OBAMA's HIGH-SPEED RAIL DREAM ? A BOONDOGGLE, Just Like It's Always Been!
Kyle Schwitters
be huge, and the public benefits meager."
"In a country where 140 million people go to work every day, Amtrak
has 78,000 daily passengers. A typical trip is subsidized by about
$50."
-------------------------------------
"A Rail Boondoggle, Moving at High Speed"
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, August 24, 2009
THE OBAMA administration's enthusiasm for high-speed rail is a
dispiriting example of government's inability to learn from past
mistakes. Since 1971, the federal government has poured almost $35
billion in subsidies into Amtrak with few public benefits. At most,
we've gotten negligible reductions -- invisible and statistically
insignificant -- in congestion, oil use or greenhouse gases. What's
mainly being provided is subsidized transportation for a small sliver
of the population. In a country where 140 million people go to work
every day, Amtrak has 78,000 daily passengers. A typical trip is
subsidized by about $50.
Given this, you'd think even the dullest politician wouldn't expand
rail subsidies, especially considering the almost $11 trillion in
projected federal budget deficits between now and 2019. But no, the
administration has made high-speed rail a top priority. It's already
proposed spending $13 billion ($8 billion in the "stimulus" package
and $1 billion annually for five years) as a down payment on high-
speed rail in 10 "corridors," including Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and
Houston to New Orleans.
The White House promises fabulous benefits. High-speed rail "will
loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways," says Vice
President Biden. A high-speed rail system would eliminate carbon
dioxide emissions "equal to removing 1 million cars from our roads,"
adds the president. Relieve congestion. Fight global warming. Reduce
oil imports. The vision is seductive. The audience is willing. Many
Americans love trains and regard other countries' systems (say,
Spain's rapid trains between Madrid and Barcelona, running at about
150 mph) as evidence of U.S. technological inferiority.
There's only one catch: The vision is a mirage. The costs of high-
speed rail would be huge, and the public benefits meager.
President Obama's network may never be built. It's doubtful private
investors will advance the money, and once government officials
acknowledge the full costs, they'll retreat. In a recent report, the
Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs,
from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist
Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible
average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems,
$125 billion.
That would be only the beginning. Ticket prices would surely be
subsidized; otherwise, no one would ride the trains. Would all the
subsidies be justified by public benefits -- less congestion, fewer
highway accidents, lower greenhouse gases?
In a blog-posted analysis, Glaeser made generous assumptions for
trains ("Personally, I almost always prefer trains to driving") and
still found that costs vastly outweigh benefits. Consider Obama's
claim about removing the equivalent of 1 million cars. Even if it came
true (doubtful), it would represent less than one-half of 1 percent of
the 254 million registered vehicles in 2007.
What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States. Even abroad,
passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more
justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.
Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct
connections between heavily populated city centers and business
districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653
in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful
land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and
factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up
most people where they live and work and take them to where they want
to go. Cars can.
Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to
500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes. Finally, Europe and
Japan tax car transportation more heavily, pushing people to trains.
In August 2008, notes the GAO, gasoline in Japan was $6.50 a gallon.
Americans regard $4 a gallon as an outrage. Proposals for stiff
gasoline taxes (advocated by many, including me) go nowhere.
The mythology of high-speed rail is not just misinformed; it's
antisocial. Governments at all levels are already overburdened.
Compounding the burdens with new wasteful subsidies would squeeze
spending for more vital needs -- schools, police and (ironically) mass
transit. High-speed rail could divert funds from mass-transit systems
that, according to a study by Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute,
have huge maintenance backlogs: $16 billion in Chicago; $17 billion in
New York; $12.2 billion in Washington; $5.8 billion in San Francisco.
Any high-speed rail system should be financed locally; states should
decide their transportation priorities.
All this seems familiar, because it's Amtrak writ large: the triumph
of fantasy over fact. The same false arguments used to justify Amtrak
(less congestion, pollution, etc.) are recycled. Evidence and
experience count for little. Obama and Biden pander to popular
prejudices instead of recognizing past failure. Boondoggles become
respectable. A White House so frivolous in embracing dubious spending
cannot be believed when it professes concern about future taxes and
budget deficits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302037.html
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
Kyle Schwitters <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "In a country where 140 million people go to work every day...
...our passenger rail system SUCKS.
Up until 1965, we used to have a WONDEREFUL passenger
rail system. NOW, to see such a system, one needs to go to
Europe or Russia!
There's no excuse for the USA's having regressed to 1850!!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Stephen Sprunk
> THE OBAMA administration's enthusiasm for high-speed rail is a
> dispiriting example of government's inability to learn from past
> mistakes. Since 1971, the federal government has poured almost $35
> billion in subsidies into Amtrak with few public benefits. At most,
> we've gotten negligible reductions -- invisible and statistically
> insignificant -- in congestion, oil use or greenhouse gases. What's
> mainly being provided is subsidized transportation for a small sliver
> of the population. In a country where 140 million people go to work
> every day, Amtrak has 78,000 daily passengers. A typical trip is
> subsidized by about $50.
First of all, Amtrak is not HSR; the economics are completely different.
Second, Amtrak or HSR is for intercity travel, not commuting to work.
Third, this article completely ignores how much airports, airlines,
highways, and local streets are subsidized. Fourth, more investment in
capacity will reduce the per-passenger(-mile) subsidy of rail through
more efficient operation.
> President Obama's network may never be built. It's doubtful private
> investors will advance the money, and once government officials
> acknowledge the full costs, they'll retreat. In a recent report, the
> Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs,
> from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist
> Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible
> average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems,
> $125 billion.
In most parts of the US, construction costs would be significantly
cheaper than cited above. The most expensive areas, such as mountains,
are not included in the ten proposed corridors. Urban segments, which
are fairly expensive, would be a tiny fraction of the total mileage.
Also, the construction could be done incrementally with verifiable
results for the least expensive improvements before moving on to the
more expensive ones, if run properly.
> That would be only the beginning. Ticket prices would surely be
> subsidized; otherwise, no one would ride the trains. Would all the
> subsidies be justified by public benefits -- less congestion, fewer
> highway accidents, lower greenhouse gases?
Why must they be subsidized? Many lines in other countries turn an
operating profit, and they could here as well.
> What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States. Even abroad,
> passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more
> justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.
There's a huge difference between subsidizing capital costs and
subsidizing operations. Yes, low-speed trains (similar to Amtrak) are
subsidized abroad; high-speed trains are generally not -- just the
infrastructure.
> Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct
> connections between heavily populated city centers and business
> districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653
> in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful
> land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and
> factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up
> most people where they live and work and take them to where they want
> to go. Cars can.
All completely irrelevant to intercity travel.
> Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to
> 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes.
The competitive limit appears to be 4-5 hours; with an average speed of
150mph, that means the distance is 600-750 miles.
Planes are very inefficient for such short trips, which clog up
airports, unnecessarily increase public subsidies for aviation, and cost
airlines a lot of money which must be subsidized by their more
efficient, more profitable long-haul trips.
> Any high-speed rail system should be financed locally; states should
> decide their transportation priorities.
A workable intercity rail system cannot be financed "locally", and most
states are too small (both by area and by population) to do a useful job
of it either. Interstate commerce is Congress's job for a reason.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Since 1971, the federal government has poured almost $35
> billion in subsidies into Amtrak with few public benefits.
Mr. Sprunk's excellent response above details many of the errors in
this piece. In addition:
Amtrak has provided many public benefits. The nation's highways and
airways have long been able to support total demand and Amtrak is an
"overflow".
Highways and aviation are more sensitive to weather than Amtrak is;
when roads and airports are closed often Amtrak keeps going. There
have been many storms where airports were closed for _days_, leaving
the passengers to sleep on the cold hard terminal floor.
Highways and airports chew up a lot of land. Trains require a much
narrower ROW to transport the same amount of people and freight. A
train terminal may be underground in a built up city.
> A typical trip is
> subsidized by about $50.
More like $30.
More significantly, highways and airways get significant general tax
subsidies. Public safety needs of highways--police, fire, rescue--are
paid via local property taxes. Some highways are supported by local
property taxes. The enormous land use of highways and airports--
especially in the future to meet growth--removes productive land from
the tax base.
> Given this, you'd think even the dullest politician wouldn't expand
> rail subsidies, especially considering the almost $11 trillion in
> projected federal budget deficits between now and 2019.
Amtrak gets about 2% of the USDOT budget, which in turn is about 2% of
the entire Federal budget. Eliminating Amtrak will not solve the
budget deficit.
> There's only one catch: The vision is a mirage. The costs of high-
> speed rail would be huge, and the public benefits meager.
There are a great many train corridors in the US not used to capacity
which can be redeveloped for faster trains. There would be little
need to obtain more scarce and very expensive land.
But if better train service is not provided, more highways and
airports will be required, taking up huge chunks of land, kicking
people out of their homes and ruining businesses.
> What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States. Even abroad,
> passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more
> justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.
As mentioned, the focus of trains is on short and medium haul
transport; long haul would remain with air. This happens to fit the
niche where airlines are extremely inefficient. Geography and energy
prices are extremely significant in these short-medium haul corridors.
> Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to
> 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes.
Future train service is NOT intended to compete with trips over 500
miles; that IS intended to be left to air.
> The mythology of high-speed rail is not just misinformed; it's
> antisocial. Governments at all levels are already overburdened.
Except that highways, highway construction, highway safety services,
highway maintenance, airports and air traffic control are all operated
by the government by a huge bureaucracy. The future will require this
to be expanded.
softsofa
Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Up until 1965, we used to have a WONDEREFUL passenger
>rail system. NOW, to see such a system, one needs to go to
>Europe or Russia!
>
> There's no excuse for the USA's having regressed to 1850!!
Let's bring her into the 1930's
Woo-wooooooooo-ooooooooo-oooooooooooo.......
[]softsofa[]
tobias b koehler
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> Monday, August 24, 2009
> Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct
> connections between heavily populated city centers and business
> districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653
> in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful
> land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and
> factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up
> most people where they live and work and take them to where they want
> to go. Cars can.
You cannot compare average figures for entire countries. All planned
high speed corridors are in areas with much higher population density.
One problem remains that the percentage of people living in areas with
absolutely no public transportation nearby may be higher, so either this
has to be solved with on-demand bus systems or with park and rail (which
doesn't always work because many people, once in their cars, will stay
there until their destination). Does anyone have figures to compare,
here? (How many people are living nearby reasonable public
transportation here vs there .....)
> Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to
> 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes.
Europe is big too, but America also has a good number of shorter trips.
(Besides, look at the other recent thread in mtre and mtrm: Japan shows
how to travel 1000 km = 621 imperial miles in 4 hours, which is
perfectly competitive against air, if you count all waiting and transfer
times.)
toby
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed?
>>> "In a country where 140 million people go to work every day...
>> ...our passenger rail system SUCKS.
>>
>> Up until 1965, we used to have a WONDEREFUL passenger
>> rail system. NOW, to see such a system, one needs to go to
>> Europe or Russia!
>>
>> There's no excuse for the USA's having regressed to 1850!!
> The rail system and public bus systems were ruined by the car and
> gas companies who bought off congress and local governments.
