Review: "How To Live Well Without Owning a Car - Save Money, Breathe Easier, and Get More Mileage Out of Life" by Chris Balish
Dave U. Random
book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car" (Amazon.com:
http://xrl.us/WithoutCar ), is the foremost manual on how to live
car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
true..
Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
�Save the Earth� approach, to be oddly refreshing. Let�s be honest,
most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
Continued: http://xrl.us/WithoutCarReview
tmclone
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish’s
> book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car" (Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/WithoutCar), is the foremost manual on how to live
> car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
> true..
>
> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
> you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
> most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
> their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
> cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
Depends on where you live. I live in the boonies 5 miles from the
nearest bus stop, and the only bus that stops there goes straight to a
large city 25 miles away, NOT to any grocery stores, etc. If I didn't
have a car I'd have to take a cab to run errands. I work at home, so I
only have to drive the 8 miles roundtrip to the grocery store 1-2
times a week. The cost to get a cab to come to my house and drive the
4 miles to the grocery store is $10 each way, for a cost of $20 per
trip. That's at least $40 a week, just to buy food. Factor in
bimonthly visits to check on my elderly mother 20 miles away (not on a
bus route), and I'm looking at a MINIMUM cab cost of $65 a week.
I buy a used car every 10-11 years for less than $5k. I pay less than
$500/year for insurance, and about $700/year on upkeep, INCLUDING
gasoline (I fill up less than 10 times a year). I figure my car costs
me less than $30 a week. MUCH less than the cost of cabs.
Rod Speed
> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish�s
> book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car" (Amazon.com:
> http://xrl.us/WithoutCar ), is the foremost manual on how to live
> car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is true..
> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
> you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
> �Save the Earth� approach, to be oddly refreshing. Let�s be honest,
> most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
> their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
> cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
Yes, you do save some money, but I'd much rather have the convenience.
And I've tried both. When the previous car was no longer legally registerable,
I decided that I would force myself to get some exercise by walking instead
of replacing the car. Did that for a few years, and it was viable, but its much
more convenient to have a cheap to run car instead. In spades with stuff
like yard sales with likely saves more more than not having a car would.
> Continued: http://xrl.us/WithoutCarReview
sr
"Dave U. Random" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:ca6ca7c70910280657r6d8...@mail.gmail.com...
(BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish�s
book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car" (Amazon.com:
http://xrl.us/WithoutCar ), is the foremost manual on how to live
car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
true..
Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
�Save the Earth� approach, to be oddly refreshing. Let�s be honest,
most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
Continued: http://xrl.us/WithoutCarReview
I thought about getting rid of the transportation, but, before I did I try
the transportation available to me, first.
I tried this public transportation 3 times. I'm glad I kept my car.
Because, for 2 bags of groceries, (all that was allowed on the bus) I got up
at 6 to be ready to catch the 7:15 bus, It could come 15 mins before 7am.We
than proceeded down every pothole road to pick up other passengers. I
thought I could pass the time reading or listening to an audio book) Wrong
The clanging was too loud, the ride too rough to hold a book steady. after 2
hours on that bus, (it would take me 40 min by car) I was let off at one
place. There was no way to get to the other stores in that town. I was
told I would be picked up at noon. It never happened, at 1:00 I got a
volunteer to take me home. The other 2 trips I had to wait until 3 for the
return trip. So, for 2 bags of groceries it took me 12 hours total. I now
know why public transportation is not catching on! Talk about lame! Like
riding a bucking bull! You have to be in good shape to ride public
transportation, not for the old, for sure.
tmclone
> "Dave U. Random" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish’s
Public transportation only works well in large cities, at least in the
USA. Most non-urban areas of the USA are simply too spread out for it
to be economical to provide buses or trains at many different times to
make it convenient for commuters. I remember the local bus company
sent a survey to all employees in my company about 12 years ago when I
still worked in a cube farm 20 miles (one way) from my house. They
wanted to know why you didn't take the bus, what would entice you to
take the bus, other places besides work you would like to see on the
bus routes, etc. I simply wrote down the truth. For me to take a bus
to work I would have to drive 5 miles to the bus stop by 5:30am and
find a legal place to park the car. Since no parking on village
streets is allowed between 3-6am and they ticket until 6:01 (it's a
HUGE source of fee income), I would most likely get a $35 ticket every
single day. I would then be on the bus for nearly 4 hours (20 miles!)
and arrive at work at 9:15am (I started work at 8:30). Then, the last
bus of the day left at 5:05pm (so no POSSIBILITY of working 8 hours)
and would drop me back at my car at 9:45pm so after driving home I
could finally get some dinner at 10pm in time to go IMMEDIATELY to bed
to get up at 4:45am. Yeah, right, who on earth is going to do that?
Particularly since it was really expensive. Plus the $35 daily parking
ticket, a yearly bus pass translated to about $10/day or about $200/
month to spend 8 hours a day on a bus. I would have been on the bus
longer that I was at work. <sarcasm> Surprisingly, no one in my office
took public transportation.</sarcasm>
mcfl
Chris Balish�s book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a
tmclone
> Last time on misc.consumers, tmclone <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 28, 9:57 am, "Dave U. Random" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
> >Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish’s
> >> book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car" (Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/WithoutCar), is the foremost manual on how to live
> >> car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
> >> true..
>
> >> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
> >> you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
> >> “Save the Earth” approach, to be oddly refreshing. Let’s be honest,
> >> most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
> >> their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
> >> cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
>
> >Depends on where you live. I live in the boonies 5 miles from the
> >nearest bus stop
>
>
> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live
> someplace else.
