to establish that land grants and goverment bonds were of little importance. Fine. All I did is ask him why he concluded that. It was a sincere question. It was not intented as a hostile insult. It was not that railroad sarcasm that we all love. I genuinely wanted to hear his reasoning about what he said.
charlie hebdo The 8% figure came originally from an article in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Robert S Henry, Sept. 1945, "The Land Grant Myth." Henry was a railroad executive and VP of the AAR, hardly an academic year historian.
There have always been disputes/distortations of the land grants to the railroads. Compare the maps at two different sites of the size of the land grants.
https://web-clear.unt.edu/course_projects/HIST2610/content/05_Unit_Five/17_lesson_seventeen/03_rlrds_west.htm
www.landgrant.org/maps-us1.html
The first shows a lot more land granted to the railroads by the Federal Government. Do a search on Google for railroad land grant maps and it is much more prevalent. An American Heritage book on railroads by Oliver Jensen in the 1970s said it originated during an 1880s political campaign. (My how things really haven't changed over the years.) The second is a more accurate map of the grants. It should be noted the second site is not a right leaning corporate friendly group. Their purpose seems to be reclaiming land from corporations. Yet they don't use the more politically correct larger grant map.
I think it should also be noted that we're talking lands granted by the Federal Government. There were lands granted by other entities, existing states, communities and individuals, etc. Nothing the size of what the Federal Government could do, but land given to induce a railroad to build through certain areas. In all cases, if the railroad wasn't built or didn't meet other required obligations, the grant was forfeited.
Jeff
EuclidDo you have an anger problem?
Who, me??? It's a rhetorical allusion from Poe.
If you understood what he was saying, you wouldn't have said something so obviously a non sequitur, apparently just for the thrill of trying to be argumentative.
jeffhergert In all cases, if the railroad wasn't built or didn't meet other required obligations, the grant was forfeited. Jeff
That was my point. In a way, the term "grant" is a misnomer. It was more of a contract, but still with obligations flowing both ways between the two parties to the agreement.
This paragraph, from https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/railroads-federal-land-grants-issue explains the process as well as any I've seen:
The law also provided that a company could be given up to twenty sections (a section is a square mile) of land for every mile of track put down. This land would be granted in alternate sections (a kind of checkerboard pattern) within an area lying forty miles on either side of the proposed right of way. To qualify for the subsidies a company had to agree to actually build track or forfeit the grant, and carry mail, government passengers, and freight at reduced rates.
The problem with illustrations showing the extent of the land grants is that they generally include the entire 40 miles on each side of the line as though the entire area was included in the grant. I would presume that was rarely the case, unless a railroad company "saved up" so they could claim large blocks of land in desirable locations.
If that were the case, there would likely be many miles of the ROWs where an illustration should only show the width of the ROW.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Overmod Euclid Do you have an anger problem? Who, me??? It's a rhetorical allusion from Poe. If you understood what he was saying, you wouldn't have said something so obviously a non sequitur, apparently just for the thrill of trying to be argumentative.
Euclid Do you have an anger problem?
Oh, so that's what's going on. I'll have to keep an eye out for that.
I took a business history class my freshman year. We were taught that many writers talking about the large amount of federal land grants in the midwest and west failed to consider that a significant amount of the original granted acerage eventually reverted back to the US government for various reasons.
Here is some news on White House Trade Advisor, Peter Navarro. This guy is on the fringe with radical views based not so much on economics, but rather on a deep seated vengeance toward China. He is on lifetime mission to even the score with China. He cites his "Seven Deadly Sins" of China and demands their repentance or he will destroy their economy with his weapon of import tariffs. He lives in a fantasy land where he can destroy China's economy in order to bring utopianism to the U.S.
https://reason.com/2019/10/17/trumps-anti-china-trade-advisor-invented-a-fake-economist-to-sell-his-protectionist-trade-views/
He is in complete denial in believing his destruction of China can occur in a vacuum with no effect on us.
Here's some economics class 101 for some people. We here in the USA have been basically handing over half a trillion dollars in hard currency to China for decades. Then throw in all the intellectual property they've stolen also. Things like cell phone tech CNC machines diesel engine technical details semiconductor technology. Yes they have stolen all of that from us. Now they're using those stolen designs to start dominating the infastructure construction and other items world wide. Someone had to put a stop to them before they literally took over all high tech support for things like 5g networking and the next generation of internet.
Shadow the Cats owner Here's some economics class 101 for some people. We here in the USA have been basically handing over half a trillion dollars in hard currency to China for decades. Then throw in all the intellectual property they've stolen also. Things like cell phone tech CNC machines diesel engine technical details semiconductor technology. Yes they have stolen all of that from us. Now they're using those stolen designs to start dominating the infastructure construction and other items world wide. Someone had to put a stop to them before they literally took over all high tech support for things like 5g networking and the next generation of internet.