>
> As a consequence our roads are cluttered with cars and stinking
> trucks and the consequences of that.
EXACTLY!! The Europeans were SMART enough to AVOID
doing that, and now they have a PHENOMENAL transportation
system!
As for the trucks, though -- they ARE needed. In the same
role they have now. Using RR freight terminals as "break-in-bulk"
transition points for completing the journey of goods to the
stores. Europe tends to call them "lorries," but they have trucks
just as we do.
"If you bought it, a truck brought it."
Robert Heller
>
> > "A Rail Boondoggle, Moving at High Speed"
>
> > By Robert J. Samuelson
> > Monday, August 24, 2009
>
> > Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct
> > connections between heavily populated city centers and business
> > districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653
> > in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful
> > land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and
> > factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up
> > most people where they live and work and take them to where they want
> > to go. Cars can.
>
> You cannot compare average figures for entire countries. All planned
> high speed corridors are in areas with much higher population density.
> One problem remains that the percentage of people living in areas with
> absolutely no public transportation nearby may be higher, so either this
> has to be solved with on-demand bus systems or with park and rail (which
> doesn't always work because many people, once in their cars, will stay
> there until their destination). Does anyone have figures to compare,
> here? (How many people are living nearby reasonable public
> transportation here vs there .....)
One of the totally 'silly' things the anti-rail lobby does is compare
end-to-end trains with end-to-end planes. This makes no sense. Air
travel is almost always point-to-point -- few (do any?) planes make
intermediate stops -- trains make lots and *most* train travelers only
travel 'short' segments of these cross-country trains. So comparing
the Chicago to LA train with a Chicago to LA plane is meaningless.
Rather compare any number of *intermediate* city pairs along the
Chicago to LA train's route with the planes that serve those city
pairs.
>
> > Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to
> > 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes.
>
> Europe is big too, but America also has a good number of shorter trips.
> (Besides, look at the other recent thread in mtre and mtrm: Japan shows
> how to travel 1000 km = 621 imperial miles in 4 hours, which is
> perfectly competitive against air, if you count all waiting and transfer
> times.)
>
> toby
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Kyle Schwitters wrote:
>> THE OBAMA administration's enthusiasm for high-speed rail is a
>> dispiriting example of government's inability to learn from past
>> mistakes. Since 1971, the federal government has poured almost $35
>> billion in subsidies into Amtrak with few public benefits. At most,
>> we've gotten negligible reductions -- invisible and statistically
>> insignificant -- in congestion, oil use or greenhouse gases. What's
>> mainly being provided is subsidized transportation for a small sliver
>> of the population. In a country where 140 million people go to work
>> every day, Amtrak has 78,000 daily passengers. A typical trip is
>> subsidized by about $50.
> First of all, Amtrak is not HSR; the economics are completely different.
> Second, Amtrak or HSR is for intercity travel, not commuting to work.
Tell that to people living in the Northeast Corridor.
> Third, this article completely ignores how much airports, airlines,
> highways, and local streets are subsidized. Fourth, more investment in
> capacity will reduce the per-passenger(-mile) subsidy of rail through
> more efficient operation.
Right. (And what I said above was not a criticism; I was just
pointing out something you apparently overlooked.)
>> President Obama's network may never be built. It's doubtful private
>> investors will advance the money, and once government officials
>> acknowledge the full costs, they'll retreat. In a recent report, the
>> Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs,
>> from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist
>> Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible
>> average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems,
>> $125 billion.
>
> In most parts of the US, construction costs would be significantly
> cheaper than cited above. The most expensive areas, such as moun-
> tains, are not included in the ten proposed corridors. Urban segments,
> which are fairly expensive, would be a tiny fraction of the total mileage.
> Also, the construction could be done incrementally with verifiable
> results for the least expensive improvements before moving on to
> the more expensive ones, if run properly.
Too, passenger trains could be run on the SAME tracks as are
currently being used by freight trains, and those are ABUNDANT!
This would probably require building more sidings along the routes,
to allow trains to pass where there are only one or two sets of
tracks. I've ridden the Trans-Siberian RR multiple times, and the
schedules allow for both the freight and passenger trains along
that route to allow each other to pass via the use of sidings. (And
what a ride!! 4 days and 4 nights in a comfortable and private
compartment with meal service, from Moscow to Irkutsk! Always
a DREAM trip!
>> That would be only the beginning. Ticket prices would surely be
>> subsidized; otherwise, no one would ride the trains. Would all the
>> subsidies be justified by public benefits -- less congestion, fewer
>> highway accidents, lower greenhouse gases?
> Why must they be subsidized? Many lines in other countries turn
> an operating profit, and they could here as well.
Of COURSE they could. And we could buy our rolling stock from
Europe, where they build it all the time. Beautiful, comfortable cars!
>> What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States.
>> Even abroad, passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies
>> are more justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.
> There's a huge difference between subsidizing capital costs and
> subsidizing operations. Yes, low-speed trains (similar to Amtrak) are
> subsidized abroad; high-speed trains are generally not -- just the
> infrastructure.
>> Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct
>> connections between heavily populated city centers and business
>> districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653
>> in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful
>> land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and
>> factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up
>> most people where they live and work and take them to where they want
>> to go. Cars can.
Evidently you weren't a teen or older in the 1950s. Rail travel
between smaller towns was plentiful and frequent.
> All completely irrelevant to intercity travel.
>> Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to
>> 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes.
> The competitive limit appears to be 4-5 hours; with an average
> speed of 150mph, that means the distance is 600-750 miles.
In Europe, I like to economize by travelling via Eurailpasses. At
night, If I want to spend multiple days in the same city, I go outbound
half the night on one train, and inbound the other half of the night
on another train. ZERO hotel costs. GREAT way to explore Europe!
> Planes are very inefficient for such short trips, which clog up
> airports, unnecessarily increase public subsidies for aviation, and
> cost airlines a lot of money which must be subsidized by their more
> efficient, more profitable long-haul trips.
>> Any high-speed rail system should be financed locally; states
>> should decide their transportation priorities.
> A workable intercity rail system cannot be financed "locally", and
> most states are too small (both by area and by population) to do a
> useful job of it either. Interstate commerce is Congress's job for a
> reason.
The way I see it, if fedgov is gonna be in hock for 20 TRILLION
dollars in national debt over the next decade, the PEOPLE oughta
be able to get some benefit from all of that. We need a RAIL system
as good as Europe's!
Stephen Sprunk
> One of the totally 'silly' things the anti-rail lobby does is compare
> end-to-end trains with end-to-end planes. This makes no sense. Air
> travel is almost always point-to-point -- few (do any?) planes make
> intermediate stops -- trains make lots and *most* train travelers only
> travel 'short' segments of these cross-country trains.
More importantly, though, the anti-rail folks assume all people
traveling between two points will take a non-stop route, if one is even
available. They completely ignore how folks traveling a mere 200-400
miles may end up traveling to a hub airport 1000+ miles away and
spending several hours there before their connecting flight leaves -- or
overnight, if they missed their connection.
Anti-rail folks also usually ignore the time it takes to drive to an
airport across town, the time spent dealing with parking and shuttle
buses, security lines, boarding 30 minutes before departure, etc.
Winston
wrote:
> In Spain, this would be enough money to build 600 miles of high-speed
> track.
> In the USA, it will pay the planners, lobbyists, consultants, and
> lawyers, but it is not assured, that it buys a single mile of hardware.
>
> > That would be only the beginning. Ticket prices would surely be
> > subsidized;
>
> If the trains operate to FRA rules, yes, certainly. An alternative could
> be, to use a ruleset similar to those countries, which operate successful
> passenger railroads, but that won't happen.
>
Actually, California plans to do just that with their HSR system even
though it will mean complete separation from FRA track. In some ways
this isn't very different than what Spain has had to do since its HSR
system is standard gauge while the rest of its rail network isn't.
Miles Bader
> Hey, you children wanted this Obama Nation!
You forgot "... and get off my lawn!"
-miles
--
Resign, v. A good thing to do when you are going to be kicked out.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>
> Butt ... you're presuming that the additional capacity will be utilized.
Amtrak is carrying record ridership. It goes up every year. It's
premium Acela service has been hugely popular
Every time quality train service is offered it attracts riders.
Nickname unavailable
>
> > If the trains operate to FRA rules, yes, certainly. An alternative could
> > be, to use a ruleset similar to those countries, which operate successful
> > passenger railroads, but that won't happen.
>
> Actually, California plans to do just that with their HSR system even
> though it will mean complete separation from FRA track.
1. Separation (i.e. duplicate infrastructure) is one reason
for absurd cost to implement HSR in the US.
2. Even with separation, it is possible FRA will
still have authority over the proposed CA project.
FRA has been involved in the planning process,
which probably means the CA will have nonsense
operating restrictions. For example: full concrete
barrier between high-speed tracks and "conventional
tracks" and/or extra-large separation distance.
3. For the Caltrain portion of the project, it is
not clear how to mix the competing modes:
freight, commuter, and HSR. No doubt, the
most expensive and least flexible solution
will be required by FRA. Contracting mafia
will happily oblige.
Willms
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> > In some ways
> > this isn't very different than what Spain has had to do since its HSR
> > system is standard gauge while the rest of its rail network isn't.
>
> AFAIK, freight can already roll into Spain on 1435, to Gerone.
Wrong. Planned does not yet mean realised.
But your statement has one advantage: I now _know_ for sure, how
much of your "information" is pure fiction.
And what is planned is a third rail on the "classic" track, so that
on one of the two tracks between Figueres and Gerona both Iberian and
UIC track gauge will be available.
Cheers,
Miles Bader
>> AFAIK, freight can already roll into Spain on 1435, to Gerone.
>
> Wrong. Planned does not yet mean realised.
>
> But your statement has one advantage: I now _know_ for sure, how
> much of your "information" is pure fiction.
Er, well obviously you don't "know" it; a single sample does not tell
you about the general case. After all, if he's ever gotten anything
_right_ (and surely he has), then how is that any less significant than
this mistake?
-miles
--
Cabbage, n. A familiar kitchen-garden vegetable about as large and wise as a
man's head.
Willms
auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> "Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> writes:
> >> AFAIK, freight can already roll into Spain on 1435, to Gerone.
> >
> > Wrong. Planned does not yet mean realised.
> >
> > But your statement has one advantage: I now _know_ for sure, how
> > much of your "information" is pure fiction.
>
> Er, well obviously you don't "know" it; a single sample does not tell
> you about the general case. After all, if he's ever gotten anything
> _right_ (and surely he has), then how is that any less significant than
> this mistake?
It is not reliable.
Cheers,
L.W.
Willms
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> The border-crossing link opened in February, that's what I remembered from
> the trade press.
But that went only up to a few kilometers north of Figueres. Even
from Figueres to Gerona is still quite some stretch.
> Apparently, they have some problems in the Figueras station environment,
> so they now have a brand-new high-speed line, all done, with 0 trains
> operating on it.
Yeah, because the construction on the Spanish side is delayed by a
few years.
But they are busy building.
Independently of that go the works which I mentioned in my previous
message.
Cheers,
Willms
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> The end of a new-built high-speed line, in direct neighbourhood to Figueras,
> photo of February:
of which year? And why should anybody believe your indications about
the date of the photo?