>
> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
> personal automobiles. If you had to pay those costs all by yourself,
> you'd quickly decide to move to a more cost-effective location where -
> incidentally - you COULD use public transit, walk to grocery stores,
> bike to work, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boy, are you a clueless weasel. I WORK AT HOME, which you would know,
if you could read, since it was right in my post. I live in a tiny 200-
year-old farmhouse because it's all I can afford, and it's nearly paid
for. If I sold it tomorrow I would get enough to pay rent on a studio
apt. in town for maybe 5 years. Then what? Also, I am self-employed
and I need space for my industrial equipment which I wouldn't have in
a studio apt. Oh, and exactly HOW THE HELL are "you" subsidizing my
ownership of a 12 year old car I bought 3 years ago and drive less
than 2k miles a year? You, sir, are an ass. PLONK!
Cindy Hamilton
> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
> personal automobiles.
Hey, thanks. You're a prince. I think I'll get an SUV the next time
I need a car.
tmclone
wrote:
Yeah, and don't you love how he suggests "bike to work" to those of us
with snow on the ground 6 months a year? Oh, I guess we should all
move to SoCal to "save energy"? Smug little wanker.
Les Cargill
> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how
> foremost manual on how to live car-free no matter where you
> live. I am here to tell you that it is true..
>
> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership
> is costing you, and our society as a whole. I found that
> oddly refreshing. Let�s be honest, most people care a hell
> footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
> cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
>
> Continued: http://xrl.us/WithoutCarReview
>
I ran a car several years for $500 upfront and
$100 a year. The attendant benefits totally
and completely overwhelmed the costs.
If you are in a land-position to where you can beat
this, then good on you. I never have been. It would cost me
2+x to use public transport ( paying my rate for walking )
than it cost to have a modest car.
--
Les Cargill
aemeijers
> Last time on misc.consumers, tmclone <tmc...@searchmachine.com> said:
>
>> On Oct 28, 9:57 am, "Dave U. Random" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
>> Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>> book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car" (Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/WithoutCar), is the foremost manual on how to live
>>> car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
>>> true..
>>>
>>> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
>>> you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
>>> most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
>>> their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
>>> cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
>>
>> Depends on where you live. I live in the boonies 5 miles from the
>
> It never fails.
>
> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live
> someplace else.
>
> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
> you'd quickly decide to move to a more cost-effective location where -
> incidentally - you COULD use public transit, walk to grocery stores,
> bike to work, etc.
Just like the last half-dozen times this discussion came up, Scott, you
are still wrong. Not every town HAS meaningful public transit, and not
every town has non-slum residential housing withing walking distance of
grocery stores. And here in the rust belt, where winter lasts about 5
months, riding a bike to work uphill on ice in the dark, is a
non-starter. People work and live where they do based on where they can
get jobs, and find a non-scary place to live (and raise kids) that they
can afford on their paycheck. We are all very happy you found a living
situation that lets you keep your smug meter pegged- most people are not
so lucky. Even before the town discontinued the bus line that went out
this way, taking it to work would have been 2+ hours a day, versus maybe
20 minutes in the car. Not gonna happen- I only have so many years left.
--
aem sends...
Rod Speed
> Last time on misc.consumers, tmclone <tmc...@searchmachine.com> said:
>
>>> It never fails.
>>>
>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to
>>> live someplace else.
>>>
>>> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
>>> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
>>> personal automobiles. If you had to pay those costs all by yourself,
>>> you'd quickly decide to move to a more cost-effective location
>>> where - incidentally - you COULD use public transit, walk to
>>> grocery stores, bike to work, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>> Boy, are you a clueless weasel.
> Starting off with the Ad Hominem guns, eh? We all know what that means...
Yep, that you pissed her off with your terminal stupidity.
>> I WORK AT HOME,
> Which means you could live literally anywhere.
Mindlessly silly. She doesnt necessarily have the money to
live in most places, particularly if the work doesnt pay much.
>> I live in a tiny 200-year-old farmhouse because it's all I can afford
> Could you still afford it if the rest of us hadn't
> paid to build a road out to your farmhouse?
She pays for that via the taxes she pays to live there.
> Could you afford it if you had to shoulder all of
> those building and maintenance costs yourself?
Mindlessly silly. Its just a tad unlikely that the road is exclusively her's.
>> Oh, and exactly HOW THE HELL are "you" subsidizing my ownership of a
>> 12 year old car I bought 3 years ago and drive less> than 2k miles a year?
> Well, Mr. Clueless Weasel, there's that road out
> to your country estate that my taxes helped to build.
Like hell they did if you dont share a county etc.
> There's the "free" parking that you get to use when you arrive at your destination.
Paid for by the taxes on the businesses that operate there.
> And that's only screatching the surface.
Nope, thats all there is. She presumably pays taxes just like you do.
> Now, when you're ready to pull your head out of your ass and learn
> the TRUTH, I suggest you read "The Elephant in the Bedroom" by
> Hart and Spivak, or maybe "Divorce Your Car" by Alvord.
Neither are anything even remotely resembling anything like THE TRUTH.
> And get ready to have your shit-brown eyes opened nice and wide. :)
Starting off with the Ad Hominem guns, eh? We all know what that means...
George
> Last time on misc.consumers, Cindy Hamilton
Unless you don't pay taxes you do. All of that money the government
pulled out of taxpayers pockets to build and operate and subsidize
ethanol plants (plus the deficiency in road use taxes since it isn't
taxed) came from taxpayers.
Cindy Hamilton
> Last time on misc.consumers, Cindy Hamilton
No, but you probably subsidize federal highway funding, which I
benefit
from.
My fuel costs aren't that high; my "little Country Estate" is only 5
miles from
my job. And the SUV will be a big improvement over my econobox during
the winter when the snow makes it difficult to drive the econobox.
