|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1429871) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (1430925) | |
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, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 17:09:45 2017. You need to buy a Finance textbook as well because you do not understand business transactions."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. 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. |
|
|
| (1430928) | |
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, in response to 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. Your apartment and Econ 101 lectures and examples are stupid, meaningless and irrelevant.You also do not understand the difference between a long term loan and a subsidy and are trying to equate them. The land that they took from the Indians did not cost the government anything to begin with. 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. There was no "gift". 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. In order for planes to FLY, they have to TAKE OFF from an airport, that is tax free property, a subsidy, on an airport that was built with TAX-FREE MUNI BONDS, another subsidy. I won't even get into the fact that airlin3s cheat the system with fees to get revenue rather than raise fares so as to circumvent the air ticket tax, which forces moire subsidies to pay for air traffic control. Since the government is entirely involved with airports, the concept of free market does not exist, as much as you keep bringing it up. |
|
|
| (1430930) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 18:28:01 2017, in response to 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. FURTHERMORE:For you to think this has any relevancy today, given the massive government subsidies handed to aviation and highway post WWII, you're wrong, and it was all out west. http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/railroads-federal-land-grants-issue "only 18,738 miles of railroad line were built as a direct result of these land grants and loans. This figure represents only EIGHT PERCENT of the total railroad mileage built in the United States between 1860 and 1920. The government program was important because the building of these lines opened up the trans-Mississippi West and stimulated settlement, but most of the railroads were built by private enterprise—in some cases with state and local support. Not everyone applauded the subsidies. For example, the land grant–loan system under the Pacific Railway Act was subjected to harsh criticism by reformers who argued that it represented a vast give–away of money and public property to assist businessmen who made vast fortunes. As a result, the program of federal aid was discontinued in 1871. However, the arguments of the reformers were not entirely correct. The loans were, for the most part, repaid and the railroad companies did not reap vast fortunes from the re–sale of their land grants." |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1430952) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1430953) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1430954) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 20:14:59 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 18:28:01 2017. Not everyone applauded the subsidies. For example, the land grant–loan system under the Pacific Railway Act was subjected to harsh criticism by reformers who argued that it represented a vast give–away of money and public property to assist businessmen who made vast fortunes. As a result, the program of federal aid was discontinued in 1871. However, the arguments of the reformers were not entirely correct. The loans were, for the most part, repaid and the railroad companies did not reap vast fortunes from the re–sale of their land grants." Or, in other words, the railroads were subsidised through free government land, but they used the subsidy to fund their construction rather than simply pocket the money and run. Also, they repaid the loans that they received in addition to the subsidies. I love when you prove my point for me. |
|
|
| (1430958) | |
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, in response to 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. I never said they airlines were barely subsidized. I said they would never leave the hanger without government support. Nothing absurd about that. They don't pay for air traffic control, they didn't build the airport. They pay landing fess and for the terminals, that's all. No different than a bus.Roads are entirely government supported and heavily subsidized. If you think the gas tax covers it all, you're nuts. No level of government below state levies gas tax. So direct cost of driving is very cheap and that represent massive interference in your beloved "free market". |
|
|
| (1430959) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 21:01:57 2017, in response to 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. You are so busy delivering Econ 101 sermons with your stupid apartment house analogies to cover the fact you don't know a damned thing about RR land grants, which ceased to exist 100 years ago, and now trying to make them current and relevant.Yes, the land was worthless. It was taken from the Indians and sold to the railroads. You don't know your subject matter. THERE WAS NO SUBSIDY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SHELLED OUT NO MONEY TO START WITH. Tax-free airports is an implicit subsidy. That land would be ratable and pay a lot of property taxes with buildings on it. If airports paid property taxes, they would nail the airlines for it. |
|
|