> http://fotos.miarroba.com/fotos/7/b/7bb1c48d.jpg
At least they are working on the other side.
Cheers,
L.W.
Willms
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> I can't read Spanish, so it's difficult to get down to the reason.
Then you should avoid to make so definite statements.
Cheers,
John Levine
>be huge, and the public benefits meager."
Paul Krugman pointed out the fundamental dishonesty of this argument,
that the US is too spread out for rail to work. Nobody's proposing
high-speed rail from Alaska to Florida, they're proposing it in
corridors that are just as dense as all the other places where
high-speed rail works:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/dense-about-density/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/more-on-density-and-rail/
Miles Bader
> And just like the hundreds of mtra postings, Krugman pointing it out
> another time won't help either.
Still, many more people, and perhaps more importantly, many more
_influential_ people read the NYT than read mtra.... Writing something
in the NYT _can_ actually have an effect.
[Sadly, this applies to misinformation too, like the NYT links to the
silly freakonomics blog entries about HSR (the reader responses on the
blog page actually pointed out many of the stupidities, however)].]
-Miles
--
"Nah, there's no bigger atheist than me. Well, I take that back.
I'm a cancer screening away from going agnostic and a biopsy away
from full-fledged Christian." [Adam Carolla]
Willms
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> And how many _influential_ people aren't aware of
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7052/us_population_2005_lrg.jpg
>
There very very very few people who memorize URLs by heart.
Cheers,
L.W.
tobias b koehler
> Am Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:23:04 UTC, schrieb Hans-Joachim Zierke
>> And how many _influential_ people aren't aware of
>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7052/us_population_2005_lrg.jpg
> There very very very few people who memorize URLs by heart.
Truly influential people know how to research what they need to draw
their conclusions, or which experts to consult.
After all you don't just put a high speed line into the white areas of
that map, just because the land is cheaper there .....
DockScience
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:45c9ce83-357e-480d...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>A typical trip is
>> subsidized by about $50.
>More like $30.
Actually it's $100/trip if one takes into account that the Northeast
Corridor actually generates profits and the subsidies instead go to all the
other non-profitable routes.
If Amtrak were forced to operate as a business, it would only operate
Bos-Ny-Washington and there would be no other routes.
Bolwerk
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
> news:45c9ce83-357e-480d...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> A typical trip is
>>> subsidized by about $50.
>
>> More like $30.
Does anybody have any actual numbers? Amtrak's operations are
subsidized to the tune of around 32%. I guess that means that for every
$100 in fares sold, the government is kicking in another $47 or so.
What's the average ticket cost?
> Actually it's $100/trip if one takes into account that the Northeast
> Corridor actually generates profits and the subsidies instead go to all the
> other non-profitable routes.
The Acela Express pays for its own operations, but IIRC the margin is
rather small. I'm not sure the other NE corridor services can even say
that much though.
> If Amtrak were forced to operate as a business, it would only operate
> Bos-Ny-Washington and there would be no other routes.
If Amtrak were forced to operate as a private business, it would be
allowed to discount its rates to maximize profit (minimize loss?),
reduce its labor overhead, invest in potentially profitable routes, and
divest itself of unprofitable routes --- and it probably wouldn't be
paying railroad pensions for people who never worked for it.
AFAIK, there are a handful of other routes around the country that turn
an operating profit and a few more that come pretty close.
Alan Larsson
Here are some numbers and facts:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/29/study-shows-that-amtrak-costs-38-per-passenger-how-much-do-hig/
Actually, I beleive passenger rail has never made money in the US, and
has always been subsidised. Just originally it was not called a
subsidy, it was the RPO and the money from the post office. Once that
ended in the late 60's is when the passenger rails fell apart leading to
Amtrak in the first place.
Bolwerk
Interesting, but it doesn't say what the typical fare is.
> Actually, I beleive passenger rail has never made money in the US, and
> has always been subsidised. Just originally it was not called a
> subsidy, it was the RPO and the money from the post office. Once that
> ended in the late 60's is when the passenger rails fell apart leading to
> Amtrak in the first place.
The RPO cars certainly funded unprofitable routes, but I don't think
they were exclusively responsible for profitability.
Regardless, commuter railroads, rapid transit, and streetcars certainly
turned profits at certain points in history.
Sancho Panza
"Alan Larsson" <ab...@alstown.com> wrote in message
news:hesb2h$q14$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It is tough for anyone who has flown a commercial plane and examined his
ticket to put much credence in a source that says, "federal funds pay for
airport security."
Stephen Sprunk
> DockScience wrote:
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:45c9ce83-357e-480d...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> A typical trip is subsidized by about $50.
>>
>>> More like $30.
>
> Does anybody have any actual numbers?
All you have to do is look at Amtrak's Annual Report, which is available
on their web site under "Reports & Documents". ("Investor Relations" is
the standard location, even for public agencies, but Amtrak has renamed
it since I last looked.)
> Amtrak's operations are subsidized to the tune of around 32%. I guess
> that means that for every $100 in fares sold, the government is kicking
> in another $47 or so.
2008 Passenger revenue: $1,955,422,000
2008 Federal grants: $1,314,528,000
So, for every $100 in fares, the feds kick in another $67.22.
(That's 40.2% subsidy, FYI.)
> What's the average ticket cost?
$1,955,422,000 / 28,700,000 passengers = $68.13/passenger
>> Actually it's $100/trip if one takes into account that the Northeast
>> Corridor actually generates profits and the subsidies instead go to
>> all the other non-profitable routes.
>
> The Acela Express pays for its own operations, but IIRC the margin is
> rather small. I'm not sure the other NE corridor services can even say
> that much though.
Only Acela covers its operating cost; all the other NEC trains lose
money, just like the LD and regional trains around the rest of the country.
IIRC, Acela also pays for its share of the capital costs.
>> If Amtrak were forced to operate as a business, it would only operate
>> Bos-Ny-Washington and there would be no other routes.
>
> If Amtrak were forced to operate as a private business, it would be
> allowed to discount its rates to maximize profit (minimize loss?),
Yes, it could.
OTOH, Amtrak would have to start paying property taxes on the NEC if it
were a private business; currently it is exempt as a pseudo-government
entity. Even if they were turning a profit today, that additional
expense would surely sink them.
> reduce its labor overhead,
Not as long as the unions and FRA insist on overcrewing trains, and that
applies to private companies as well.
> invest in potentially profitable routes,
Investing implies they have cash or credit to do so, and Amtrak does not.
> and divest itself of unprofitable routes
You mean all of them? There wouldn't be much of a railroad left.
Keep in mind that if Amtrak eliminated the biggest money-losers, that
would reduce demand (and increase losses) on other routes, snowballing
until it took down the entire network.
Due to network effects, the only way to survive is to _grow_ your way to
profitability. Shrinking a network _reduces_ its value.
> --- and it probably wouldn't be paying railroad pensions for people
> who never worked for it.
All railroads, both public and private, are paying for those pensions.
> AFAIK, there are a handful of other routes around the country that turn
> an operating profit
I've never seen any reliable claims of such; AFAIK, Acela is the only one.
> and a few more that come pretty close.
Such as?
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
HAL
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Not as long as the unions and FRA insist on overcrewing trains, and that
> applies to private companies as well.
The trains are not over crewed. And the FRA has taken no position on
crew size.
Sancho Panza
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:heskua$29b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> DockScience wrote:
>>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45c9ce83-357e-480d...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> A typical trip is subsidized by about $50.
>>>
>>>> More like $30.
>>
>> Does anybody have any actual numbers?
>
> All you have to do is look at Amtrak's Annual Report, which is available
> on their web site under "Reports & Documents". ("Investor Relations" is
> the standard location, even for public agencies, but Amtrak has renamed
> it since I last looked.)
>
>> Amtrak's operations are subsidized to the tune of around 32%. I guess
>> that means that for every $100 in fares sold, the government is kicking
>> in another $47 or so.
>
> 2008 Passenger revenue: $1,955,422,000
> 2008 Federal grants: $1,314,528,000
>
> So, for every $100 in fares, the feds kick in another $67.22.
>
> (That's 40.2% subsidy, FYI.)
And by definition that does not include the huge sums that states like New
Jersey and Maryland pay Amtrak annually for the, uh, privilege of operating
on the corridor.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> And by definition that does not include the huge sums that states like New
> Jersey and Maryland pay Amtrak annually for the, uh, privilege of operating
> on the corridor.
"huge sums"??? The bulk of train movements on the Corridor are those
of commuter trains. Thus, the bulk of expenses, like power, trackage,
are for commuter trains.
On the NEC, Amtrak has had to pay, and pay dearly, to remediate
asbestos and PCBs numerous from properties not even involved with
Amtrak transportation only because Amtrak was the designated inheritor
of old railroad properties. Amtrak got stuck with the bill for old
abandoned railroad yards, even old factories.
Everywhere else those cleanup expenses would be borne by either the
private sector, or if the property was abandoned, by Superfund sites.
Because the infrastructure of the NEC was old, Amtrak had to pay to
upgrade it to meet modern legal requirements, such as ADA and EPA
rules. Adding elevators to places not designed for them ain't cheap,
esp old buildings.
Let's not forget the massive taxes private property owners in the NE
pay to support road services not covered by gasoline taxes. Contrary
to myth that a superhighway brings development, many old towns were
ruined by a new superhighway slicing it apart, and removing its
existing tax base.
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> news:heskua$29b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > Bolwerk wrote:
> >> DockScience wrote:
> >>>news:45c9ce83-357e-480d...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> A typical trip is subsidized by about $50.
>
> >>>> More like $30.
>
> >> Does anybody have any actual numbers?
>
> > All you have to do is look at Amtrak's Annual Report, which is available
> > on their web site under "Reports & Documents". ("Investor Relations" is
> > the standard location, even for public agencies, but Amtrak has renamed
> > it since I last looked.)
>
> >> Amtrak's operations are subsidized to the tune of around 32%. I guess
> >> that means that for every $100 in fares sold, the government is kicking
> >> in another $47 or so.
>
> > 2008 Passenger revenue: $1,955,422,000
> > 2008 Federal grants: $1,314,528,000
>
> > So, for every $100 in fares, the feds kick in another $67.22.
>
> > (That's 40.2% subsidy, FYI.)
>
> And by definition that does not include the huge sums that states like New
> Jersey and Maryland pay Amtrak annually for the, uh, privilege of operating
> on the corridor.
>
>
>
you realize Amtrak handles all of the maintainence on the nec
would it be your suggestion that the respective states take over their
sections of the nec and be responsible for maint
inc structures that are about 100 yrs old
gl4...@yahoo.com
> 2008 Passenger revenue: $1,955,422,000
> 2008 Federal grants: $1,314,528,000
"Grants" can include a lot of different stuff though, not just financing
for operations.
The typical numbers I have seen in previous years show only about half of
the grant money going to fund actual operations. The other grants were
for items congress apparently couldn't live without, and had to dump money
into.
Be prepared for the numbers to get worse too. With the requirement to go
to automatic train stop for lines with passenger service, you can bet that
Amtrak will wind up paying for signal upgrades on thousands of miles of
track that have only one train per day.
> OTOH, Amtrak would have to start paying property taxes on the NEC if it
> were a private business; currently it is exempt as a pseudo-government
> entity. Even if they were turning a profit today, that additional
> expense would surely sink them.