Cindy Hamilton
h
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hcdl4d$1gc$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> mcfl wrote:
>> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish�s
>> http://xrl.us/WithoutCar ), is the foremost manual on how to live
>> car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
>> true..
>>
>> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
>> you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
>> carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that cost, but
>> was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
>>
>> Continued: http://xrl.us/WithoutCarReview
>>
>
> I ran a car several years for $500 upfront and
> $100 a year. The attendant benefits totally
> and completely overwhelmed the costs.
>
> If you are in a land-position to where you can beat
> this, then good on you. I never have been. It would cost me
> 2+x to use public transport ( paying my rate for walking )
> than it cost to have a modest car.
>
Yup, taking buses around here is a LOT more expensive than owning a car.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcetej$dqo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Just killfile smug little Scottie like the rest of us.
TMcLone
sr
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:as5ie5p34bhei0euh...@4ax.com...
>>Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>> (BikePortland.org) - I have been hearing all about how Chris Balish's
>>> book, "How to Live Well Without Owning a Car"
>>> (Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/WithoutCar), is the foremost manual on how to
>>> live
>>> car-free no matter where you live. I am here to tell you that it is
>>> true..
>>>
>>> Balish starts by laying out exactly how much car ownership is costing
>>> you, and our society as a whole. I found that angle, as opposed to the
>>> "Save the Earth" approach, to be oddly refreshing. Let's be honest,
>>> most people care a hell of a lot more about their bank account than
>>> their carbon footprint. I sold my car, so I was already rid of that
>>> cost, but was still stunned by how much a car truly costs..
>>
>>
>>Depends on where you live. I live in the boonies 5 miles from the
>>nearest bus stop
>
>
> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live
> someplace else.
=True, and I'm in the progress. Believe me , I didn't stick here for my
health,
I had family obligation, that recently ,are no more. Some people are where
they
are for many reasons.
Are you a Preacher? Just asking
Bet you live in some all around the year warm climate, also.
You are just a tad better than the rest of the herd, aren't you.
> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
> personal automobiles. If you had to pay those costs all by yourself,
> you'd quickly decide to move to a more cost-effective location where -
> incidentally - you COULD use public transit, walk to grocery stores,
> bike to work, etc.
Yea, try in with snow up your backside, House is
for sale come see how long you last in the climate. You would be graveling,
come Spring.
Just spending a few night out scooping snow every 2 hours, filling the
woodstove every 2 hours.
on the rooftop shoveling away, than hop the transportation to town and back
that takes 12 hrs.for 2 bags of groceries.
Ya right, you are in La La Land, hope you stay there. Probably living in
your mothers basement.
sr
> Last time on misc.consumers, tmclone <tmc...@searchmachine.com> said:
>
>>> It never fails.
>>>
>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live
>>> someplace else.
>>>
>>> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
>>> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
>>> personal automobiles. If you had to pay those costs all by yourself,
>>> you'd quickly decide to move to a more cost-effective location where -
>>> incidentally - you COULD use public transit, walk to grocery stores,
>>> bike to work, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> means...
>
>
> Which means you could live literally anywhere.
>
>
> Could you still afford it if the rest of us hadn't paid to build a
> all of those building and maintenance costs yourself?
>
>>ownership of a 12 year old car I bought 3 years ago and drive less
>>than 2k miles a year?
>
> you get to use when you arrive at your destination. And that's only
> screatching the surface.
>
>>You, sir, are an ass. PLONK!
>
> PLONKed me because GOOGLE GROUPS DOESN'T HAVE KILLFILES, YOU LYING
> SACK OF SHIT!
>
> Now, when you're ready to pull your head out of your ass and learn the
> TRUTH, I suggest you read "The Elephant in the Bedroom" by Hart and
> your shit-brown eyes opened nice and wide. :)
I can see this is another one of those "inclusive" Liberal types
sr
>
>>> It never fails.
>>>
>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live
>>> someplace else.
>>>
>>> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
>>> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
>>> personal automobiles. If you had to pay those costs all by yourself,
>>> you'd quickly decide to move to a more cost-effective location where -
>>> incidentally - you COULD use public transit, walk to grocery stores,
>>> bike to work, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> means...
>
>>I WORK AT HOME,
>
> Which means you could live literally anywhere.
>
>>I live in a tiny 200-year-old farmhouse because it's all I can afford
>
> Could you still afford it if the rest of us hadn't paid to build a
> road out to your farmhouse? Could you afford it if you had to shoulder
> all of those building and maintenance costs yourself?
>
>>ownership of a 12 year old car I bought 3 years ago and drive less
>>than 2k miles a year?
>
> estate that my taxes helped to build. There's the "free" parking that
> you get to use when you arrive at your destination. And that's only
> screatching the surface.
>
>
> PLONKed me because GOOGLE GROUPS DOESN'T HAVE KILLFILES, YOU LYING
> SACK OF SHIT!
>
> Now, when you're ready to pull your head out of your ass and learn the
> TRUTH, I suggest you read "The Elephant in the Bedroom" by Hart and
> Spivak, or maybe "Divorce Your Car" by Alvord. And get ready to have
> your shit-brown eyes opened nice and wide. :)
These Greeners get hostile if you darn to disagree with them, they throw a
hissy fit. typical
sr
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcetej$dqo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
==did you notice how high the food prices shot up to accommodate the little
whiners?
Joy Beeson
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[unprovoked insults and hostility snipped]
plonk.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Kayak44
> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:hcetej$dqo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scott in SoCal wrote:
> >> Last time on misc.consumers, Cindy Hamilton
>
> >>> On Oct 29, 12:24 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
> >>>> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use of
> >>>> personal automobiles.