You don't know what they have stolen from us. Where are the facts? Everybody who owns intellectual property will tell you somebody is always trying to steal it from them. You make it sound like they are on a quest for forceful world conquest. It is called competition and they are successful competitors.
You say someone had to put a stop to them. Is that what we are doing? I have heard supporters of this lunatic trade war say that is exactly what we must do. They say China is quickly taking over as the number one manufacturing power of the world, and therefore we must stop them before they reach that goal. If we don't stop them before they reach that goal, it will be too late to ever stop them. So how do we stop them? How do you want to put an end to China?
Euclid Here is some news on White House Trade Advisor, Peter Navarro. This guy is on the fringe with radical views based not so much on economics, but rather on a deep seated vengeance toward China. He is on lifetime mission to even the score with China. He cites his "Seven Deadly Sins" of China and demands their repentance or he will destroy their economy with his weapon of import tariffs. He lives in a fantasy land where he can destroy China's economy in order to bring utopianism to the U.S. https://reason.com/2019/10/17/trumps-anti-china-trade-advisor-invented-a-fake-economist-to-sell-his-protectionist-trade-views/ He is in complete denial in believing his destruction of China can occur in a vacuum with no effect on us.
Bucky: He seems to have a zealous follower of his 'theory' (or Limbaugh's derivative drivel) on here (see post above).
EuclidHere is some news on White House Trade Advisor, Peter Navarro. This guy is on the fringe with radical views based not so much on economics, but rather on a deep seated vengeance toward China.
In 2016, President Obama's administration instituted 266% tariffs on Chinese cold rolled steel, and Peter Navarro had nothing to do with it. Were you upset then?
EuclidYou make it sound like they are on a quest for forceful world conquest.
I'm not sure that's so far-fetched. Xi Jinping vowed to make the Chinese military the number one modern military by 2035.
EuclidIt is called competition and they are successful competitors.
You call it competition. I call it cheating. Last year, Microsoft's former CEO Ballmer said that Chinese theft of Microsoft products cost the company $10 billion. This was not just some Chinese citizens using unlicensed Windows. 90% of Chinese companies were using Microsoft Windows, but only 1% paid for it. This is piracy encouraged by the government through lax and unenforced laws.
York1 John
York1 Euclid Here is some news on White House Trade Advisor, Peter Navarro. This guy is on the fringe with radical views based not so much on economics, but rather on a deep seated vengeance toward China. In 2016, President Obama's administration instituted 266% tariffs on Chinese cold rolled steel, and Peter Navarro had nothing to do with it. Were you upset then? Euclid You make it sound like they are on a quest for forceful world conquest. I'm not sure that's so far-fetched. Xi Jinping vowed to make the Chinese military the number one modern military by 2035. Euclid It is called competition and they are successful competitors. You call it competition. I call it cheating. Last year, Microsoft's former CEO Ballmer said that Chinese theft of Microsoft products cost the company $10 billion. This was not just some Chinese citizens using unlicensed Windows. 90% of Chinese companies were using Microsoft Windows, but only 1% paid for it. This is piracy encouraged by the government through lax and unenforced laws.
Euclid Here is some news on White House Trade Advisor, Peter Navarro. This guy is on the fringe with radical views based not so much on economics, but rather on a deep seated vengeance toward China.
Euclid You make it sound like they are on a quest for forceful world conquest.
Euclid It is called competition and they are successful competitors.
Tariffs are not new. But Navarro is.
As to China, it's their country. They get to have the laws they want. It you want to manufacture in their country, they make the rules. If you don't like it, do not go there. So what do we do to prevent China from becoming number one? Somebody has got to be number one. There will always be a number one. How can we make it so there is no number one power in the world?
EuclidAs to China, it's their country. They get to have the laws they want. It you want to manufacture in their country, they make the rules.
Exactly. Since we don't like their cheating, our country is doing what is in its power to stop American purchases from their manufacturers. I understand you don't like that.
EuclidSo what do we do to prevent China from becoming number one? Somebody has got to be number one. There will always be a number one.
This is not about who is number one. This is about free trade. When one country cheats, the exchange is no longer considered free trade.
Yes, tariffs are bad. They cost money. They cause economic problems. But sometimes, it's necessary to take steps that hurt in the short range to cure long-range problems.
It's about protecting our country, our property, and our citizens' quality of life and way of life.