| (1430960) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Mar 22 21:03:01 2017, in response to 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. everything has a cost. one thing the airlines do that the railroads don't is pollute the upper atmosphere. also, airports take up a hell of alot of urban space. |
|
|
| (1430963) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Mar 22 21:06:11 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by ntrainride on Wed Mar 22 21:03:01 2017. When the gov't agency or subdivision provides funding for a construction project such as an airport or its terminals, and finances them with tax free bonds, and subsequently long term leases the facilities to another entity, that is an often forgotten form of subsidy. |
|
|
| (1430964) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 21:08:47 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 20:14:59 2017. NO.The railroads paid the government over time for land granted to them that cost government nothing. THERE WAS NO SUBSIDY FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THE RAILROAD BECAUSE NO CASH FLOWED FROM THE GOVERNMENT. You are totally unable to demonstrate how much money the government handed the railroad in subsidies, because the answer is ZERO. PRIVATE INVESTORS AND CUSTOMERS is where railroads got their cash, NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. If anything, the RR subsidized the government. What you are showing if that you are clueless as to what a subsidy is. |
|
|
| (1430965) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 21:10:52 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Wed Mar 22 21:06:11 2017. But Nilet doesn't know what a subsidy is if it hit him over the head. |
|
|
| (1430967) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 21:14:43 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by ntrainride on Wed Mar 22 21:03:01 2017. Imagine what we could do with LGA and JFK airport space with a new business and housing centers. |
|
|
| (1430968) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 21:19:24 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 21:08:47 2017. The subsidy referred to was LOCAL government.I see you decided to disgregard the fact that 92% of railroad mileage never got land grants and the matter ceased to exist after 1920. |
|
|
| (1430975) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Mar 23 01:17:54 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 21:14:43 2017. Found on Brooklyn Public Library powered by Newspapers.com |
|
|
| (1430977) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 01:33:15 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 21:10:52 2017. Then why have I had to explain exactly that to you repeatedly? |
|
|
| (1430978) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 01:33:47 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by ntrainride on Wed Mar 22 21:03:01 2017. Joe V has trouble understanding basic concepts like contracts and subsidies. I don't want to overwhelm him with stuff like externalities. |
|
|
| (1430979) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Mar 23 01:34:02 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 17:09:45 2017. one comment: great majority of roads are built and maintained by "the government" great majority of vehicles can't ride over anything but roads. all roadway traffic control, from lane stripes, signage, movement regulation devices, policing, all of it, provided and controlled by, yep, "the government".t.a.n.s.t.a.f.l. |
|
|
| (1430980) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 01:35:10 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 21:14:43 2017. The trouble is that if you got rid of the airports, New York would be less accessible and therefore less desirable— which, in turn, would depress the value and prospects of new houses and businesses. |
|
|
| (1430982) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Mar 23 01:41:19 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Bill Newkirk on Wed Mar 15 08:31:50 2017. kills my rail-lovin' ass to see that. i would guess that the notion was, the city would grow around the station. plausible at the time i guess. |
|
|
| (1430983) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Mar 23 01:48:02 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Thu Mar 16 01:24:54 2017. hoboken to callicoon. nice. |
|
|
| (1430985) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:08:46 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 21:19:24 2017. I see you decided to disgregard the fact that 92% of railroad mileage never got land grantsIt's irrelevant. If the government pays for 8% of your costs, you were subsidised. Period. |
|
|
| (1430986) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:08:49 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 21:08:47 2017. The railroads paid the government over time for land granted to them that cost government nothing.I'm not sure if you're just completely ignorant of economics or if you don't know how land grants actually worked. Why don't you explain, in your own words, how the land grant system operated? You are totally unable to demonstrate how much money the government handed the railroad in subsidies, because the answer is ZERO. So now you're denying that the land grants even existed? If anything, the RR subsidized the government. This isn't even a logically valid statement. What you are showing if that you are clueless as to what a subsidy is. So why don't you explain, in your own words, what you think a subsidy is, and I can correct you? |
|
|