> >>> Hey, thanks. You're a prince. I think I'll get an SUV the next time
> >>> I need a car.
>
> >> Go right ahead. I don't subsidize your fuel costs. :)
>
> > Unless you don't pay taxes you do. All of that money the government pulled
> > out of taxpayers pockets to build and operate and subsidize ethanol plants
> > (plus the deficiency in road use taxes since it isn't taxed) came from
> > taxpayers.
>
> Just killfile smug little Scottie like the rest of us.
He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but
doesn't want to hear.
I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad as
anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. Excuses are
just that, excuses.
I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be
inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it.
Rod Speed
>>>> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> One really good motivator is COST. You can afford to live in your
>>>>>> little Country Estate because the rest of us subsidize your use
>>>>>> of personal automobiles.
>>>>> Hey, thanks. You're a prince. I think I'll get an SUV the next time I need a car.
>>>> Go right ahead. I don't subsidize your fuel costs. :)
>>> Unless you don't pay taxes you do. All of that money the government
>>> pulled out of taxpayers pockets to build and operate and subsidize
>>> ethanol plants (plus the deficiency in road use taxes since it
>>> isn't taxed) came from taxpayers.
>> Just killfile smug little Scottie like the rest of us.
> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but doesn't want to hear.
Plenty know that what he claims is not true for plenty of individuals.
> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as
> bad as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible.
No one said it was impossible, just not sensible/practical for some.
> Excuses are just that, excuses.
And your claims are just that, claims.
> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish,
> don't like to be inconvenienced and can afford it,
And I own a small car because its much more convenient than the
other alternative, walking and a cab when walking isnt practical.
> but at least I'm honest about it.
Nothing dishonest about choosing what is more practical.
Marsha
> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but
> doesn't want to hear.
>
> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad as
> anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. Excuses are
> just that, excuses.
>
> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be
> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it.
You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would have to
go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would have to take
- no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit just to feel
half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to admit it or not.
Public transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how you
slice it.
Marsha
sr
"Kayak44" <s200ho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebebd588-768d-4dd9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
===
Esp. hard for those that have suffered a stroke, fell down the stairs, twice
and knocked out teeth, walking on a leg and 1/2, ya, how old are you?
You're not dead yet, tell me about it when you get more years on your
bones, see how amighty you are than.
Marsha
> you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it, so
> knock off the disingenuous whining.
I will agree with a previous poster - you are an ass. Look, idiot, in
this economy, I'm not selling for less than the property is worth and
moving to an inner city apartment, just to fulfill your requirements.
My city's public transportion sucks. Why? Because we're basically a
smaller version of Detroit. So unless you've walked a mile in my shoes,
go suck an egg.
Marsha
Rod Speed
> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
Its much more complicated than that when the cheapest places
to live can have no real public transport and a cheap car can end
up producing much lower costs per year than paying much more
to 'live' where there is decent public transport.
> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
Doesnt necessarily make any sense to do that.
> so knock off the disingenuous whining.
Everyone is just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you dont have a clue.
No one cept you is whining.
Les Cargill
It is generally dictated by income.
> If
> you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two
blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What
the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public
transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized.
So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
*example chosen for sample size.
> so
> knock off the disingenuous whining.
She really does a workman's job replying to you on this little
snip...
--
Les Cargill
Napoleon
>My city's public transportion sucks. Why? Because we're basically a
>smaller version of Detroit. So unless you've walked a mile in my shoes,
>go suck an egg.
You don't live in Syracuse, do you? The public transportation here
sucks the big shitola. I believe they only got bus service to the
airport a few years ago. Unbelievable. America has only gone backwards
since the adoption of the "automobile" as our saviour. In the 20's
Syracuse had a network of electric trolleys that went everywhere and
were safe, silent and affordable. Syracuse also had a good train
system that actually went all the way out to resorts in the
adirondacks and Sylvan Beach on Oneida Lake (Syracuse also had coal
burning trains that ran right through downtown's streets, which wasn't
great, but it was public transportation). Then the car came and the
trolley system was trashed, the train schedules were cut back to
nothing and the dreaded buses with their shitty schedules taking
forever to get anywhere and going through the slum areas took hold.
Improvement! Thank god for the automobile! I was in Melbourne a few
weeks ago and using their trolley system, I thought "even America's
smallest cities used to have these." What a shame America has trashed
what worked in the past, and continues to work in other countries.
It's sad.
George
Very similar here in PA. I have a DVD made from a tape that was produced
from old color film that a local guy shot in the late 1940s. There
were literally electric trolleys everywhere around here plus an
electrified rapid transit interurban railway that ran 20 minute headways
24x7. If you weren't around then you would never realize the elaborate
transit infrastructure we had unless you saw a film like this.
Its very similar in Japan. You can go practically anywhere there
efficiently on rail.
My understanding is that GM and Firestone are what really helped it all
disappear in the US. They went from town to town and found the right
politicians to hand envelopes to. This would help them decide that GM
buses with Firestone tires were really the way to go.
Marsha
> Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>
>> you are an ass.
>> Look, idiot
>
> of all this emotional Ad Hominem?
Ad Hominem must be your newest fad phrase. And you want me to stop the
emotional Ad Hominem? So far in this thread, we've heard this from you:
"Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
up with this "I can't use public transit" BS."
"Well, Mr. Clueless Weasel,"
"Heh - you are so full of shit your eyes are brown. You couldn't have
PLONKed me because GOOGLE GROUPS DOESN'T HAVE KILLFILES, YOU LYING
SACK OF SHIT!"
Your lifestyle is not feasible for everyone, which just about everyone
else on this thread had pointed out, but we are talking to a brick wall.
I have better things to do - like laundry.