If Amtrak had to operate as a private business, the current corporation
would have to be liquidated, including paying off the shareholders. I
would assume that the NEC would be sold off in pieces to the states, or
some similar plan would be executed, in order to pay off the demands of
the particular shareholder that has been an obstacle in the past.
> Not as long as the unions and FRA insist on overcrewing trains, and that
> applies to private companies as well.
The most recent FRA ruling stated that they would not across the board ban
all one person crews. However, the unions are appealing the ruling.
> Keep in mind that if Amtrak eliminated the biggest money-losers, that
> would reduce demand (and increase losses) on other routes, snowballing
> until it took down the entire network.
>
> Due to network effects, the only way to survive is to _grow_ your way to
> profitability. Shrinking a network _reduces_ its value.
The way I remember it, Amtrak's farebox recovery ratio was somewhat better
under Claytor (the figure I remember was in the 80% range. At that point
in time, Amtrak was getting enough financing to operate more routes (the
Pioneer, for example). However, as the financing was cut back over the
years since then, fewer trains have been operating, and thus the overall
operating ratio also dropped.
So, it isn't as if this is a theoretical thing. We have watched it happen
over the years with Amtrak. Repeated cutbacks in funding and cutting
routes that were deemed to be "unimportant" has actually reduced the
farebox recovery ratio, as best as I have been able to determine.
> > AFAIK, there are a handful of other routes around the country that turn
> > an operating profit
>
> I've never seen any reliable claims of such; AFAIK, Acela is the only one.
The one that I have seen that is sometimes listed as Amtrak's most
profitable train is the Auto-Train. Though, it should be noted that
originally operated as a private company, but failed in the 1970s. In the
end, it wound up getting deemed important enough for it to get swept into
Amtrak's lap. After significant investments in equipment, it can
apparently now support itself.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Stephen Sprunk
The FRA has indirectly made it extremely difficult to do OPTO, which has
been discussed many times here. This may or may not be deliberate; it's
possible that they simply make regulations assuming that union-mandated
two-person crews will exist without considering OPTO, but the effect is
the same.
In any event, I don't see how being a private company would in any way
reduce Amtrak's problems with crew size, regardless of source. The
exact same union and/or FRA problems afflict both.
Bolwerk
Interesting thought. Nothing need stop the government from maintaining
the NEC and charging railroads to use it though. It's more
"business-like" than the roads system.
>> reduce its labor overhead,
>
> Not as long as the unions and FRA insist on overcrewing trains, and that
> applies to private companies as well.
>
>> invest in potentially profitable routes,
>
> Investing implies they have cash or credit to do so, and Amtrak does not.
Yes, of course.
>> and divest itself of unprofitable routes
>
> You mean all of them? There wouldn't be much of a railroad left.
>
> Keep in mind that if Amtrak eliminated the biggest money-losers, that
> would reduce demand (and increase losses) on other routes, snowballing
> until it took down the entire network.
>
> Due to network effects, the only way to survive is to _grow_ your way to
> profitability. Shrinking a network _reduces_ its value.
I realize that, but surely they have some way to measure operating
leverage. Some routes could in theory boost productivity while others
don't.
Actually, the Amtrak Monthly Performance Report for Sept. 2008 seems to
suggest they do this.
>> --- and it probably wouldn't be paying railroad pensions for people
>> who never worked for it.
>
> All railroads, both public and private, are paying for those pensions.
>
>> AFAIK, there are a handful of other routes around the country that turn
>> an operating profit
>
> I've never seen any reliable claims of such; AFAIK, Acela is the only one.
I thought I saw some here, actually. I could be mistaken.
(I believe the NE corridor service on NJ Transit is profitable, but it's
not Amtrak.)
>> and a few more that come pretty close.
>
> Such as?
http://www.subsidyscope.com/transportation/amtrak/table/
It appears Chicago-St. Louis, Washington-Newport News, and the
Carolinian are all profitable before factoring in depreciation and
other, I presume non-traceable, overhead costs. You can decide for
yourself what else comes pretty close.
I expected better from Empire Service.
The URL links to a PDF of the Amtrak Monthly Performance Report for
Sept. 2008. (I linked to the above because it seems accurate and the
URL to the PDF is really long, but the PDF is much more detailed.)
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>> DockScience wrote:
>>>> If Amtrak were forced to operate as a business, it would only operate
>>>> Bos-Ny-Washington and there would be no other routes.
>>>
>>> If Amtrak were forced to operate as a private business, it would be
>>> allowed to discount its rates to maximize profit (minimize loss?),
>>
>> Yes, it could.
>>
>> OTOH, Amtrak would have to start paying property taxes on the NEC if it
>> were a private business; currently it is exempt as a pseudo-government
>> entity. Even if they were turning a profit today, that additional
>> expense would surely sink them.
>
> Interesting thought. Nothing need stop the government from maintaining
> the NEC and charging railroads to use it though.
I would have no objection to the government owning _all_ rail lines and
charging track usage fees to private TOCs. That's how it works in
Germany, AIUI, and it seems to work well there.
However, for better or worse, US RRs (and the FRA) are stuck on the idea
of railroads owning the infrastructure _and_ operating the trains on it,
with various private agreements for "trackage rights" and "haulage rights".
> It's more "business-like" than the roads system.
I see such an arrangement being very similar to an all-toll highway system.
>>> and divest itself of unprofitable routes
>>
>> You mean all of them? There wouldn't be much of a railroad left.
>>
>> Keep in mind that if Amtrak eliminated the biggest money-losers, that
>> would reduce demand (and increase losses) on other routes, snowballing
>> until it took down the entire network.
>>
>> Due to network effects, the only way to survive is to _grow_ your way to
>> profitability. Shrinking a network _reduces_ its value.
>
> I realize that, but surely they have some way to measure operating
> leverage. Some routes could in theory boost productivity while others
> don't.
>
> Actually, the Amtrak Monthly Performance Report for Sept. 2008 seems to
> suggest they do this.
To a degree. Thanks for the pointer, as I hadn't scrolled down far
enough to notice that report and that it had per-route figures.
> (I believe the NE corridor service on NJ Transit is profitable, but it's
> not Amtrak.)
Cite? Even if true, one must wonder how much of that is due to NJT not
having to cover the entire infrastructure cost themselves for that
route. Granted, Amtrak isn't allowed to subsidize commuter operations
per se, but they _are_ picking up part of the cost that NJT (and MARC,
SEPTA, MBTA, VRE, etc.) would have to pay if Amtrak were to cease to exist.
Amortizing fixed costs across more trains means lower per-train costs.
For a single operator, you have to balance that vs. increased operating
costs, but when another operator is paying those operating costs the
picture changes...
>>> and a few more that come pretty close.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> http://www.subsidyscope.com/transportation/amtrak/table/
>
> It appears Chicago-St. Louis, Washington-Newport News, and the
> Carolinian are all profitable before factoring in depreciation and
> other, I presume non-traceable, overhead costs. You can decide for
> yourself what else comes pretty close.
The latest report available, Aug 2009, shows that only the
Washington-Newport News and "Special Trains" regional services and none
of the LD services makes a net revenue contribution even _before_
indirect costs ("infrastructure maintenance and system costs"),
depreciation, and interest.
Given that depreciation (use of capital assets) and interest (use of
cash) consume 29.1% of Amtrak's total revenue, and indirect costs add
another 25.9%, one can't simply ignore those numbers.
Unfortunately, Amtrak doesn't break down depreciation by route, probably
because they switch rolling stock around too much for it to be feasible.
Interest can't really be allocated to any route.
> I expected better from Empire Service.
Yes; it's much worse than the typical regional route and worse than even
four LD routes.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
> It is tough for anyone who has flown a commercial plane and examined his
> ticket to put much credence in a source that says, "federal funds pay for
> airport security."
Maybe, but I'm not completely convinced that the ticket fees completely
cover the cost of operating the TSA. It seems to me that I have seen some
congressional funds sent that direction.
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> I would have no objection to the government owning _all_ rail lines and
> charging track usage fees to private TOCs. That's how it works in
> Germany, AIUI, and it seems to work well there.
My only objection is that the feds can barely keep the NEC functional -
having the rest of the system under their thumb might not really be an
improvement from what we've got now. They'll also be subject to freight
lobbying (both internal and external), thus there's nothing to say we'd
get a situation like Germany quickly, or ever. The Germans maintain
their track a hell of a lot better than us, they have much better
regulations in regard to passenger operations, and they seem willing to
improve things, and can control costs a bit better than us.
Day Brown
high speed, but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
Stephen Sprunk
> What America, which is so much vaster than Japan or Europe, needs is
> high speed,
Try coming up with the capital for that.
> but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
> cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
> in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
Train on standard gauge. It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops
(including loading and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
a point-to-point service; there's just no way to do it on a normal
multistop route, at least not if you want an average speed that exceeds
that of a bicycle.
The real solutions are to improve public transit such that it is usable
and/or get car-sharing services started.
(I have no idea how the Chunnel's auto ferry service performs, but it's
roughly the same idea, also on standard gauge.)
Charles Ellson
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>Day Brown wrote:
>> What America, which is so much vaster than Japan or Europe, needs is
>> high speed,
>
>Try coming up with the capital for that.
>
>> but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
>> cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
>> in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
>
>You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
>Train on standard gauge. It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops
>(including loading and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
>a point-to-point service; there's just no way to do it on a normal
>multistop route, at least not if you want an average speed that exceeds
>that of a bicycle.
>
>The real solutions are to improve public transit such that it is usable
>and/or get car-sharing services started.
>
>(I have no idea how the Chunnel's auto ferry service performs, but it's
>roughly the same idea, also on standard gauge.)
>
I think you can still just "turn up and go" (i.e. book yourself a
place at the Eurotunnel terminal subject to a 120-30 minute check-in
time allowing security checks) but you won't necessarily get the next
available train if enough other people have booked/arrived before
you.:- http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcPassengers/ukcTravel/
The Channel Tunnel wagons for motor vehicles are well out of normal
loading gauge for the UK and Europe making it a "local" service only
but ordinary cars and light vans are still carried for the motor
industry on normal railways within the UK and to/from Europe although
the Motorail service within the UK (vehicles accompanying passengers
on the same or another train) ceased around 1995, possibly due to the
distances involved being progressively less inconvenient for driving
with ongoing road improvements.
Most such services in Europe seem to be essentially point-to-point.
John Albert
"I would have no objection to the government owning _all_
rail lines and
charging track usage fees to private TOCs. That's how it
works in
Germany, AIUI, and it seems to work well there"
This is America, Stephen, and I think it's safe to say that
many, if not most Americans don't really care much for
socialism - which is what you just described.
An ugly little concept we have called "private property",
combined with another ugly little concept called "capitalism".
Long may they both exist!
- John
rsh...@gmail.com
and they both work so very well
how much have you lost in your retirement acct?
how much has the value of your house gone down?
correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you have a govt pension, at
least partially
and govt provided health ins
and those are not the marks of socialism?
rsh...@gmail.com
> Day Brown wrote:
> > What America, which is so much vaster than Japan or Europe, needs is
> > high speed,
>
> Try coming up with the capital for that.