| (1430987) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:08:52 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 21:01:57 2017. You are so busy delivering Econ 101 sermonsWe're talking about economics. You know nothing about economics. As such, I have attempted to educate you. Are you saying you're willfully ignorant and I shouldn't bother trying to teach you the facts? to cover the fact you don't know a damned thing about RR land grants, which ceased to exist 100 years ago If I give you something for nothing, how much time needs to pass before you can legitimately say you never received something for nothing? Forget economics, you're struggling with basic logic now. In any case, the railroads were subsidised again in the 1940s as per your own link, and passenger rail has been entirely funded by the government since 1971 so I'm not sure where you got the idea that the land grants were the sole subsidy. Yes, the land was worthless. It was taken from the Indians and sold to the railroads. If the land was worthless, then why was it taken? THERE WAS NO SUBSIDY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SHELLED OUT NO MONEY TO START WITH. See, the problem here is that you don't know what a "subsidy" is. A subsidy is when the government gives a company something for nothing. It doesn't have to be cash; it can be any consideration including (but not limited to) land, stocks, debt forgiveness, tax exemptions, permission to externalise costs, or the right to buy something for less than its actual value. The government gave land to the railroads for less than its actual value. Therefore, the railroads received something for nothing. That's a subsidy. That the government stole the land rather than buying it doesn't make it any less of a subsidy. 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. Tax-free airports is an implicit subsidy. No they aren't. Tenants do NOT pay property taxes. Try deducting property taxes on your apartment, if you have an apartment, and see how fast the auditors come after you. If that's an "implicit subsidy," then everyone who rents anything is receiving subsidies since they obviously don't pay property taxes on the property they rent. That land would be ratable and pay a lot of property taxes with buildings on it. If the land is owned by the government, then it's not exactly "tax exempt," it's just that the government doesn't feel the need to pay taxes to itself for its own property. Although considering that passenger rail is completely run by the government, this is an irrelevant side issue anyway. Even if the airlines got their airports entirely for free, they'd still be receiving far less subsidies than passenger rail, thus proving my point that the free market considers them superior. |
|
|
| (1430988) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1430990) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:12:42 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by ntrainride on Thu Mar 23 01:34:02 2017. one comment: great majority of roads are built and maintained by "the government" great majority of vehicles can't ride over anything but roads. all roadway traffic control, from lane stripes, signage, movement regulation devices, policing, all of it, provided and controlled by, yep, "the government".Yes, the construction of roads is one of the most basic functions a government is expected to perform. The economic and social cost of going roadless is massive, and the private sector is ill-equipped to handle road construction and maintenance, leaving it to the government. Which means that in economic terms, the existence of (government-funded) roads is simply the way things are; it's not an intervention or subsidy. |
|
|
| (1430992) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Ftgreeneg on Thu Mar 23 02:50:59 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 15 10:06:47 2017. In Buffalo and the Niagara Falls region the grass actually is greener on the other side. Was last in Buffalo around 2012 the city (like many upstate NY cities) seems like it's stuck in the 80's. Toronto even Niagara Falls on the Canadian side is cleaner have more to do and generally nicer. The only advantage Buffalo has is stuff there is cheaper. I hear Buffalo's starting to improve it's downtown esp around the arena. Hope it stimulate the area bc Buffalo has a lot of potential. |
|
|
| (1430998) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Mar 23 06:43:52 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:12:42 2017. yep. national protection and local law enforcement, roads, power, water, food and medical quality and sanitary regulation, waste disposal.all that and more, all the stuff that modern civilization requires. |
|
|
| (1430999) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:13:18 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:08:52 2017. NILET,The only thing you have shown is that you are a : CONDESCENDING, POMPOUS, IGNORANT, BAG OF GAS. You are the one that brought up this Land Grant bullshit. The fact is: - it applied only to 8% of railroad mileage - across granger and western states - on worthless land the US Government snatched from the Indians - was between 100 and 150 years ago, - has NO relevancy today. Trump-like distractions don't work on Subchat. You sermons and hypotheticals that you memorized from a textbook caption said NOTHING of any substance. No other person on this thread agrees with you. A NORMAL person would get DOT budget documents, show receipts and disbursements from the Federal Highway and Aviation administration, and show how much was derived from the Highway and Aviation Trust funds. They are published in the NARP newsletter every year or so. You forgot that about $52 Billion in transfer payments were made from general funds to the highway trust fund, because it neared bankruptcy, because the deadbeat Republicans won't raise the gas tax. You FAIL to understand that Aviation was partially supported by the RAILROAD ticket tax that went to general funds until 1960. You FAIL to understand that massive government subsidies and intrusion ito ALL modes of transporation renders the "Free Market" a non-existent concept. You FAIL to understand subsidies, both implicit and explicit. I'M DONE You are too stupid to have a rational discussion with. |