Marsha
h
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:hchktu$urb$1...@news.datemas.de...
that would be true if I didn't use AIOE to READ all newsgroups 99% of the
time. Again, Scottie has reading comprehension issues. Must be the giant
cloud of smug obscuring the screen.
sr
> Last time on misc.consumers, "sr" <sol...@uninets.net> said:
>
>>> It never fails.
>>>
>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops
>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe
>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has
>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live
>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live
>>> someplace else.
>>
>>=True, and I'm in the progress. Believe me , I didn't stick here for my
>>health,
>>I had family obligation, that recently ,are no more. Some people are where
>>they
>>are for many reasons.
>>Are you a Preacher? Just asking
>
>
>>Bet you live in some all around the year warm climate, also.
>
> I lived there than I do now, primarily because the transit system
> there is so much better.
>
>>You are just a tad better than the rest of the herd, aren't you.
>
> house that is within walking distance of four grocery stores, a dozen
> restaurants, a medical and dental office building, dry cleaners, hair
> salons, two bus lines, and a Metrolink commuter rail station.
>
> The herd typically places things like square footage and age of the
> house at a higher priority than the things I listed. If those had been
> my priorities, I'd have bought a McMansion out in BFE and been stuck
> driving on the 91 freeway for 2 hours every day. OTOH, when gasoline
> was up over $4/gallon, not being a slave to my car came in mighty
> handy. :)
>
>> Yea, try in with snow up your backside, House is
>>for sale come see how long you last in the climate. You would be
>>graveling,
>>come Spring.
>
> last a lot longer than you think.
Evidently you lived within the city, rural living is all about self
sufficiency, and it can be a killer in the winter time.
No one, any distance around. for some people. Had a neighbor die on his
doorstep during a blizzard.
I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival. Any
you are young, makes a difference.
Glad you are enjoying your life.
George
I think that might be the old version. The usual modern drill is
deciding to leave a place with neighbors and moving into a rural area.
Then immediately deciding that everyone else should pay to have the five
mile dirt road you live on with three houses on it paved and for
everyone else to pay to have the water, sewers and cable TV/Internet
extended to your property.
Rod Speed
It happened right thruout the entire first world, mostly without any bribes.
There are only a tiny handful of citys that still have them now, including in the US.
Rod Speed
>
> How about you get back to me when you have a rational argument instead
> of all this emotional Ad Hominem?
Why dont you do the same thing yourself ?
Rod Speed
> Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net>
> said:
>
>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Kayak44 wrote:
>>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but
>>>>> doesn't want to hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as
>>>>> bad as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible.
>>>>> Excuses are just that, excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be
>>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about
>>>>> it.
>>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would
>>>> have to go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would
>>>> have to take - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit
>>>> just to feel half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to
>>>> admit it or not. Public transportation is not an option for
>>>> everyone, no matter how you slice it.
>>>
>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
>>
>> It is generally dictated by income.
> Even then you still have choices.
Yes, but not necessarily any with viable public transport,
particularly if you decide to own and not rent.
>>> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
>> In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two
>> blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What
>> the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public
>> transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized.
> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than
> automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available
and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL
> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and account
> for ALL of them.
Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when the subsidy is so small that it becomes irrelevant.
> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding
> that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys.
Marioneta del Calcetin
>Heh. He thinks I couldn't have PLONKed him because I use GoogleGroups? Yeah,
>that would be true if I didn't use AIOE to READ all newsgroups 99% of the
>time.
SUUUUURE you do. Of course you didn't just sign up for aioe yesterday
because you got OWNED, right? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be it.
sr
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Well, you aren't an old timer. They are dying out. this road was built by
the people living on it some 20 years ago. Yes, we had mud up to the axl.
People would leave their cars on the corner and walk in, kids did also. For
the modern conviences, I have a dial up, phone wires, they have been here
for sometime by the looks of the electric poles, , as woodpeckers are making
homes in them, now. Our standard of living is very basic. Now, when the
out of staters fled Mass to come to a less regulated part of the country,
they are the ones that bitched an moaned about the roads, about the smell of
manure being spread, bitch, bitch, bitch , moan, and whin, until they got
enough of the whiners accumulated to be voted in or on the boards, or
invented boards to control the rest of us and to get in our pockets, oh
yea, you know, like those pansie liberals that are now in office, " Know
what I'm talking about, Willis" These "out of staters" brought their
sniffling ways up here with them, and put it all on us that were minding our
own damn business.
==== Liberal infect every place they go and we are left with the grief, and
the Liberals still aren't happy, can you believe it?-------------------So,
people like me have to find a place with less of them, becoming more and
more difficult, they seem to be every place, still looking at one of those
islands off of Maine's coast.
-----Now, that I'm on fire, I got enough energy manufactured to get more
work done around here!
Thanks
>> No one, any distance around. for some people. Had a neighbor die on his
>> doorstep during a blizzard.
>> I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival.
>> Any ss
Les Cargill
I think that if I lived out like that, I'd read "To Build a Fire" by
Jack London a few times as winter approached. It's not *hard*, it's
just a constant state of awareness and being methodical in preparation.
One of my wife's online buddies lives by herself in the wilds
of Montana. Tough people.
> I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival. Any
> you are young, makes a difference.
> Glad you are enjoying your life.
>
>
--
Les Cargill
sr
>>> Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Kayak44 wrote:
>>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but
>>>>> doesn't want to hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad as
>>>>> anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. Excuses are
>>>>> just that, excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be
>>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it.
>>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would have
>>>> to
>>>> go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would have to take
>>>> - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit just to feel
>>>> half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to admit it or not.
>>>> Public transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how you
>>>> slice it.
>>>
>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
>>
>>It is generally dictated by income.