>
> > but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
> > cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
> > in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
>
we have discussed this before and it is unworkable
if, as Stephen says we had truly efficient transit, it would be
unnecessary
> You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
> Train on standard gauge. It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops
> (including loading and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
> a point-to-point service; there's just no way to do it on a normal
> multistop route, at least not if you want an average speed that exceeds
> that of a bicycle.
I don't think it is a loser, from what I understand it is popular.
it is basically from the northeast to FL and it relieves people of
driving I-95.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > (I believe the NE corridor service on NJ Transit is profitable, but it's
> > not Amtrak.)
>
> Cite? Even if true, one must wonder how much of that is due to NJT not
> having to cover the entire infrastructure cost themselves for that
> route. Granted, Amtrak isn't allowed to subsidize commuter operations
> per se, but they _are_ picking up part of the cost that NJT (and MARC,
> SEPTA, MBTA, VRE, etc.) would have to pay if Amtrak were to cease to exist.
It's been reported in the newspaper that in operating costs the NJT
NEC line is profitable.
Both the commuter agencies and Amtrak support each other by
contributing to greater economies of scale. If commuters went away
Amtrak would have to pay more, if Amtrak went away commuters would
have to pay more.
Accounting for overhead allocation is not easy--there's all sorts of
different ways to prorate costs. By car? By passenger? By car
weight? It is debatable who pays their fair share of costs, but
really a moot point.
There are some who want Amk to run the NEC only and others who want
Amk to run LD only. Both are completely wrong. Amtrak is a national
system and should run both.
> Amortizing fixed costs across more trains means lower per-train costs.
> For a single operator, you have to balance that vs. increased operating
> costs, but when another operator is paying those operating costs the
> picture changes...
Things were definitely a lot simpler when the NEC was totally run by
the Pennsy, PC, and Conrail, before the agency bureaucracy came along.
> Unfortunately, Amtrak doesn't break down depreciation by route, probably
> because they switch rolling stock around too much for it to be feasible.
> Interest can't really be allocated to any route.
Depreciation is not realistic in terms of Amtrak. Depreciation is an
accounting tool partly to get tax relief. It often does NOT relate to
the useful life of a capital asset.
In the case of Amtrak, capital funds are not obtained as they are in
the private sector, so depreciation has even less validity. Amtrak
gets capital funds as a political issue, not on a merit issue.
The Bush Adm went out of its way to deny Amtrak needed capital
expenditures to replace critical items, as reported by David Gunn and
the Phila Inqr.
AFAIK, although state highway departments own a massive capital
infrastructure in terms of roads and bridges, they do not take
depreciation on it.
> > I expected better from Empire Service.
>
> Yes; it's much worse than the typical regional route and worse than even
> four LD routes.
Doesn't sound right.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> My only objection is that the feds can barely keep the NEC functional -
Today, on a busy travel day, as best as I could tell from the station,
the NEC was going pretty well.
However, there were lots of nasty highway backups. While in NJ rail
passengers were comfortable speeding on their way, NJ Tpk motorists
were stuck in massive backups at several chokepoints. I heard I-95
was lousy elsewhere, too.
rsh...@gmail.com
pretty much every day for the last two weeks all three NY airports had
about 1 hour flight delays, some longer
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> This is America, Stephen, and I think it's safe to say that
> many, if not most Americans don't really care much for
> socialism - which is what you just described.
> An ugly little concept we have called "private property",
> combined with another ugly little concept called "capitalism".
While Americans may initially prefer capitalism, they'll take
socialism when capitalism fails.
Highways and bridges used to be privately owned, it was a failure, so
the govt took them over. There was a privately owned bridge in NJ
that failed and the state had to take it over and fix it up not long
ago.
Capitalism's failures have not made it as attractive as it once was,
and its apologists have lost credibility.
Perhaps capitalists ought to focus on restoring the lost free markets,
such as by fighting all the mergers and acquistions. We all know the
UP merger was a disaster, and they'll still trying to sort out the CSX
and NS acquisition of Conrail, something that never should've been
allowed to happen.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<j.al...@snet.net> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> "I would have no objection to the government owning _all_
> rail lines and
> charging track usage fees to private TOCs. That's how it
> works in
> Germany, AIUI, and it seems to work well there"
>
> This is America, Stephen, and I think it's safe to say that
> many, if not most Americans don't really care much for
> socialism - which is what you just described.
Oh, you mean like the federally financed highway system and federal
gasoline tax system?
Do you ever use any products imported from anywhere, including such things
as gasoline made from imported oil? Well then, chances are that you have
used something requiring the federally financed US Army Corps of Engineers
waterways and dredged ports.
Of course, any true red-blooded American must use whale-oil lamps, since
using electricity means supporting that communist federal power
distribution grid. Oh gosh, and those community cooperative power
providers that distribute electricity where no private corporation dared
string electric wires! Such horrid socialist organizations! Brining
electricity to people who want it and organized public power cooperatives
to get it! How dare they not bother waiting for a private company to
provide such a service!
Willms
<ste...@sprunk.org> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
> > but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
> > cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
> > in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
>
> You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
> Train on standard gauge.
I know of the one which links Washington, DC with Florida.
> It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops (including loading
> and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
> a point-to-point service;
That is the idea of such Auto Trains - one gets from home to the
vacation area in a sleeper train and carries the own car in one wagon
on that train.
I have never heard of an auto train which allows loading and
unloading on intermediate stops.
> (I have no idea how the Chunnel's auto ferry service performs, but it's
> roughly the same idea, also on standard gauge.)
No, this is something very different: it is a ferry on rails, just
to cross the Channel, a trip which takes half an hour (excluding
check-in times).
Cheers,
L.W.
HAL
<81784778-13fa-4a3c...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> While Americans may initially prefer capitalism, they'll take
> socialism when capitalism fails.
That sums it up nicely.
And Capitalism will have failures because the greed that is inherent in
Capitalism always leads to excesses that burst.
John Galt
That's not a "failure"; that's a key characteristic of how capitalism
works, and if you understand it, you profit from the bubbles whilst
avoiding the worst of the bursts. (Also, if you regulate so that you
eliminate the bursts, you'll also eliminate the bubbles.)
Also, greed is a characteristic of the human, not capitalism. Highly
regulated economies tend to be bureaucratic and
somewhat-to-highly-corrupt for just that reason. If you remove the
opportunity to practice greed from the economic system, the human will
just find some other way to express that trait (and you will probably
like what they do even less than you like capitalism).
What you call a "failure" is exactly why capitalists like it. :-)
JG
HAL
> This is America, Stephen, and I think it's safe to say that
> many, if not most Americans don't really care much for
> socialism - which is what you just described.
They do care for Socialism. It is more like many don't want to call it
Socialism.
> An ugly little concept we have called "private property",
> combined with another ugly little concept called "capitalism".
>
> Long may they both exist!
Pure Capitalism doesn't exist in the United State and can't exist. Some
functions have to be nationalized because there is not enough profits
for the Capitalists, they won't invest unless they get a high rate of
return, and many functions that are necessary for the functioning of
Capitalism are not profitable or have low returns. Goods have be moved
from the point production to the market and labor has to be moved to
the points of production.
HAL
Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, greed is a characteristic of the human, not capitalism. Highly
> regulated economies tend to be bureaucratic and
> somewhat-to-highly-corrupt for just that reason. If you remove the
> opportunity to practice greed from the economic system, the human will
> just find some other way to express that trait (and you will probably
> like what they do even less than you like capitalism).
Greed is not inherent. It is caused by scarcity. Eliminate scarcity,
have enough available for everyone, and greed would eventually
disappear.
John Galt
> In article <4oQQm.276643$uO.2...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com>, John
> Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, greed is a characteristic of the human, not capitalism. Highly
>> regulated economies tend to be bureaucratic and
>> somewhat-to-highly-corrupt for just that reason. If you remove the
>> opportunity to practice greed from the economic system, the human will
>> just find some other way to express that trait (and you will probably
>> like what they do even less than you like capitalism).
>
> Greed is not inherent.
Of course it is. Greed is simply the desire to attain goods or services
over and above what one needs. The minute you want to buy your wife or
kid a Christmas present that they could live without, that's greed. It's
just not of the same scope as the more conspicuous examples of consumption.
It is caused by scarcity. Eliminate scarcity,
> have enough available for everyone, and greed would eventually
> disappear.
The only time that sort of economy has ever been achieved is on Star
Trek. Besides, scarcity (like greed) is a subjective perception, not a
concrete definable term. What you see as "greed" on the part of another
may very well be a "necessity" in their frame of reference.
At the end of the day, unless the example of greed is so egregious that
all would agree, the only ones who can define the term are priests and
philosophers. If people cannot agree on what is greed (and what is
scarcity) and what is not, then one cannot possible use those metrics to
determine public policy.
But, at the end of the day, it's clear that you're not a socialist,
really. You're a utopian.
Utopians die unhappy.
JG
bob
> Day Brown wrote:
> > What America, which is so much vaster than Japan or Europe, needs is
> > high speed,
>
> Try coming up with the capital for that.
>
> > but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
> > cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
> > in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
>
> You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
> Train on standard gauge. It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops
> (including loading and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
> a point-to-point service; there's just no way to do it on a normal
> multistop route, at least not if you want an average speed that exceeds
> that of a bicycle.
>
> The real solutions are to improve public transit such that it is usable
> and/or get car-sharing services started.
>
> (I have no idea how the Chunnel's auto ferry service performs, but it's
> roughly the same idea, also on standard gauge.)
There are also car transporter services on a number of long alpine
tunnels (including on meter gauge). I have no details, however, on
how these are paid for (I know there is a toll for the motorist, but I
don't know how much of a subsidy they receive). Motorrail or
equivalent services in locations other than long tunnels through
impassible terrain (under water, through mountains) seem to be in
severe decline in most places, though.
Robin
HAL
Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, at the end of the day, it's clear that you're not a socialist,
> really. You're a utopian.
Not really.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Pure Capitalism doesn't exist in the United State and can't exist. Some
> functions have to be nationalized because there is not enough profits
> for the Capitalists, they won't invest unless they get a high rate of
> return, and many functions that are necessary for the functioning of
> Capitalism are not profitable or have low returns. Goods have be moved
> from the point production to the market and labor has to be moved to
> the points of production.
So true.
In the U.S. capitalism benefits a great deal from government
involvement. As mentioned, the business world greatly benefits from
govt supported transportation--business people are the major (if not
the primary) users of aviation, and businesses ship over govt financed
highways. Neither today's aviation and highway networks would exist
today unless the govt got involved to provide the leadership and
financial support to build the basic infrastructure.
After WW II the trucking and aviation industries lobbied very hard for
the government to build airports and roads. They did not have the
resources to do it themselves.
Ironically, one of the major airline presidents used to go around
making speeches calling for towns to build an airport. At the same
time, he'd rant against other govt projects. (I think it was
Richenbacher of Eastern). Socialims for me, but not for thee.
Poetic Justice
Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
respect Capitalism as the only choice.
Stephen Sprunk
rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 29, 6:33 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
>> Train on standard gauge. It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops
>> (including loading and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
>> a point-to-point service; there's just no way to do it on a normal
>> multistop route, at least not if you want an average speed that exceeds
>> that of a bicycle.
