travelingengineer"DwightBranch," I agree with you completely. The Gettysburg Address was composed of only ten sentences, and delivered in two minutes.
The Gettysburg Address was a political speech. If you want an in-depth understanding of the history of the Battle at Gettysburg or the political events that led up to it and the military as well as political consequences that follow it, you will not find them in the Gettysburg Address.
If you think that a one or two liner is sufficient for an understanding of U.S. transport subsidies, for example, as has been quoted out of context or wrongly from time to time, without trying to understand the relatively complex details, that is your choice. Doing so, however, is likely to leave you misinformed.
I choose to present enough detail to shed reasonable light on the subject. I plan to continue doing so. Sorry if that offends you.
Sam1 travelingengineer: "DwightBranch," I agree with you completely. The Gettysburg Address was composed of only ten sentences, and delivered in two minutes. The Gettysburg Address was a political speech. If you think that a one or two liner is sufficient for an understanding of U.S. transport subsidies, for example, as has been quoted out of context or wrongly from time to time, without trying to understand the relatively complex details, that is your choice. Doing so, however, is likely to leave you misinformed. I choose to present enough detail to shed reasonable light on the subject. I plan to continue doing so. Sorry if that offends you.
travelingengineer: "DwightBranch," I agree with you completely. The Gettysburg Address was composed of only ten sentences, and delivered in two minutes.
The Gettysburg Address was a political speech.
I give a lecture on the entire history of trade theory, from Ricardo, comparative advantage etc. through to today, Heckscher-Ohlin etc. making it understandable to college undergraduates without any background in economics, that is shorter than some of your posts.
Sam1 An Amtrak passenger receives an indirect subsidy from the federal government. The same is true for a commercial airline passenger and a commercial bus rider. But in the case of a vehicle, theoretically at least, the subsidy flows to the owner of the vehicle and not the passengers. Accordingly, for my analysis,
An Amtrak passenger receives an indirect subsidy from the federal government. The same is true for a commercial airline passenger and a commercial bus rider. But in the case of a vehicle, theoretically at least, the subsidy flows to the owner of the vehicle and not the passengers. Accordingly, for my analysis,
sam; at one time I might have agreeded but from the posts about the mega-bus accident it appears that the axel loading on them is as great as a full tractor trailer. Since a bus does not pay the same user fee as a tractor trailer then the bus passengers are being subsidized as well.
although we do not know the reason the steer tire on the bus blew I have seen enough buses around here with blown steer and rear axel tires ( FORTUNATELY NO ACCIDENTS ) to believe that the tires are loaded to the max + . we know trucks do not pay their portion of the damage they cause so maybe these same buses are not either ?
blue streak 1 Sam1: An Amtrak passenger receives an indirect subsidy from the federal government. The same is true for a commercial airline passenger and a commercial bus rider. But in the case of a vehicle, theoretically at least, the subsidy flows to the owner of the vehicle and not the passengers. Accordingly, for my analysis, sam; at one time I might have agreeded but from the posts about the mega-bus accident it appears that the axel loading on them is as great as a full tractor trailer. Since a bus does not pay the same user fee as a tractor trailer then the bus passengers are being subsidized as well. although we do not know the reason the steer tire on the bus blew I have seen enough buses around here with blown steer and rear axel tires ( FORTUNATELY NO ACCIDENTS ) to believe that the tires are loaded to the max + . we know trucks do not pay their portion of the damage they cause so maybe these same buses are not either ?
Sam1: An Amtrak passenger receives an indirect subsidy from the federal government. The same is true for a commercial airline passenger and a commercial bus rider. But in the case of a vehicle, theoretically at least, the subsidy flows to the owner of the vehicle and not the passengers. Accordingly, for my analysis,
Actually, I should have said the owner of a personal vehicle. In the case of a commercial bus, the benefit flows to the riders who buy the tickets. It follows the same path as those for rail passengers, commercial air passengers, etc. For the most part the subsidy reduces the price of the ticket. In the case of a personal vehicle, it reduces the cost of operating the vehicle for the owner but not the passengers in the vehicle.
DwightBranch Sam1: travelingengineer: "DwightBranch," I agree with you completely. The Gettysburg Address was composed of only ten sentences, and delivered in two minutes. The Gettysburg Address was a political speech. If you think that a one or two liner is sufficient for an understanding of U.S. transport subsidies, for example, as has been quoted out of context or wrongly from time to time, without trying to understand the relatively complex details, that is your choice. Doing so, however, is likely to leave you misinformed. I choose to present enough detail to shed reasonable light on the subject. I plan to continue doing so. Sorry if that offends you. I give a lecture on the entire history of trade theory, from Ricardo, comparative advantage etc. through to today, Heckscher-Ohlin etc. making it understandable to college undergraduates without any background in economics, that is shorter than some of your posts.
Sam1: travelingengineer: "DwightBranch," I agree with you completely. The Gettysburg Address was composed of only ten sentences, and delivered in two minutes. The Gettysburg Address was a political speech. If you think that a one or two liner is sufficient for an understanding of U.S. transport subsidies, for example, as has been quoted out of context or wrongly from time to time, without trying to understand the relatively complex details, that is your choice. Doing so, however, is likely to leave you misinformed. I choose to present enough detail to shed reasonable light on the subject. I plan to continue doing so. Sorry if that offends you.
Having written two case studies that were included in a college text book, as well as three articles for professional journals and numerous reports for the board of directors and audit committee of a Fortune 250 corporation, I am comfortable with my writing skills. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about them.
The exchange above is an example of the sort of pointless treadmills we (self included) tend to get into. They are unproductive and tend to get threads locked. IMO, the level of writing on most if not all passenger forum threads is more than adequate, and this is not an academic journal. The content leaves a lot to be desired when it goes off on these tangents, however.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.