>
>
>>> you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
>>
>>In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two
>>blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What
>>the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public
>>transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized.
>
> automobiles are.
>
>
> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and account
> that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
road funding is put into the general fund and the transportation fund is
always broke. You know, something like the Federal Soc. Sec. Fund full of
IOUs. If anyone ran a business the way these crooks run the governments,
they would be in jail with Madoff. why they aren't , "that is the question"
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Scott in SoCal wrote
>>> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Scott in SoCal wrote
>>>>> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote
>>>>>> Kayak44 wrote
> So you use them exclusively on private roads?
Corse not.
> If not, you are getting a subsidy.
Nope, the roads I do use them on are paid for by the taxes I pay.
> That is even without reckoning the cost of the
> wars waged so that you can enjoy cheap fuel.
I pay for those wars out of the taxes I pay too.
>>>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
>>> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL
>>> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and
>>> account for ALL of them.
>> Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when the subsidy is so
>> small that it becomes irrelevant.
>>> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding
>>> that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
>> Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys.
> I think you'll find that both of the subsidies I've mentioned exceed
> the cost of the car
Yes, but I pay for that with the tax I pay, so no subsidy.
> - hardly "the smallest subsidys (sic)".
I JUST said the smallest subsidys dont need to be calculated.
And you (sic) cuts no mustard either, I choose to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it.
terryc
> I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival.
Not always the case. country dweller can become complacent and die as a
result. Some city dwellers research and get prepared and survive.
Rod Speed
>> Corse not.
> And by the taxes of those who do not use them.
FAR less of the taxes of those who do not use them.
>>> That is even without reckoning the cost of the
>>> wars waged so that you can enjoy cheap fuel.
>> I pay for those wars out of the taxes I pay too.
> You must pay a lot of tax, if you fund all that by yourself.
Never said a word about by myself.
Since the absolute vast bulk of those who pay tax do use automobiles,
it follows that those pay the vast bulk of the taxes that pay for those wars.
In fact is mostly the less well paid dregs that use public transport,
and so they pay much less of the taxes that do pay for those wars.
>>>>>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
>>>>> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL
>>>>> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and
>>>>> account for ALL of them.
>>>> Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when the subsidy is so
>>>> small that it becomes irrelevant.
>>>>> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding
>>>>> that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
>>>> Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys.
>>> I think you'll find that both of the subsidies I've mentioned exceed
>>> the cost of the car
>> Yes, but I pay for that with the tax I pay, so no subsidy.
> You clearly have little idea of how that works
Its clearly you that doesnt have a clue how that works.
> - would you get a rebate if you didn't use those roads?
It aint the rebates that matter.
>>> - hardly "the smallest subsidys (sic)".
>> I JUST said the smallest subsidys dont need to be calculated.
>> And your (sic) cuts no mustard either, I choose
>> to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it.
> You choose to understand it so poorly that you can't even spell it.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
h
"Marioneta del Calcetin" <calce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f1pe5d20evhkc5dd...@4ax.com...
Umm, no. It's not possible to read newsgroups without a filter for Rod Speed
and others of his ilk. Like you.
Rod Speed
>>>> Corse not.
> Ah yes, less well paid = dregs.
Never said that, you silly little pathological liar.
> Such a rational argument.
Your lies in spades.
> Particularly in a country where just being unlucky
> enough to be ill can turn you into a dreg.
In fact the absolute vast bulk of that 'illness' is self inflicted and nothing whatever to do with luck.
> Do you have any other prejudices you'd like to air, or do
> you think you've made enough of a prat of yourself already?
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>>>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
>>>>>>> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL
>>>>>>> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and
>>>>>>> account for ALL of them.
>>>>>> Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when
>>>>>> the subsidy is so small that it becomes irrelevant.
>>>>>>> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding
>>>>>>> that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
>>>>>> Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys.
>>>>> I think you'll find that both of the subsidies I've mentioned
>>>>> exceed the cost of the car
>>>> Yes, but I pay for that with the tax I pay, so no subsidy.
>>> You clearly have little idea of how that works
>> Its clearly you that doesnt have a clue how that works.
> Go on then, tell us all about hypothecation.
Just how many of you are there between those ears, wanker ?
> Do you think people should be stopped from driving
> if their tax contribution falls below any particular level?
Nope.
>>> - would you get a rebate if you didn't use those roads?
>> It aint the rebates that matter.
>>>>> - hardly "the smallest subsidys (sic)".
>>>> I JUST said the smallest subsidys dont need to be calculated.
>>>> And your (sic) cuts no mustard either, I choose
>>>> to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it.
>>> You choose to understand it so poorly that you can't even spell it.
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Evidently.
Pathetic.
> Look forward to becoming a dreg when your employer discovers your tenuous grasp on reality.
Taint gunna happen.
Look forward to you getting run over any day now.
terryc
> Look forward to becoming a dreg when your employer discovers your
> tenuous grasp on reality.
Rod-bot doesn't have an employer. His 24x7 posts indicate that. Plus his
in depth knowledge of welfare in this country indicates that he is
already a recipient.
Rod Speed
> Phil W Lee wrote
>> Look forward to becoming a dreg when your
>> employer discovers your tenuous grasp on reality.
> Rod-bot doesn't have an employer. His 24x7 posts indicate that.
> Plus his in depth knowledge of welfare in this country indicates
> that he is already a recipient.
Never ever accepted even a cent of welfare ever, thanks, fool.
Jym Dyer
> = Rod Speed
>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>> LESS than automobiles are.
> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.
=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.