>
>
> I don't think it is a loser, from what I understand it is popular.
The numbers are right there in Amtrak's monthly performance reports: it
loses money. Popularity has little to do with profitability.
> it is basically from the northeast to FL and it relieves people of
> driving I-95.
Yes, it's a great service for the customer, especially since they're not
paying the full cost.
Stephen Sprunk
> Am Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:33:09 UTC, schrieb Stephen Sprunk
> <ste...@sprunk.org> auf misc.transport.rail.europe :
>>> but also double wide rail so that passengers can drive their
>>> cars aboard, and then be able to drive off again and have them available
>>> in the destinations where there is little, if any, other public transport.
>>
>> You don't need "double wide rail" for that. Amtrak already has the Auto
>> Train on standard gauge.
>
> I know of the one which links Washington, DC with Florida.
That's the Auto Train.
>> It's slow and loses money. Also, the stops (including loading
>> and unloading time) are so slow that it's pretty much
>> a point-to-point service;
>
> That is the idea of such Auto Trains - one gets from home to the
> vacation area in a sleeper train and carries the own car in one wagon
> on that train.
The problem is that not everyone is going to the same stop. What about
people going to Florida from MA, NY, or PA? They have to drive to DC to
use the Auto Train. And what if they don't want to go to Orlando but
rather Jacksonville or Miami? More driving.
Either the train has to make multiple stops or you need to run a
separate train between each pair of cities. Either way, you're going to
lose money.
> I have never heard of an auto train which allows loading and
> unloading on intermediate stops.
And that's why they're unworkable in general.
>> (I have no idea how the Chunnel's auto ferry service performs, but it's
>> roughly the same idea, also on standard gauge.)
>
> No, this is something very different: it is a ferry on rails, just
> to cross the Channel, a trip which takes half an hour (excluding
> check-in times).
Technologically, it's no different. The length of the trip is irrelevant.
Jishnu Mukerji
> Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
> crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
> that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
> respect Capitalism as the only choice.
And yet the one thing that supports Americas favorite pastime called
driving, the Interstate Highway System is about as Socialist a venture
as one gets. No country has yet managed to build something like the
Interstate highways System depending purely on Capitalism with no
government intervention. Just like pure Socialism is an utopian concept
so is pure Capitalism, and both tend to fail when one proceeds too far
away from reality towards utopia.
Jishnu Mukerji
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com found these unused words:
>
>> Both the commuter agencies and Amtrak support each other by
>> contributing to greater economies of scale. If commuters went away
>> Amtrak would have to pay more, if Amtrak went away commuters would
>> have to pay more.
>
> tax giveaways, even though we've had our rail service taken away as
> 'unprofitable'.. Like there's no real traffic between Los Angeles and Las
> Vegas?
Well a lot of the rest of the country is a net receiver area in terms of
federal finances, so they are living off of the taxes paid by the net
donor states which are primarily the places that have good commuter
services. So what is the rest of the country complaining about anyway?
John Galt
> Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
>> crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
>> that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
>> respect Capitalism as the only choice.
>
> And yet the one thing that supports Americas favorite pastime called
> driving, the Interstate Highway System is about as Socialist a venture
> as one gets.
That's quite ridiculous.
The interstate highway system is infrastructure. No individual, no
matter how capitalist, libertarian, socialist, or communist, denies that
this is a proper role of government. (Well, I suppose you might find an
anarchist or two, but even they have to drive.)
Your comment is a misconception that we're seeing more often nowadays
--- that *all* government ventures are "socialist." It is an attempt to
redefine the term (which means, btw, that the government OWNS THE MEANS
OF PRODUCTION) to the broader scope of government action, so that
socialists can then say "see, we have socialism already, and it's good".
No country has yet managed to build something like the
> Interstate highways System depending purely on Capitalism with no
> government intervention.
And nor will they. A completely private system would ignore servicing
low-traffic routes and compete on high traffic routes only. That's where
the market incentive would be. That's why this is INFRASTRUCTURE which
stands outside of political ideologies. It's necessary and there's no
market incentive to create a system that would be as pervasive in its
reach.
Here's another example: FedEx and UPS would love for the USPS to go away
so they could compete for that business. There's little question that
these organizations would run far more efficiently than the USPS. But,
part of how they would do that would be to cut rural delivery (which is
unprofitable by its nature) to one or two days a week. So, the
government provides the services, which, because there is no market
incentive to compete *with the same reach*, is INFRASTRUCTURE.
JG
Poetic Justice
The Rail roads were built and owned and run by Capitalist. While the
Rail roads served a purpose, and paid their way, the interstate has
served to allow for "white flight" from the cities to the suburbs. The
interstate created the option of segregation and caused the death of
inner cities and todays failed economics of the large cities.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
> crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
> that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
> respect Capitalism as the only choice.
As others have mentioned, the U.S. has neither a pure capitalist nor
pure socialist system. It is a blend. Most of the debate is over the
proportions of the blend.
Only extremist 'true believers' think we have a pure system of one or
the other.
The recent Wall Street crash was a failure of _both_ the public and
private sectors. In essence, the private sector fraudulently
overvalued securities it sold, and the govt failed to regulate that as
it used to do. The govt had cut back on the SEC, FDIC, and other
regulatory units, and the private sector milked it. For a while,
everyone had a great time, and no one wanted to be the party pooper
and stop it, but then the big bubble burst.
Thank goodness we have the safety nets from the Great Depression,
otherwise today's recession would be a nasty depression.
John Galt
> On Nov 30, 10:22 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> wrote:
>
>> Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
>> crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
>> that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
>> respect Capitalism as the only choice.
>
> As others have mentioned, the U.S. has neither a pure capitalist nor
> pure socialist system. It is a blend. Most of the debate is over the
> proportions of the blend.
>
> Only extremist 'true believers' think we have a pure system of one or
> the other.
>
> The recent Wall Street crash was a failure of _both_ the public and
> private sectors. In essence, the private sector fraudulently
> overvalued securities it sold, and the govt failed to regulate that as
> it used to do.
Not quite. Wall Street managed to figure out how to separate reward from
risk. There never was a regulation that would have prevented this,
unless you go back to the pre-LBJ days when mortgage securitization was
illegal.
The govt had cut back on the SEC, FDIC, and other
> regulatory units, and the private sector milked it.
The government actually encouraged the sale and underwriting of junk
paper, to be more exact. Again, there weren't any regulations that were
voided that would have prevented what occured.
JG
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The numbers are right there in Amtrak's monthly performance reports: it
> loses money. Popularity has little to do with profitability.
Everything Amtrak does loses money and requires a subsidy. Just like
flying in an airplane or driving your car requires a subsidy.
> > it is basically from the northeast to FL and it relieves people of
> > driving I-95.
> Yes, it's a great service for the customer, especially since they're not
> paying the full cost.
Since none of the travellers are paying the full cost, the
profitability or lack thereof is generally not relevant.
Given the horendous traffic problems on I-95 and the overcrowded
airports throughout the eastern US , efforts to provided an
alternative is a good idea and in the public interest.
The incremental cost of expanding Amtrak is orders of magnitude
cheaper than acquiring expensive new land to build more highways and
airports in developed areas. Expanding just _one_ airport is at
least a billion dollars, but Amtrak could do quite a bit with that
money. Certainly most long haul travellers will continue to fly, but
getting short haul passage off extremely inefficient airways onto
trains makes good sense. (Airplanes are notoriously inefficient on
short haul flights.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Yeah, and the rest of the country also has to PAY for the commuters though
> tax giveaways, even though we've had our rail service taken away as
> 'unprofitable'.. Like there's no real traffic between Los Angeles and Las
> Vegas?
The rest of the country has to PAY to support motorists through tax
giveaways.
Roads are exempt from property taxes. The vast majority of railroad
route mileage in the US, including that which supports psgr trains, is
taxed at high rates.
In some states many through roads are paid for by property taxes, not
gasoline taxes.
In most places the cost of public safety services for roads (fire,
police, rescue), is paid by property taxpayers, not highway users.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > And yet the one thing that supports Americas favorite pastime called
> > driving, the Interstate Highway System is about as Socialist a venture
> > as one gets.
> That's quite ridiculous.
> The interstate highway system is infrastructure. No individual, no
> matter how capitalist, libertarian, socialist, or communist, denies that
> this is a proper role of government. (Well, I suppose you might find an
> anarchist or two, but even they have to drive.)
Wrong.
First, capitalism and socialism are about who owns the infrastructure.
Secondly, in the U.S., infrastructure is typically owned by private
entities. A shopping mall or a factory is developed by people who
raise 'capital' from investors to build it; then they run it.
Third, there is no technical reason whatsoever why the private sector
could develop and operate highways just like they do shopping centers
and factories and office buildings. Of course, private entities would
have to pay property taxes on the land they use and business taxes on
their profits, and investors would be taxed for their gains. Publicly
financed highways are totally tax exempt, and early govt highway
builders went to a great deal of trouble to secure that tax exemption
(see "Empire on the Hudson").
> Your comment is a misconception that we're seeing more often nowadays
> --- that *all* government ventures are "socialist." It is an attempt to
> redefine the term (which means, btw, that the government OWNS THE MEANS
> OF PRODUCTION) to the broader scope of government action, so that
> socialists can then say "see, we have socialism already, and it's good".
Transportation is part of the "means of production".
> . . . A completely private system would ignore servicing
> low-traffic routes and compete on high traffic routes only. That's where
> the market incentive would be. That's why this is INFRASTRUCTURE which
> stands outside of political ideologies. It's necessary and there's no
> market incentive to create a system that would be as pervasive in its
> reach.
Which is why we have the government running passenger trains.
John Albert
"and they both work so very well"
Indeed. Even the [formerly Red] Chinese seem to think so
these days.
"how much have you lost in your retirement acct?"
Not much. I saw what was coming, and shifted the assets of
my 401k from stocks into more stable funds (money market).
Not "making" much, but not "losing", either. A primary tenet
of investing is to "protect your assets". Actually, after I
retire, I'm going to liquidate my 401k, 100%. Very afraid
that the socialists in power (who are just one step from
being flat-out Marxists) will try to seize 401ks, IRA's, and
other [currently] privately-owned assets.
"how much has the value of your house gone down?"
Considerably, actually - but less to do with the "markets"
than the fact that we've had a "Mexican invasion" in my
town, and the house next to me has been converted into a
literal "Mexican hotel". Blame both the democrats and the
country-club Republicans on that. My solution: identify
illegals, round 'em up, put them in railcars and run them to
the border. I'll run the train and donate my professional
skills free of charge for that.
"correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you have a govt
pension, at least partially"
Not in Social Security. Railroad Retirement is indeed a
creature of national legislation. But the lion's share of
payments are coming from privately-owned companies, and from
the individual workers.
"and govt provided health ins"
Nope. Private insurance through my employer. The major
struggle in the USA right now _is_ to stop "government
provided health insurance" - i.e., which would lead to a
"single payer" system. The majority of Americans are opposed
to this.
"and those are not the marks of socialism?"
Nope. That was your assumption.
- John
John Galt
> On Nov 30, 12:28 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And yet the one thing that supports Americas favorite pastime called
>>> driving, the Interstate Highway System is about as Socialist a venture
>>> as one gets.
