|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1430953) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 20:14:54 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 18:16:51 2017. Your apartment and Econ 101 lectures and examples are stupid, meaningless and irrelevant.So you're saying you're not smart enough to understand them? Here, let me give you another shot. 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? See, the trouble is the government gave the railroads a loan and a subsidy and you're trying to conflate them— "I paid off the loan, so the subsidy doesn't count!" That's not actually how it works. The land that they took from the Indians did not cost the government anything to begin with. Seriously? You're actually trying to argue that because the land was stolen, it was actually paid for? So if I steal your car and give it to Bob for free, can Bob legitimately claim he never got a free car? After all, it's not like I paid for it, so the fact that Bob didn't pay for it doesn't make it free. The government did not give the railroads anything for free because the railroads had to make implicit payments back to the government in terms of reduced rates. In the 19th century, the government gave the railroads free land on the condition that they give the government preferential rates. That's a subsidy— that there was a string attached doesn't change the fact that they got something (ie, the value of the land minus the cost of honouring the preferential rates) for nothing. And then, in the 1940s, the government gave them another subsidy by waiving their right to preferential rates. So perhaps my lesson may have been a bit too advanced for you. Let's start with the basics. 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, meaning you receive 90 apartments for free that you may rent out for your own profit. If you accept my generous offer, can I legitimately say I gave you something for nothing? Here's a hint: If I give you $1,000 cash in exchange for your $100 bill, then I have given you a gift of $900. If I then give the $100 bill back to you, then I have given you a second gift of $100. The railroads paid off their loan and did not keep any subsidy because there was NO SUBSIDY. No cash went from the government to any railroad. It only flowed the other way to the government. Ah, the fun thing about SubChat arguments is that they're so formulaic. First, I prove that you know nothing about a particular topic. Then you indignantly claim to have, like, seven degrees in exactly that topic. Then you spew random insults. Now we've moved on to the end game, where you just scream: "NUH UH!" Then eventually, I get bored and leave. Or you get too repetitive and I post a CAPTCHA, or I ask a question you can't answer without proving yourself wrong and refuse to let you dodge it, until you run off in a huff and maybe throw a tantrum about how mean I was for proving you wrong. In order for planes to FLY, they have to TAKE OFF from an airport, that is tax free property, a subsidy No, it's not a subsidy. A subsidy is when you get something for nothing. If you rent an airport at market rate, then you're not getting something for free; you're paying for it. If you get a special tax exemption in your property, then that is a subsidy. However, the airlines do not get tax exemptions on their airports. The reason airlines don't pay property taxes on their airports is not because they get a special exemption, but because they don't actually own the airports. Tenants don't pay property taxes. Since the government is entirely involved with airports, the concept of free market does not exist See, this is why it's important to understand terms before you use them. If you'd just told me up front that "free markets" are a logical contradiction that can't possibly exist under any circumstances, then I could have corrected you, explained what a free market really is, and told you that it was that which considers airlines superior. |
|
|
|