|
|
| (1431000) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:14:33 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:08:46 2017. The government didn't pay a dime to a railroad and didn't pay a dime to get the land in the first place. Period. No subsidy. |
|
|
| (1431001) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:15:01 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 01:33:15 2017. Because you are an idiot. |
|
|
| (1431002) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:16:47 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 01:33:47 2017. Because the subsidy you pointed out didn't exist.Externalities are beyond YOUR comprehension. |
|
|
| (1431003) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:17:12 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 01:35:10 2017. Not a valid excuse for not charging the PANYNJ property taxes. |
|
|
| (1431006) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:20:05 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:12:42 2017. Yeh it's as subsidy. Only the US and Canada do so.Try buying gas in Europe. |
|
|
| (1431007) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:33:23 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Ftgreeneg on Thu Mar 23 02:50:59 2017. Was in Buffalo in 2011.Went through there a lot on the way to and from college in the 1970's. Buffalo is still Buffalo and will always be Buffalo. Toronto is not as clean as it used to be. In 2011, the Bloor-Danforth subway cars were like NYCTA cars in the 1980's with graffiti - filthy exteriors, and that was summer. |
|
|
| (1431020) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 08:51:23 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:33:23 2017. I meant to say withOUT graffiti |
|
|
| (1431042) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 23 10:38:03 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. You also do not understand the difference between a long term loan and a subsidy and are trying to equate them. The land that they took from the Indians did not cost the government anything to begin withFirst, it did cost the government money. In addition to having to buy that land from France and from Mexico, they also had to use their military power to invade Mexico to force them to sell it* and had to continue using their military power to hold the territory and wrest it from the native tribes. Regardless, even if it were free to the government, that still wouldn't mean that the government isn't entitled to sell it at market rent. If you inherited property from someone, would you be unable to sell it at market rate just because you didn't pay anything for it? What you're also forgetting is that the land grants to the railroads where sold by the railroads, minus the ROW and any necessary railroad facilities, which money the railroad got to keep. The whole point was that the railroads would sell now marketable land alongside their ROWs which would allow them to recoup their investment. The concept of free market still exists in areas where the government participates in the market, even where it is an enforced monopoly. *The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, ending the Mexican American War actually required the United States to PAY for the ceded territories despite the military victory. |
|
|
| (1431043) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 23 10:42:24 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:13:18 2017. Hypocrite. You are the one who decided to respond to his argument with condescension and derision. |
|
|
| (1431046) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 10:59:03 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 23 10:42:24 2017. I am tired of being told "Econmic Refresher" course and embarks on long Econ 101 theoretical sermons rather than focus on any current facts and goes off on idiotic land grant issues of the late 19the century as a distraction. |
|
|
| (1431050) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 23 11:12:18 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 10:59:03 2017. It's not a distraction but is a completely valid argument. Those 19th century SUBSIDIES helped make the railroads profitable for decades thereafter. The present is built on the past. |
|
|
| (1431051) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 11:14:18 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 23 11:12:18 2017. Yeh 8% of them, and they paid back that loan, uh, subsidy. |
|
|
| (1431074) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:01 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:13:18 2017. The only thing you have shown is that you are a :CONDESCENDING, POMPOUS, IGNORANT, BAG OF GAS. And here come the insults. Like clockwork. Every single person who is proven wrong starts shrieking about how horrible I am for proving them wrong. I blame SubChat's culture of toxic masculinity, where being proven wrong is considered a horrible shame that can never be lived down, so people who are proven wrong would rather make a futile effort to continue arguing their already-debunked point rather than admit it. In any case, now that you're in kindergarten mode, this "discussion" is clearly drawing to a close, but I'll take the liberty of completing this round as if you were an adult. You are the one that brought up this Land Grant bullshit. Actually, you did. I just mentioned that the railroads were subsidised; you brought up the land grants and tried to get away with rhetorical sleight of hand in which you pretended those were the only subsidies and attacked them as if it would magically disprove the fact that passenger rail has been entirely government-run since 1971 because the free market considers it unprofitable. - it applied only to 8% of railroad mileage OK, 1. If the government pays 8% of your costs, that's a subsidy. 