>> That's quite ridiculous.
>> The interstate highway system is infrastructure. No individual, no
>> matter how capitalist, libertarian, socialist, or communist, denies that
>> this is a proper role of government. (Well, I suppose you might find an
>> anarchist or two, but even they have to drive.)
>
> Wrong.
Not wrong.
>
> First, capitalism and socialism are about who owns the infrastructure.
No. It's about who owns the MEANS OF PRODUCTION. These are two entirely
different matters.
Since the rest of your post is based on an incorrect premise, there's no
point in commenting further.
JG
John Albert
"Greed is not inherent. It is caused by scarcity. Eliminate
scarcity,
have enough available for everyone, and greed would eventually
disappear."
Socialism cannot eliminate scarcity.
Socialism merely attempts to spread existing wealth.
Capitalism _creates_ new wealth.
Inevitably, when those who create wealth see it being taken
from them and given to others, they will create less of it
(and thus have less taken).
Eventually, the pool of wealth from which socialism sips
begins to run low. And hence, what was an attempt to spread
wealth ends up spreading misery.
The continual refrain of socialists, marxists, communists,
you-name-it, is "this time, we're going to do it right!"
And then they do just what they did before all over again.
- John
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Not quite. Wall Street managed to figure out how to separate reward from
> risk. There never was a regulation that would have prevented this,
> unless you go back to the pre-LBJ days when mortgage securitization was
> illegal.
Fraud is fraud, and misrepresenting the value of a security is fraud.
Wall Street firms also have a fiduciary responsibility of due
diligence to understand what they are reselling to other customers.
What Wall Street did was creatively spread around the irresponsibility
so thin that it was difficult to assign criminal responsibility to any
one person or organization.
> The government actually encouraged the sale and underwriting of junk
> paper, to be more exact. Again, there weren't any regulations that were
> voided that would have prevented what occured.
That is true. There were elements in the govt that actively encourage
unqualified buyers to get mortgages they couldn't afford. Sadly,
those elements have not been called to account as they should've been
(ie naming names). They claimed they wanted more people to have
homes, but they failed to figure out how people would pay for them.
Which is why I said the failure was the fault of both public and
private sectors.
The govt, over the years, DID reduce the ability of the FDIC and SEC
to execute their mission, making it easier for crap to slip through in
violation of long standing regulations.
John Galt
> On Nov 30, 1:16 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not quite. Wall Street managed to figure out how to separate reward from
>> risk. There never was a regulation that would have prevented this,
>> unless you go back to the pre-LBJ days when mortgage securitization was
>> illegal.
>
> Fraud is fraud, and misrepresenting the value of a security is fraud.
Granted. The point here is, however, that there was never any regulation
in place, post 1967, that applied to either the security packages or the
security sellers.
>
> Wall Street firms also have a fiduciary responsibility of due
> diligence to understand what they are reselling to other customers.
I quite agree, and also to properly explain it TO their customers.
>
> What Wall Street did was creatively spread around the irresponsibility
> so thin that it was difficult to assign criminal responsibility to any
> one person or organization.
This was indeed the net result of the process.
>
>> The government actually encouraged the sale and underwriting of junk
>> paper, to be more exact. Again, there weren't any regulations that were
>> voided that would have prevented what occured.
>
> That is true. There were elements in the govt that actively encourage
> unqualified buyers to get mortgages they couldn't afford. Sadly,
> those elements have not been called to account as they should've been
> (ie naming names). They claimed they wanted more people to have
> homes, but they failed to figure out how people would pay for them.
You'd find a murderers row including members of both parties. The
campaign contributions of Fannie and Freddie were also part of the equation.
The government moving to make either homes or loans for homes more
accessible are inflationary to the housing market. We are now seeing the
result of decades of meddling in this market. The privates were more
than happy to facilitate the matter, for a price.
>
> Which is why I said the failure was the fault of both public and
> private sectors.
>
> The govt, over the years, DID reduce the ability of the FDIC and SEC
> to execute their mission, making it easier for crap to slip through in
> violation of long standing regulations.
How was the FDIC affected? Haven't heard that one before in this context.
JG
>
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Socialism merely attempts to spread existing wealth.
True.
However, sometimes spreading the existing wealth encourages
development of new wealth. For example, after WW II the govt passed
the GI Bill which was essentially socialist. But the bill enabled
veterans to go to school and improve their skills and a great many
did. The whole country benefitted from that growth in skill levels.
In addition, the GI Bill gave veterans low cost mortgages which
spurred the housing industry, again stimulating the economy.
I would dare say the country was ultimately better off as a result,
despite the tax costs of the measure.
> Capitalism _creates_ new wealth.
Not always. There have been numerous periods for over 100 years where
the financial markets were simply _trading_ money with each other
rather than actually _investing_ money into real ventures that
create wealth. Since such trading is usually a 'house of cards',
often those periods resulted in a nasty crash and recession. People
with legitimate business goals would be unable to get financing to
develop a business after the crash.
> Inevitably, when those who create wealth see it being taken
> from them and given to others, they will create less of it
> (and thus have less taken).
Not true.
If the confiscation is at a very high amount, as it is in some
European countries, there will be a discouragement (like in France,
which had a lousy economy long before the recession hit). But paying
taxes in the U.S. has generally not deterred investment, nor has
reducing taxes spurred investment as much as free market advocates
claim.
In some decaying American cities with high local taxes, it is a
problem.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen wrote:
> "I would have no objection to the government owning _all_ rail lines and
> charging track usage fees to private TOCs. That's how it works in
> Germany, AIUI, and it seems to work well there"
>
> This is America, Stephen, and I think it's safe to say that many, if not
> most Americans don't really care much for socialism - which is what you
> just described.
That's amusing when it comes from someone who (IIRC) works for a
government-owned railroad.
Most Americans have no problem with the government owning roadway
infrastructure, waterway infrastructure, aviation infrastructure,
utility infrastructure, etc. Any alleged resistance to government
ownership of railway infrastructure is a fabrication of the GOP to cover
the fact they're taking huge amounts of money from highly-subsidized
operators in competing modes.
What I propose for railways is the same thing we _already have_ for the
other modes: public infrastructure and private operators.
> An ugly little concept we have called "private property", combined with
> another ugly little concept called "capitalism".
>
> Long may they both exist!
Capitalism has a well-known failure mode in the case of monopolies,
particularly "natural" monopolies such as transportation and utilities.
The only realistic choices in such a case are a government-regulated
private monopoly (which has higher costs plus a profit requirement) or a
government-operated monopoly.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 29, 11:18 pm, John Albert <j.alb...@snet.net> wrote:
>> An ugly little concept we have called "private property",
>> combined with another ugly little concept called "capitalism".
>>
>> Long may they both exist!
>
They're the least-bad of the known alternatives, in most cases--but not
all. They both have known failure modes, which is why we use other
models in those cases.
> how much have you lost in your retirement acct?
Nothing. I was down a bit last summer, but my account has now grown
_well_ past its value before the recession started. I'm up around 35%
so far this year. If you've lost money, you really need to invest in
some money-management classes.
> how much has the value of your house gone down?
Not a dime; it's gone up about 2% this year, as it does every year.
> correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you have a govt pension, at
> least partially
Who (legally) in the US doesn't? We're all required* to participate in
Social Security, even if we don't want to, except for certain public
employees that are on state pensions.
(* Technically, a US citizen can legally refuse to give their SSN to
their employer, who then cannot legally deduct FICA, but virtually
nobody knows that and even fewer are willing to try it because they're
scared of the IRS, even though case law has established it's perfectly
legal. Even the SSA will tell you that, if you bother to ask; they just
don't publicize it.)
> and govt provided health ins
Who (legally) in the US doesn't? We are all required* to participate in
Medicare.
(* See above.)
> and those are not the marks of socialism?
I don't see how any of the above questions are relevant. Socialism is
defined as workers owning the means of production, and none of the above
programs can be legitimately categorized as such.
OTOH, the government bailout of (and equity in) the auto and banking
sectors may qualify, but only in loose terms since it's not specifically
the auto workers and bankers that now own the auto companies and banks.
If you want real socialism in action, look at the tech sector, where a
significant fraction of employees' compensation comes in the form of
stock in their employer. And, lo and behold, that is the wealthiest,
most productive sector of the US economy, even after the bubble (caused
by stupid VCs) burst in 2002.
Stephen Sprunk
> Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>> Poetic Justice wrote:
>>> Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
>>> crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
>>> that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
>>> respect Capitalism as the only choice.
>>
>> And yet the one thing that supports Americas favorite pastime called
>> driving, the Interstate Highway System is about as Socialist a venture
>> as one gets.
>
> Your comment is a misconception that we're seeing more often nowadays
> --- that *all* government ventures are "socialist." It is an attempt to
> redefine the term (which means, btw, that the government OWNS THE MEANS
> OF PRODUCTION) to the broader scope of government action, so that
> socialists can then say "see, we have socialism already, and it's good".
I think that attempt at redefinition is coming more from the right in
their efforts to paint all government activity as "socialism" and thus
Evil(tm).
There aren't very many true socialists in the US, at least not that the
media pays any attention to. We're so far to the right on the world
political spectrum that even our "left" would be right-wing extremists
in most countries--not that the media (or our right wing) ever mentions
that. It's barely even mentioned in _college_ poli sci classes unless
that's your major.
> Here's another example: FedEx and UPS would love for the USPS to go away
> so they could compete for that business. There's little question that
> these organizations would run far more efficiently than the USPS. But,
> part of how they would do that would be to cut rural delivery (which is
> unprofitable by its nature) to one or two days a week. So, the
> government provides the services, which, because there is no market
> incentive to compete *with the same reach*, is INFRASTRUCTURE.
IMHO, the postal service is not "infrastructure". One might argue it's
a natural monopoly, but that's as far as I could go without a more
complete argument.
The roads the postal service uses, though, are certainly infrastructure.
In fact, it is the "post roads" clause in the Constitution that
allegedly gave Congress the authority to fund highways in the first
place. And pretty much _every_ public road gets at least one mail
vehicle now and then--which is very different from what I think the
framers had intended. (Even more dubious: post "roads" in the sky as
justification for funding airports and airlines.)
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>>> Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>> Socialism has already failed..... This crash was a government created
>>>> crash. Socialism always fails, when Americans read history and discover
>>>> that Socialism has never worked(i.e. Russia, Cuba...) they will again
>>>> respect Capitalism as the only choice.
>>> And yet the one thing that supports Americas favorite pastime called
>>> driving, the Interstate Highway System is about as Socialist a venture
>>> as one gets.
>> ...
>> Your comment is a misconception that we're seeing more often nowadays
>> --- that *all* government ventures are "socialist." It is an attempt to
>> redefine the term (which means, btw, that the government OWNS THE MEANS
>> OF PRODUCTION) to the broader scope of government action, so that
>> socialists can then say "see, we have socialism already, and it's good".
>
> I think that attempt at redefinition is coming more from the right in
> their efforts to paint all government activity as "socialism" and thus
> Evil(tm).
I think that occurs as well.
>
> There aren't very many true socialists in the US, at least not that the
> media pays any attention to. We're so far to the right on the world
> political spectrum that even our "left" would be right-wing extremists
> in most countries--not that the media (or our right wing) ever mentions
> that. It's barely even mentioned in _college_ poli sci classes unless
> that's your major.