=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
<_Jym_>
aemeijers
Not everyone lives in the imaginary 1920s-1960s urban utopia of 40 foot
wide lot row houses with a bus stop on every other corner. Nor does
everyone go to work or come home the same time, or work the hours the
bus system is running. To provide anything near the level of service a
private vehicle offers, you would need a whole lot more buses and
drivers. And most of them would still be running near-empty most of the
time, at a higher cost per passenger mile than a private car. Buses are
only efficient if they are at least partially full.
Hey, I <like> public transit. In college, I used it almost every day.
But in a college town, most of the users live in a concentrated area,
and the places they need to go are in a concentrated area. Out in the
real world, the only areas that get near that user/destination density
are the old urban centers. Which happen to be the only areas where mass
transit works. That is why the city here collapsed their bus routes and
schedules- they realized that the buses to the outer regions were
running nearly empty most of the time. Same for the off-hour buses, even
in town. It would be cheaper to give cab fare coupons to the folks that
can't drive for whatever reason. They didn't do that, of course, so
there were some people truly between a rock and a hard place. One guy
wanted to take up the slack with a jitney bus service that regular-use
non-drivers could subscribe to, but the cab companies leaned on the
city, and it never happened.
--
aem sends...
Rod Speed
>>> = Scott in SoCal
>> = Rod Speed
You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been
> Rod Speed
>> Scott in SoCal
>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because
>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are.
>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque
> array of funding serves to keep most of us from
> thinking about the true cost of driving.
In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect
in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.
> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging
> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per
> person is going to involve more resources, no matter
> how accountants distribute the numbers.
Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS.
When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of
transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra
mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.
> When point A and point B are so much further
> apart because so much land area is devoted to
> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking),
> that, too, is going to involve more resources.
Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate
matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.
> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources
> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.
And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway,
who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact
subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.
> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte,
> but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose.
Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and
I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.
Les Cargill
>>> = Scott in SoCal
>> = Rod Speed
>
>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>
> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
> true cost of driving.
>
??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
> maintaining it all.
>
But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.
> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
> and guess what? You lose.
> <_Jym_>
>
--
Les Cargill
krw
<lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>> = Rod Speed
>>
>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>
>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>> true cost of driving.
>>
>
>??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>> maintaining it all.
>>
>
>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>makes money.
Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.
>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>> and guess what? You lose.
>> <_Jym_>
More collectivist tripe.
Les Cargill
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>> true cost of driving.
>>>
>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>
> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>
Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>
> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>
Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
carbon offsets are.
>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>> maintaining it all.
>>>
>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>> makes money.
>
> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
> the idea of owning my own home.
>
Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
really sock in a good down payment.
If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
sucker.
>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>>> and guess what? You lose.
>>> <_Jym_>
>
> More collectivist tripe.
--
Les Cargill
krw
<lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>
>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>
>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>
>
>Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>I'm willing to subsidize that some.
Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>
>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>
>
>Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>carbon offsets are.
Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
higher income tax isn't going to work. The states have maxed out
sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>
>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>> makes money.
>>
>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>
>
>Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>really sock in a good down payment.
Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
is still the way to long-term financial security.
>If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>sucker.
Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
equity in my house isn't income either.
Les Cargill
Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
those people off. Can private efforts replace public
transport? I don't know.
Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
to compete. That places the burden of care for them
somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
doesn't seem realistic.
>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>
>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>> carbon offsets are.
>
> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
> higher income tax isn't going to work.
It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
> The states have maxed out
> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>
Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
altogether.
Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
and still claim the high moral ground.
>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>
>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>> makes money.
>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>
>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>> really sock in a good down payment.
>
> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>
No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>
Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
ownership.
>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>> sucker.
>
> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
> equity in my house isn't income either.
>
but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
the only way to win is not to play.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
krw
<lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even
force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.
>Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
>to compete. That places the burden of care for them
>somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
>creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
>doesn't seem realistic.
Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway
funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The
unproductive are already under control.
>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>>
>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>>> carbon offsets are.
>>
>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
>> higher income tax isn't going to work.
>
>It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no
mater what color you paint them. People know this, but what they
can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you
suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a
check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?
>> The states have maxed out
>> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
>> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
>> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
>> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>
>
>Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>altogether.
Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.
>Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
>last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
>even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
>ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
>writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>
>Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
>fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
>and still claim the high moral ground.
No, the problem with capitalism is government.
>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>>> makes money.
>>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>>
>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>>> really sock in a good down payment.
>>
>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
>> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
>> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>>
>
>No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
>cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please
elaborate.
>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
>> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
>> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>>
>
>Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying
if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't
necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house
with less than 1% down.
>This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial
winner.
>Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>ownership.
Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty
small, over the life of a house.
>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
>> equity in my house isn't income either.
>>
>
>but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
>the only way to win is not to play.
The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That
isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
aemeijers
(snip)
> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
> altogether.
>
Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what
they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that
sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for
them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile,
instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save
millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every
drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could
cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than
whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill
would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy
train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in
the hole, the less they take home.
--
aem sends....
krw
wrote:
Make it a simple ratio, sign and all.
krw
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net>
>said:
>
>>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>be able to.
>
>Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before
>there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"
Nonsnese. Try streetcars in any major city now. Try affording them
in any small city.
>>What we see with public transport is that it never
>>makes money.
>
>OK, so show me a road that makes money.
Don't be an idiot. They all do. If you want one that makes a (huge)
profit, try the NYS Thruway.
>The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car
>users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a
>payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected
>to earn a profit at the farebox.
They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
h
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:kvkef51fhk4mio56k...@4ax.com...
>
> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
> transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
> issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
Is little Scottie still whinging on about car owners? Does he REALLY not get
that roads are not just for cars? He'd starve to death without roads, since
without them trucks wouldn't be able to bring his food into the city. Also,
buses need roads, too, or does he really think people shouldn't travel AT
ALL?
h
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:0nlef5hgh3pctftqn...@4ax.com...