When the shop here is ordering replacement parts for the equipment they're careful to make sure nothing if possible is sourced from China. Here's why a few years ago the boss was given a great price for what he was told was OE specifics brake pads for our drum setups. Well they were sourced from China and still were being made with asbestos in the friction materials. You want to talk about a crap ton of bull crap whenever that was discovered.
York1 Euclid As to China, it's their country. They get to have the laws they want. It you want to manufacture in their country, they make the rules. Exactly. Since we don't like their cheating, our country is doing what is in its power to stop American purchases from their manufacturers. I understand you don't like that. Euclid So what do we do to prevent China from becoming number one? Somebody has got to be number one. There will always be a number one. This is not about who is number one. This is about free trade. When one country cheats, the exchange is no longer considered free trade. Yes, tariffs are bad. They cost money. They cause economic problems. But sometimes, it's necessary to take steps that hurt in the short range to cure long-range problems. It's about protecting our country, our property, and our citizens' quality of life and way of life.
Euclid As to China, it's their country. They get to have the laws they want. It you want to manufacture in their country, they make the rules.
Euclid So what do we do to prevent China from becoming number one? Somebody has got to be number one. There will always be a number one.
Not only does this market crowd out the availability of higher quality domestic made products; but it is also having another effect that I think is even more troubling. That is that the high demand for Chinese products has educated our U.S. marketing that our market wants lowest price even if it means a sacrifice in quality.
It was not long ago that U.S. marketing thought they could compete with China by offering higher quality to a large domestic market that demanded higher quality than what China offers. But the demand for Chinese products has proven the U.S. marketing assumption wrong. The market for higher quality products in the U.S. is far smaller than our marketing believed. So they are on a race to the bottom almost with a vengeance to show U.S. consumers that U.S. manufacturing can out-cheapen China. I think this spells the end of an reasonable degree of quality in products no matter who makes them. This is becoming very obvious with products like home appliances.
So, being that I don't want Chinese products, I don't care if you legally ban their import. That would raise the price of products in this country, but that is the market I prefer. So ban Chinese products and bring all the jobs back.
But we are not going to ban Chinese products. We are going to punish China by damaging their country by reducing their imports to us by the use of tariffs. You say it is about protecting our country. But using tariffs will damge our country as well as China. That it the part I object to. It will slow down our economy besides slowing down the economy of China. Only one person says it won't hurt us at all, and that is Peter Navarro. But in my opinion, he wants to believe that because he is blinded by his ideological hatred of China.
You say you don't mind if it hurts in the short range if it helps in the long range. I believe this tariff action is far more radical than most people realize. I think it is doing tremendous damage to China and to the U.S., but the big effects of big actions take some time to manifest, and that manifestation is only now just beginning after over a year of tariffs and threats to destroy China's economy. So people are being lulled into the belief that we are getting even with China, but they don't realize that we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Sure, it if only hurts a little in the short range and provides a major benefit in the long range, fine. But, believe it is quite possible that it will be painless in the short range and cause tremendous damage in the long range to the whole world economy and especially to our country and to China. So, that's what I am saying.
What benefit do you expect the tariffs will bring to us? What will change and how? Do you think China will decide to buy as much from us as we buy from them? Do you think they will promise not steal our intellectual property. This kind of reaction seems to be what is expected by our Administration. Navarro says we will ramp up tariffs until China stops committing the Seven Deadly Sins. How do you see the tariffs curing long range problems?
Hmmm... well it is fast becoming apparent that the West will have to choose between Chinese money or a marketplace of free thinking ideas.
It is the Chinese that are driving that, not the USA or the West.
I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters actively seek out American made products, as opposed to stopping by Wal-Mart and picking up the usual Chinese and Mexican made stuff?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
EuclidI think you misunderstand me. I wish all our products were made in the U.S. and none made in China. I don't want to buy anything made in China unless I have to, and I make a big effort to not buy Chinese made products.
I appreciate your views. Thanks for the discussion.
I'm quitting tonight -- big day tomorrow. Driving early to visit grandkids.
SD70Dude I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters actively seek out American made products, as opposed to stopping by Wal-Mart and picking up the usual Chinese and Mexican made stuff?
How many people who oppose tariffs today didn't oppose tariffs when President Obama was in office?
York1 SD70Dude I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters actively seek out American made products, as opposed to stopping by Wal-Mart and picking up the usual Chinese and Mexican made stuff? How many people who oppose tariffs today didn't oppose tariffs when President Obama was in office?
In Congress or the general public?
To be honest, I think the average citizen (myself included) wouldn't recognize a tariff if it punched them in the nose. We certainly don't understand their real effects.
I do recall reading somewhere that after the start of the Great Depression multiple nations instituted protectionist tariffs, which had the effect of shutting down trade and making the depression worse.
Duplicate
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.