Quite right. If you look at a broader scale (www.politicalcompass.com)
it shows some 95% of all american politicians in the right-of-center
quadrant, leaning statist.
>
>> Here's another example: FedEx and UPS would love for the USPS to go away
>> so they could compete for that business. There's little question that
>> these organizations would run far more efficiently than the USPS. But,
>> part of how they would do that would be to cut rural delivery (which is
>> unprofitable by its nature) to one or two days a week. So, the
>> government provides the services, which, because there is no market
>> incentive to compete *with the same reach*, is INFRASTRUCTURE.
>
> IMHO, the postal service is not "infrastructure". One might argue it's
> a natural monopoly, but that's as far as I could go without a more
> complete argument.
I would submit that the shipment of materials in limited quantities is
indeed necessary infrastructure for the development of small business.
OTherwise, you limit entrepeneurism because your larger private shipment
firms charge high rates for small shipments.
>
> The roads the postal service uses, though, are certainly infrastructure.
> In fact, it is the "post roads" clause in the Constitution that
> allegedly gave Congress the authority to fund highways in the first
> place. And pretty much _every_ public road gets at least one mail
> vehicle now and then--which is very different from what I think the
> framers had intended. (Even more dubious: post "roads" in the sky as
> justification for funding airports and airlines.)
Quite so.
JG
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> There aren't very many true socialists in the US, at least not that the
>> media pays any attention to. We're so far to the right on the world
>> political spectrum that even our "left" would be right-wing extremists
>> in most countries--not that the media (or our right wing) ever mentions
>> that. It's barely even mentioned in _college_ poli sci classes unless
>> that's your major.
>
> Quite right. If you look at a broader scale (www.politicalcompass.com)
> it shows some 95% of all american politicians in the right-of-center
> quadrant, leaning statist.
I think you mean politicalcompass.org.
(And, contrary to what Petey thinks, I'm solidly in the left-libertarian
quadrant.)
>> John Galt wrote:
>> IMHO, the postal service is not "infrastructure". One might argue it's
>> a natural monopoly, but that's as far as I could go without a more
>> complete argument.
>
> I would submit that the shipment of materials in limited quantities is
> indeed necessary infrastructure for the development of small business.
> OTherwise, you limit entrepeneurism because your larger private shipment
> firms charge high rates for small shipments.
Some services (e.g. the post) are clearly important, but that doesn't
make that service "infrastructure". To me, "infrastructure" is the
lowest separable layer, upon which "services" (possibly monopolies,
possibly competitive) are built, and cannot realistically be duplicated.
Most services actually make use of multiple infrastructures.
For instance, below the USPS (which even has "service" in its name) one
will find the roads, electricity, etc., and some of its functions have
been duplicated (e.g. by FedEx and UPS), so it cannot possibly be an
infrastructure itself. OTOH, there is really no layer below the roads,
and it's not feasible to build a duplicate road system, so roads _are_
infrastructure.
To drag this back on topic, railway tracks are infrastructure, but train
operations are a service.
I have no general objection to the government providing infrastructure;
I _do_ object to government providing services unless (a) it has been
proven that no private interest will do so and (b) either (1) the cost
is borne only by the consumers of that service or (2) the _vast_
majority of the population will consume it.
(One might have noticed that my definition of infrastructure is pretty
close to that of a "natural monopoly". This is not accidental, nor are
the corner cases where the two don't exactly match up.)
Michael Coburn
> HAL wrote:
> "Greed is not inherent. It is caused by scarcity. Eliminate scarcity,
> have enough available for everyone, and greed would eventually
> disappear."
>
> Socialism cannot eliminate scarcity.
Scarcity, as defined by economists, cannot be eliminated.
> Socialism merely attempts to spread existing wealth.
Social Democracy, in its current genre, is primarily a system of
insurance and counter cyclical macro econ.
> Capitalism _creates_ new wealth.
Technological innovation and knowledge are the primary new wealth. This
has little to do with land and natural resource ownership (and the state
supported "right" of Wall Street to effectively coin money). Such state
enforced privileges are not really a part of true "capitalism". Neither
land nor fiat/bank money are "capital" in the economic sense of the term.
> Inevitably, when those who create wealth see it being taken from them
> and given to others, they will create less of it (and thus have less
> taken).
That is a rightarded myth in that most true wealth is created out of pure
curiosity and a lust for notoriety and fame. The glory of achievement
cannot actually be "taken from them and given to others". Newton did not
"patent" fluction.
> Eventually, the pool of wealth from which socialism sips begins to run
> low. And hence, what was an attempt to spread wealth ends up spreading
> misery.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Religious pig shit spread by the purchased practitioners of Republican
fascism.
> The continual refrain of socialists, marxists, communists, you-name-it,
> is "this time, we're going to do it right!"
>
> And then they do just what they did before all over again.
Sounds like the continual refrain of bubble blowing Republicans to me.
And the results are the same each and every time. "What we have here is
a re-enactment of the miracle of the roaring twenties". Most sane people
would come to the conclusion that "Social Democracy" is a more rational
mode of operation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy -----------------
"... modern social democracy has deviated from socialism, and supports
the idea of a mixed economy which incorporates elements of both socialism
and capitalism.[2] Social democrats aim to reform capitalism
democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that
work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they
see as inherent in capitalism. A product of this effort has been the
modern democratic welfare state. This approach significantly differs from
traditional socialism, which aims to replace the capitalist system
entirely with a new economic system characterized by either state or
direct worker ownership of the means of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Programs such as unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare and
the like currently define the "welfare state". The Cadillac owning
"Welfare Queen" does not.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> There aren't very many true socialists in the US, at least not that the
>>> media pays any attention to. We're so far to the right on the world
>>> political spectrum that even our "left" would be right-wing extremists
>>> in most countries--not that the media (or our right wing) ever mentions
>>> that. It's barely even mentioned in _college_ poli sci classes unless
>>> that's your major.
>> Quite right. If you look at a broader scale (www.politicalcompass.com)
>> it shows some 95% of all american politicians in the right-of-center
>> quadrant, leaning statist.
>
> I think you mean politicalcompass.org.
Yea.
>
> (And, contrary to what Petey thinks, I'm solidly in the left-libertarian
> quadrant.)
I score pretty close to Milton Friedman, so right-libertarian, slightly
under the x-axis.
>
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>> IMHO, the postal service is not "infrastructure". One might argue it's
>>> a natural monopoly, but that's as far as I could go without a more
>>> complete argument.
>> I would submit that the shipment of materials in limited quantities is
>> indeed necessary infrastructure for the development of small business.
>> OTherwise, you limit entrepeneurism because your larger private shipment
>> firms charge high rates for small shipments.
>
> Some services (e.g. the post) are clearly important, but that doesn't
> make that service "infrastructure". To me, "infrastructure" is the
> lowest separable layer, upon which "services" (possibly monopolies,
> possibly competitive) are built, and cannot realistically be duplicated.
> Most services actually make use of multiple infrastructures.
Point made. In a technological society, I'd argue that the definition
broadens. Since the original point was that "the goverment's role is to
provide infrastructure essential to the functioning of the economy", I
wouldn't quarrel with adding "and basic services" after "infrastructure."
>
> For instance, below the USPS (which even has "service" in its name) one
> will find the roads, electricity, etc., and some of its functions have
> been duplicated (e.g. by FedEx and UPS), so it cannot possibly be an
> infrastructure itself. OTOH, there is really no layer below the roads,
> and it's not feasible to build a duplicate road system, so roads _are_
> infrastructure.
>
> To drag this back on topic, railway tracks are infrastructure, but train
> operations are a service.
>
> I have no general objection to the government providing infrastructure;
> I _do_ object to government providing services unless (a) it has been
> proven that no private interest will do so and (b) either (1) the cost
> is borne only by the consumers of that service or (2) the _vast_
> majority of the population will consume it.
Sure. India continues to maintain, for example, a government-owned phone
company, despite the explosive growth of the private providers. The
reason, simply put, is that the private providers wouldn't bother
providing services to many of the villages.
>
> (One might have noticed that my definition of infrastructure is pretty
> close to that of a "natural monopoly". This is not accidental, nor are
> the corner cases where the two don't exactly match up.)
I did.
JG
Poetic Justice
> On Nov 30, 1:49 pm, John Albert <j.alb...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>> Socialism merely attempts to spread existing wealth.
>
> True.
>
> However, sometimes spreading the existing wealth encourages
> development of new wealth. For example, after WW II the govt passed
> the GI Bill which was essentially socialist. But the bill enabled
The GI bill was earned by people doing a JOB(one you wouldn't do).
That was not a free education it was earned income by a few in a
Capitalist way, some of them leveraged that payment into a career.
> veterans to go to school and improve their skills and a great many
> did. The whole country benefitted from that growth in skill levels.
So the Veterans in a pursuit of personal wealth lifted not just their
own standards but allowed/helped others to also lift their standards.
> In addition, the GI Bill gave veterans low cost mortgages which
> spurred the housing industry, again stimulating the economy.
But the GI had to meet the standards, the government didn't just hand
money out to any GI.
Michael Coburn
The rail lines CANNOT be a government monopoly because we would not see
any innovation in railroad tracks and mounds of dirt and trestles and
tunnels. Ya see, that's true even if government contracted to have
tunnels crated and such. Nope. Everybody knows that competition between
land owners to see who can bilk the taxpayers out of the most tax money
is what really built all the railroads.
Obama's plans for high speed rail are much too small. Most people would
want high speed freight between current hubs of New York, Atlanta,
Houston, Kansas City, Chicago, Denver, Tacoma, The Bay area of
California, with feeders at both ends to Boston in the east and Ontario
Ca. in the west. No more big rigs on the interstates. Freight from
Boston to LA in 3 days. Live lobsters can make that trip.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Considerably, actually - but less to do with the "markets"
> than the fact that we've had a "Mexican invasion" in my
> town, and the house next to me has been converted into a
> literal "Mexican hotel". Blame both the democrats and the
> country-club Republicans on that.
It was my understanding that common zoning laws limit the number of
occupancy of a house in order to prevent health and safety problems.
Before there were such laws many people would die in nasty fires,
building collapses, etc. as a result of overcrowding.
But now I'm told new federal "fair housing" laws override such local
zoning laws, so overcrowding is permissable. However, I can't get
anyone to give me an _authoritative_ citation of the specific law
and section that overrides local zoning.
Would anyone know accurately?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > The govt, over the years, DID reduce the ability of the FDIC and SEC
> > to execute their mission, making it easier for crap to slip through in
> > violation of long standing regulations.
>
> How was the FDIC affected? Haven't heard that one before in this context.
A key part of the FDIC's mission was prevention--to see that banks
didn't get weak in the first place so they'd have to be eventually
bailed out. Bank failures used to be extremely rare. But in the
desire to "deregulate" they reduced the staff and had fewer bank
examiners to flag and prevent inappropriate banking. Thus some
unscrupulous bankers found they could get away with risky crap.
Part of the problem derives from the deregulation act (DIDC?) of
1979. Note that was during the Carter years. One function was to
allow savings banks to do commercial banking. IMHO that law was
foolish and responsible for subsequent problems.