|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again (was: ... Live Well w/o a Car ...)
= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. _Jym_ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. _Jym_ Add it up again with door-to-door service, and 'anytime' availability. Not everyone lives in the imaginary 1920s-1960s urban utopia of 40 foot wide lot row houses with a bus stop on every other corner. Nor does everyone go to work or come home the same time, or work the hours the bus system is running. To provide anything near the level of service a private vehicle offers, you would need a whole lot more buses and drivers. And most of them would still be running near-empty most of the time, at a higher cost per passenger mile than a private car. Buses are only efficient if they are at least partially full. Hey, I like public transit. In college, I used it almost every day. But in a college town, most of the users live in a concentrated area, and the places they need to go are in a concentrated area. Out in the real world, the only areas that get near that user/destination density are the old urban centers. Which happen to be the only areas where mass transit works. That is why the city here collapsed their bus routes and schedules- they realized that the buses to the outer regions were running nearly empty most of the time. Same for the off-hour buses, even in town. It would be cheaper to give cab fare coupons to the folks that can't drive for whatever reason. They didn't do that, of course, so there were some people truly between a rock and a hard place. One guy wanted to take up the slack with a jitney bus service that regular-use non-drivers could subscribe to, but the cab companies leaned on the city, and it never happened. -- aem sends... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again (was: ... Live Well w/o a Car ...)
Jym Dyer wrote
= Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been Rod Speed Scott in SoCal Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure. The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS. When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax. And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway, who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead. You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. _Jym_ -- Les Cargill |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote: Jym Dyer wrote: = Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. ....and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit. The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics pushing their collectivist propaganda. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like the idea of owning my own home. =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. _Jym_ More collectivist tripe. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: Jym Dyer wrote: = Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit. Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, I'm willing to subsidize that some. The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics pushing their collectivist propaganda. Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over carbon offsets are. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like the idea of owning my own home. Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can really sock in a good down payment. If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater sucker. =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. _Jym_ More collectivist tripe. -- Les Cargill |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote: krw wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: Jym Dyer wrote: = Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit. Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, I'm willing to subsidize that some. Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all. The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics pushing their collectivist propaganda. Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over carbon offsets are. Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A higher income tax isn't going to work. The states have maxed out sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like the idea of owning my own home. Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can really sock in a good down payment. Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that. Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home is still the way to long-term financial security. If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater sucker. Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The equity in my house isn't income either. =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. _Jym_ More collectivist tripe. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: krw wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: Jym Dyer wrote: = Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit. Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, I'm willing to subsidize that some. Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all. Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write those people off. Can private efforts replace public transport? I don't know. Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us to compete. That places the burden of care for them somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope doesn't seem realistic. The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics pushing their collectivist propaganda. Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over carbon offsets are. Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A higher income tax isn't going to work. It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less. The states have maxed out sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled. Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending altogether. Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since writing an Objectivist paper in 1963. Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon and still claim the high moral ground. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like the idea of owning my own home. Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can really sock in a good down payment. Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that. No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents. Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home is still the way to long-term financial security. ********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what. This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly. Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership. If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater sucker. Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The equity in my house isn't income either. but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation, the only way to win is not to play. snip -- Les Cargill |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:15 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote: krw wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: krw wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: Jym Dyer wrote: = Scott in SoCal = Rod Speed Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving. ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit. Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, I'm willing to subsidize that some. Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all. Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write those people off. Can private efforts replace public transport? I don't know. So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even force it? How positively Johnsonian of you. Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us to compete. That places the burden of care for them somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope doesn't seem realistic. Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The unproductive are already under control. The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics pushing their collectivist propaganda. Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over carbon offsets are. Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A higher income tax isn't going to work. It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less. By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no mater what color you paint them. People know this, but what they can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15? The states have maxed out sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled. Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending altogether. Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes. Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since writing an Objectivist paper in 1963. Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon and still claim the high moral ground. No, the problem with capitalism is government. =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like the idea of owning my own home. Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can really sock in a good down payment. Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that. No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents. How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please elaborate. Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home is still the way to long-term financial security. ********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what. If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house with less than 1% down. This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly. Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial winner. Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership. Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty small, over the life of a house. If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater sucker. Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The equity in my house isn't income either. but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation, the only way to win is not to play. The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Les Cargill wrote:
(snip) Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending altogether. Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three. Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile, instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save millions right there. A drop of **** in the ocean, I know, but every drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in the hole, the less they take home. -- aem sends.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RACQ website poll on yes/no to scrapping the fuel subsidy | Peter | Australia | 0 | May 21st 09 12:01 AM |
Nonsense Video | unifreak7 | Unicycling | 32 | September 1st 06 05:17 PM |
More nonsense from MV | JP | Mountain Biking | 1 | May 1st 05 06:19 PM |
Shoe nonsense | William H. O'Hara, III | Techniques | 12 | November 16th 04 05:14 PM |
Electric Cycle Subsidy | AcKBaR[KAC] | UK | 24 | July 11th 04 06:56 PM |