2. The land grants didn't just apply to the railroad ROW; the government gave the railroads free land, which they then sold for cash. That's a subsidy. - across granger and western states How is the geographic location relevant to whether or not it was free? - on worthless land the US Government snatched from the Indians If it was worthless, they wouldn't have taken it. No one steals garbage. In any case, since you concede that the land belonged to the people living on it and was stolen from them, perhaps we should give it back to them. I'm sure Union Pacific won't mind having their "worthless" ROW snatched. - was between 100 and 150 years ago, Irrelevant. If I receive something for nothing, the passage of time doesn't render it paid for. Railroads are operating today because they got free land 150 years ago. If they'd never gotten the free land, they wouldn't exist. The passage of time does not expunge the effect of past actions on the present. - has NO relevancy today. Only according to your warped logic where the passage of time automatically makes something "irrelevant" because you say so. The United States is older than the land grants, so would I be justified in saying it has no relevance today and I'm free to break the "laws" passed by its completely-irrelevant government? Trump-like distractions don't work on Subchat. Exactly. So stop using them. You know I won't let you get away with that shit. You sermons and hypotheticals that you memorized from a textbook caption said NOTHING of any substance. Just because you're not intelligent enough to understand them doesn't mean they have no substance; in fact, they are incredibly relevant to everything I've attempted to discuss and why you're making a fool of yourself. Why don't you give it another shot? I can help you through it if you have trouble understanding. 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. Question 1: If you accept my generous offer, can I legitimately say I gave you something for nothing? Question 2: 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 3: 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 4: Suppose that when I make the decision in Question 3, 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 3? No other person on this thread agrees with you. LOL, that's such a SubChat-ism. In the real world, truth is not determined by popularity— especially not popularity among the handful of people immediately present. But on SubChat, nearly everyone who gets proven wrong says: "No one in this thread agrees with you!" I think it comes back to that culture of toxic masculinity thing. Being proven wrong is considered an unendurable shame, but matters of shame are largely community issues. If no one believes you've been proven wrong, then you don't have to face the (unjustified) scorn of your peers for having been proven wrong. Which is why everyone who gets proven wrong says: "No one in this thread agrees with you!" What they're really saying is: "My standing in the community is intact! My reputation among my SubChat peers is not destroyed by the unforgivable shame of having been proven wrong!" Mind you, in this case it's not actually true— other people in this thread have already agreed that you're wrong, but that's not actually all that relevant. A NORMAL person would get DOT budget documents, show receipts and disbursements from the Federal Highway and Aviation administration, and show how much was derived from the Highway and Aviation Trust funds. They are published in the NARP newsletter every year or so. I could point out that this is an absurd irrelevance. Airlines pay landing fees and pay indirectly through ticket taxes. Roads don't count as a subsidy; they're just basic infrastructure. Neither has any bearing on the fact that railroads were and are heavily subsidised. Or I could point out that you didn't do that so by your own admission you're not a "NORMAL person," whatever that is. Or I could do both. You forgot that about $52 Billion in transfer payments were made from general funds to the highway trust fund, because it neared bankruptcy, because the deadbeat Republicans won't raise the gas tax. I didn't "forget" anything. It's simply irrelevant. Roads are a basic piece of infrastructure every government is expected to pay for in one form or another. As such, roads never count as a subsidy to any particular industry. In economic terms, roads cannot be an intervention in the free market; they're just the way things are. You FAIL to understand that Aviation was partially supported by the RAILROAD ticket tax that went to general funds until 1960. A small ticket tax in effect briefly is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's a drop in the bucket; it has a negligible effect on the numbers involved. Besides, it was repealed long ago, so that means by your own argument it has absolutely no relevance today. You FAIL to understand that massive government subsidies and intrusion ito ALL modes of transporation renders the "Free Market" a non-existent concept. See, the trouble is that you don't understand exactly what the free market is. So why don't you explain, in your own words, what you think the free market is, and I can correct you? You FAIL to understand subsidies, both implicit and explicit. That's a hoot. In practically every post, I've had to explain to you what a subsidy is and you just don't get it. So why don't you explain, in your own words, what you think a subsidy is, and I can correct you? I'M DONE Good. You are too stupid to have a rational discussion with. |
