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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oh, so that's what's going on. I'll have to keep an eye out for that.
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...
jeffhergert In all cases, if the railroad wasn't built or didn't meet other required obligations, the grant was forfeited. Jeff
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.
EuclidDo you have an anger problem?
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.
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.
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."
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?
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 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.
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
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Read Overmod's post and see if you can comprehend it.
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.
Murphy Siding 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!
+1. These syntactical merry-go-rounds are unproductive at best, inane at worst.
Diningcar certainly implied that, with his number 92%. Or does it only count if a person says it directly?
In any case, show citations and an analysis of the data. I wonder what percentage of western mainlines were land grants? I think a lot more than 8%.
Additionally, some eastern lines were land grants by states, such as the IC.
charlie hebdo Psychot Euclid and diningcar, thanks for educating me on land grants. I had no idea about any of that. I guess what I said comes under the category of "conventional wisdom" that's completely untrue. Do you all agree, though, that transportation regulators expect railroads to function as common carriers in the wake of the Staggers act? Without some citations, I would be hesitant to conclude that land grants and government guaranteed bonds were of so little importance.
Psychot Euclid and diningcar, thanks for educating me on land grants. I had no idea about any of that. I guess what I said comes under the category of "conventional wisdom" that's completely untrue. Do you all agree, though, that transportation regulators expect railroads to function as common carriers in the wake of the Staggers act?
Euclid and diningcar, thanks for educating me on land grants. I had no idea about any of that. I guess what I said comes under the category of "conventional wisdom" that's completely untrue.
Do you all agree, though, that transportation regulators expect railroads to function as common carriers in the wake of the Staggers act?
Without some citations, I would be hesitant to conclude that land grants and government guaranteed bonds were of so little importance.
Railroad common carrier obligation pre-dates Staggers. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 references common carrier obligation. Staggers didn't eliminate the common carrier obligation but; neither did it really seek to define it.
Generally speaking; railroads are required to provide service upon reasonable request and that is, in effect, their common carrier obligation.
Jonny,
WW II was the 'trigger' which prompted the 1945 legislation when it became so apparent what the railroads had done in the War Effort.
charlie hebdoSometimes it is hard to avoid.
Indeed. And some people so hate [insert politician/political party here] that they'll take the bait every time.
The key is to avoid making it personal - such as not naming names. "The current administration" or "a past administration" is about as deep as one really wants to get. And usually, that's deep enough to make a point.
Besides, the "rules of the road" for the forums specifically state no politics or religion... For good reason.
Psychot I offer my profoundest apologies to the denizens of this board. I will avoid politics in the future.
I offer my profoundest apologies to the denizens of this board. I will avoid politics in the future.
Sometimes it is hard to avoid. I do notice that the other political posters have not acknowledged anything, though there appears to be a pause at this time.
diningcar More than 92% of railroad mileage in the United States was built entirely by private enterprise - without benefit of land grants. Most railroads receiving land grants were required by law to haul government freight and personel at reduced rates averaging 50%. Mail was hauled at a 20% reduction. When the reduced rate requiements were finally repealed by Congress in 1945, a Congressional Committee reported: "It is probable that the railroads have contributed over $900 million in payment of the lands which were transferred to them ..... ICC Commissioner J. B. Eastman estimated the value of the lands at the time they were granted was not more than $126 million." Land grants to railroads were indeed a good deal for the United States.
More than 92% of railroad mileage in the United States was built entirely by private enterprise - without benefit of land grants.
Most railroads receiving land grants were required by law to haul government freight and personel at reduced rates averaging 50%. Mail was hauled at a 20% reduction.
When the reduced rate requiements were finally repealed by Congress in 1945, a Congressional Committee reported:
"It is probable that the railroads have contributed over $900 million in payment of the lands which were transferred to them ..... ICC Commissioner J. B. Eastman estimated the value of the lands at the time they were granted was not more than $126 million."
Land grants to railroads were indeed a good deal for the United States.
During WW II, did all the roads give discounts for transporting military personnel? I wonder if the government paid for all the miles covered by a troop train carrying recruits/draftees to a boot camp and was turned away from several because they were full before it arrived at one that could take the men (see Pullman Conductor William Moedinger's account of this on pages 44-45 of the February 1970 issue of Trains--"...42 days on a Navy main before the train reached a boot camp that could accommodate the men.")
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.