|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1430914) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 17:39:31 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 07:25:53 2017. Land Grans were a de facto loan in which railroads had to offer reduced rates so as to pay them off .You seriously don't understand how contracts work, do you? Let me try giving you a Remedial Economics lesson again. Suppose I own a building with 100 apartments. I offer to give you the building for free, on the condition that you set aside 10 apartment and rent them to me and my friends for $1 annual rent. Since this leaves you with 90 apartments to rent at market rate, you take the deal. Note that my leases on the 10 apartments are only good for a year, but the initial contract never expires; at the end of a year, I have the right to renew my lease for another year for only $1 annual rent. Question 1: Suppose after 30 years of my renting the apartments for $1/year each, you decide that you're not going to let me renew at that preferential rate— you demand I pay market rent or move out. When I point to the initial contract under which I'm entitled to the preferential rate in exchange for giving you the building for free, you declare that the contract was a "de facto loan" and that by honouring it for 30 years, you have fully paid your debt to me. Are you within your rights to do so? Question 2: Suppose after 30 years, I voluntarily forfeit my rights to the 10 apartments and allow you to rent them at market rate. Have I given you something for nothing? Question 3: Suppose that when I make the decision in Question 2, I write you a card saying that after 30 years, I feel you've paid off any debt you owe me. Does that change your answer from Question 2? What part of that URL from the AAR did you not understand ? The URL you gave talked about bonds, not grants. The government gave both— free land (ie, a subsidy), and loans (technically a subsidy, but not relevant here). The railroads paid back the loan, but they kept the subsidy. So maybe you should try reading links before posting them, because your evidence actually proves me right. in 1945, Congress determined their land grants to have been more than paid off. Except your own link proves the exact opposite. In 1945, Congress forfeited their rights to preferential rates— that is, they gave the railroads something for nothing. IE, a subsidy. Refer to Questions 2 and 3 above. Your STUPID analogies are meaningless. Yes, I get that because you know nothing about economics, it's hard for you to understand Furthemore, they OWNED their right of way. Yes, they own it because the government gave it to them for free. That's called a "subsidy." The loan lender was the federal government acting as investment banker. Loans are NOT subsidies by the government or the investment bank. Actually, if the government lends you money at a low interest rate despite the fact that you're such a bad credit risk that no bank will touch you, that actually is a subsidy. But you don't know what a "subsidy" is and you struggle to understand basic concepts like contracts, so maybe you shouldn't worry your little head about that. The expense borne by the passenger has no impact on the airlines bank account. Yes, it does, actually. If all airline passengers have to pay an extra fee to fly, then that effectively increases the cost of flying. Increasing the cost of flying drives up ticket prices, which, in turn, reduces demand for them. Reduced demand in turn reduces the airlines' profitability. If you'd taken Econ 101, you might have learned about something called a demand curve. I'll be happy to tell you about that but I think you need to take remedial courses first since you don't even understand concepts like loans, gifts, subsidies, and contracts first. Airports get a subsidy by residing on non-ratable property, so there is no expense to be passed to the airlines, therefor they benefit from that subsidy as well. If you're talking about the property used for their routes, then it's true— railroads own land for their tracks and have to pay property taxes on it, while airlines do not own or rent any land for their routes because planes fly. That's not a subsidy though— that's an inherent superiority which is rewarded by the free market with greater profitability. Which is how free markets work. If you're claiming a better product is unfairly "subsidised" by virtue of being better, then you probably ought to give up on economics entirely. If you're referring to the airports, we've already gone over that. Airlines do pay for their airports; they just pay rent instead of tax. Renting property is not a subsidy; people who rent apartments don't get to live there for free just because they're not paying property tax. If you can't understand the idea that renting something means paying for it, then again, you probably ought to give up on economics entirely. |
|
|
|