|
|
| (1431075) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:32 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 10:59:03 2017. I am tired of being told "Econmic Refresher" course and embarks on long Econ 101 theoretical sermonsWell, understanding these aspects of economics is crucial to understanding the issues at hand. If you'd just take an economics refresher course, you'd understand why I'm right. By the way, welcome to the ignominious "I didn't understand what you said, so that proves you're wrong!" club. It's where people run to hide after they've humiliated themselves arguing absurdities. rather than focus on any current facts I have focussed on the current facts. Unfortunately, you don't understand those facts because you know nothing about economics. Which is why I attempted to educate you. and goes off on idiotic land grant issues of the late 19the century as a distraction. Ouch, I just got irony poisoning! Because if you read upthread, you can plainly see you brought up the 19th century land grants as a distraction from the fact that railroads have been heavily subsidised in many ways throughout their history, including via Amtrak from 1971 through to the present day. |
|
|
| (1431076) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:39 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:14:33 2017. The government didn't pay a dime to a railroadThey gave the railroad free land. Which they then sold. How is that not a subsidy? |
|
|
| (1431077) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:46 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:15:01 2017. So are you saying you're so stupid, irrational, or willfully ignorant that only an idiot would think you might be capable of learning?Because that says a lot more about you than about me, I'm afraid. |
|
|
| (1431078) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:58 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:16:47 2017. Because the subsidy you pointed out didn't exist.So now you're claiming the land grants never happened? Jeez, you're dense. Externalities are beyond YOUR comprehension. Or in other words: "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?" Now that you're in kindergarten mode, I doubt this discussion will continue much longer. |
|
|
| (1431079) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:45:06 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:17:12 2017. Yes it is. PANYNJ is a quasi-government agency. |
|
|
| (1431080) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:45:22 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:20:05 2017. Yeh it's as subsidy. Only the US and Canada do so.So you're saying other countries don't have roads? You can't possibly be that stupid. Try buying gas in Europe. Whether gas is subsidised or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Since that discussion involves externalities, you might want to learn about basic stuff like subsidies before you go there. |
|
|
| (1431088) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 14:25:37 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:39 2017. When land is worthless, it's free.Railroad developed it with their investors and customers. Once it had value, the prize is the railroad's, not the government's. Capital gain is not a "subsidy". |
|
|
| (1431095) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 14:56:26 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 14:25:37 2017. When land is worthless, it's free.Except it wasn't worthless. Which is a point you keep missing. If it was genuinely worthless, the railroad wouldn't need land grants— they could have just bought all of it for a penny without government intervention. Railroad developed it with their investors and customers. Except they only developed it because they owned it. And they only owned it because they got it for free through government subsidies. Seriously, you need to learn about economics before you attempt to talk about economics. Once it had value, the prize is the railroad's, not the government's. Exactly. If I find a piece of land already owned and used by Steve, declare it "worthless" and destroy whatever's on it, and declare it a gift to Bob, and Bob builds a house then it's Bob's land and Bob's house. The fact that I stole it from Steve doesn't count because I arbitrarily declared it worthless, and the fact that Bob didn't pay for it doesn't mean he didn't pay for it. Oh wait, that's ridiculous. Never mind. It looks like you're as clueless as ever. Capital gain is not a "subsidy". OK, here's another lesson on remedial economics. If it's too complex for you to understand, just say so. Suppose a stock has a value of $10 today. I purchase one share $10. Next week, the value is $20, so I sell it for $20. Question 1: What is my net profit? Question 2: Did I get something for nothing (ie, a subsidy)? Now suppose a stock has a value of $10 today. The government takes one share from Steve and gives it to me for free. Next week, the value is $20, so I sell it for $20. Question 1: What is my net profit? Question 2: Did I get something for nothing (ie, a subsidy)? Now suppose a piece of real estate owned by Steve has a value of $1 million today. The government takes it from Steve (without compensation) and gives it to me for free. I spend $100,000 making improvements to it, which increases its value to $1.2 million. I then sell it for $1.2 million. Question 1: What is my net profit? Question 2: Did I get something for nothing (ie, a subsidy)? |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
