|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1430952) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 20:14:51 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 18:00:29 2017. "Free market" means just that - NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Since the concept does not exist anymore, you are in no position to determine what the "free market" has decided."No government intervention" doesn't mean no government. After all, if I need something, I can usually get it cheaper by stealing it than buying it, but the government intervenes to stop me from stealing. However, an economy that allowed theft couldn't possibly function. Which means that the term "free market" as you defined it is an absurdity; a thing that could not ever exist under any circumstances. That alone should tell you that you've misunderstood the term. Here in the real world, the term "free market" refers to an economic system where individuals buy and sell goods and services at prices determined by supply and demand. There is considerable demand for air travel at a price greater than its cost, but there is almost no demand for rail travel at a price greater than its cost. As such, private airlines provide passenger service at the price the market will pay, while private passenger rail doesn't exist because the cost of providing it exceeds what the market will pay for it. Which means that according to the free market, airplanes are a superior mode of transportation than passenger trains. After all, you've conceded that airlines are at most barely subsidised. Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, we accept your asinine claim that airlines don't pay for airports or traffic control. Suppose, then, that the government offered the same deal to passenger railroads— we'll pay your dispatchers and we'll maintain your stations (but not your tracks). Would private passenger rail resume operations? Of course not. Even with those minor subsidies, passenger rail still wouldn't be profitable and private companies wouldn't be able to run it. Automobiles do not leave the driveway and airplanes do not leave the hanger without a government subsidy for a goverment run right of way, just like passenger trains. We've already covered your absurd claim that airlines who pay to rent airports somehow magically get them for free. As for automobiles? It's true that they use government-funded roads. However, paying for roads is one of the most basic services that literally every government performs. Even the Romans built roads. Arguing that government-funded roads are an unfair intervention in the free market is as absurd as claiming water treatment plants are an unfair attack on the bottled water industry, or restrictions on air pollution are an unfair attack on the gas mask industry or the existence of laws is an unfair attack on organised crime. |
|
|
|