|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1430988) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Thu Mar 23 02:08:54 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 20:54:06 2017. I never said they airlines were barely subsidized. I said they would never leave the hanger without government support. Nothing absurd about that.Don't be so sure. If the airlines were required to buy the airports and pay the air traffic controllers directly, they'd probably keep flying. Which means these alleged "subsidies" do not give them an unfair advantage over passenger trains, which can't run at all without the government operating them entirely. They don't pay for air traffic control Except they do. they didn't build the airport. So? They rent the airport. You're allowed to rent infrastructure, you know. That you didn't build it yourself is not a subsidy. They pay landing fess and for the terminals, that's all. Yes. They pay for their airports. As in, with money. Which is not the same thing as getting them for free. No different than a bus. So you think airplanes get from one airport to another via government-funded air? Roads are entirely government supported and heavily subsidized. Roads are a basic piece of societal infrastructure. If you're living in a society, it's basically assumed that roads exist and governments will pay for them. If roads count as a "subsidy," then railroads are heavily subsidised; after all, if it weren't for the government-funded lawmaking and enforcement apparatus, there would be no functioning society and thus no need for a railroad. And that's before you mention the fact that their employees are educated in government-funded schools and get to work on government-funded roads and remain in good health because the government makes sure the air and water are clean. You're playing a dumb linguistic game where you redefine a term to be all-encompassing; first you define "free market" so that it can never exist and now you define "subsidy" so that it's omnipresent. Either way, you're just screwing around and making a fool of yourself. So direct cost of driving is very cheap and that represent massive interference in your beloved "free market". Bullshit. Roads are basic infrastructure; by definition, they aren't an interference in the free market. Unless you want to argue that the existence of laws is a massive interference in the free market by suppressing the crime industry. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|