> That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost of driving, many will
> decide it isn't worth the cost.
> And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses.
Assuming they live where there are buses.
krw
wrote:
Sure, he's still whining. He's no different than any of the little
leftist who want to own your soul.
Rod Speed
>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>> = Rod Speed
>> You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been
>>> Rod Speed
>>>> Scott in SoCal
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because
>>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are.
>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque
>>> array of funding serves to keep most of us from
>>> thinking about the true cost of driving.
>> In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect
>> in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.
> I've yet to hear of one that doesn't
Then you need to get out more and look at
western europe where they heavily tax fuel etc.
> - most spend FAR more.
Thats a lie.
>>> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging
>>> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per
>>> person is going to involve more resources, no matter
>>> how accountants distribute the numbers.
>> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS.
>> When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of
>> transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra
>> mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.
> And the government obligingly pays for the cost
> of constructing sufficient roadway to accommodate it.
> THAT'S a subsidy.
Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes.
>>> When point A and point B are so much further
>>> apart because so much land area is devoted to
>>> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking),
>>> that, too, is going to involve more resources.
>> Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate
>> matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.
> So try driving without a roadway.
Dont need to, they are paid for with road taxes.
> If you're using the roadway, you're accepting the subsidy.
There is no subsidy if its only part of what is raised in road taxes.
>>> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources
>>> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
>> Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.
> Nowhere near.
Wrong, as always.
>> And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway,
>> who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact
>> subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.
> How much maintenance do you think a cycleway
> or footpath needs compared to a roadway?
None needs much when its done properly in the first place.
> Just as a clue, the damage caused by traffic rises in
> proportion to the 4th power of the axle weight of the vehicle.
So its the trucks that do most of the wear and tear on roads.
>>> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte,
>>> but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose.
>> Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and
>> I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.
> Guess you'd better find your own planet then,
This one is fine.
> but I don't think you'll have much luck redesigning the laws of physics anywhere in this universe.
No laws of physics involved in whether the road taxes are used to pay for the roads.
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote
>> What we see with public transport is that it never makes money.
> OK, so show me a road that makes money.
Plenty of private toll roads do.
> The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car users "free" roads
They aint free, they pay road use and fuel taxes.
> and "free" parking
They aint free, they pay road use and fuel taxes.
> without even the hope of a payback,
Thats a lie.
> let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected to earn a profit at the farebox.
Because they dont pay the road use and fuel taxes.
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> considered Sun, 08 Nov 2009
> 01:54:14 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>
>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>> true cost of driving.
>>>
>>
>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
> Not even close. I don't know of any government that
> doesn't subsidise road infrastructure from central taxes.
Your pig ignorance is your problem.
Try western europe.
> Maybe you do, but I'm talking about the planet earth.
So are we.
>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
> Studies have been done, and you're right, the market price is much
> less than the actual cost, particularly if you include the cost of
> clearing up after it.
>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>> maintaining it all.
>>>
>>
>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>> makes money.
>
> Only because so many people use cars.
> Once they have to pay the full cost of that, most will stop.
Pure fantasy.
> That will make public transport viable.
Pure fantasy.
> Then the majority will get sick of the yuppies
> driving around on public roads, and stop them.
Pure fantasy.
> That will make public transport profitable.
Pure fantasy.
> The only real question is how long that will take,
Forever, you watch.
> and how much of the planet will be left by the time it happens.
It aint going nowhere.
Les Cargill
*Much* worse than that. Yes, I will. There is a founding
principle of economics of "the declining marginal value of
money" which had very few exceptions. I will encourage less
entropy in the world with that small subsidy than without it.
>> Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
>> to compete. That places the burden of care for them
>> somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
>> creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
>> doesn't seem realistic.
>
> Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway
> funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The
> unproductive are already under control.
>
Because as these things go, it's one large lump. I am sure
that whatever the reasons to take it out of highway funds
comes from somebody reading symmetry between waiting on the
bus until I Cadillac.
>>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>>>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>>>> carbon offsets are.
>>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
>>> higher income tax isn't going to work.
>> It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
>
> By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no
> mater what color you paint them.
I suppose you've been asleep the last ten years. What golden goose?
You can only remain accountable for so much willing suspension of
disbelief for so long. After all, Greenspan said his mea culpa
last year.
If people drawing cartoons of production is that standard, then...
> People know this, but what they
> can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you
> suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a
> check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?
>
>
I always have when I did not properly withhold. It does not matter.
I was glad to do it, too. it is a privilege.
>>> The states have maxed out
>>> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
>>> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
>>> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
>>> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>>
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>> altogether.
>
> Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.
>
Unfortunately... I am doing exactly that. It's not very good. You
want to reify the jumped-up pseeudo event of "revenue" since about, oh
1982?
>> Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
>> last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
>> even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
>> ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
>> writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>>
>> Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
>> fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
>> and still claim the high moral ground.
>
> No, the problem with capitalism is government.
>
Well, if you really *want* to agree with me, that's fine. Government
pretty much made the fratboy capitalist standard subject to Iron Law.
They'll accept privilege so we don't have to....
Are you specifically *denying* the fratboy capitalist standard? Because
I have such a significant cannon loaded for that event.... even Obama
embraces it.
>>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>>>> makes money.
>>>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>>>> really sock in a good down payment.
>>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
>>> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
>>> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>>>
>> No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
>> cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
>
> How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please
> elaborate.
>
Find Henry George. it's a caricature of itself when land value, so
abused in the recent falls like a stone.
>>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
>>> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
>>> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>>>
>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>
> If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying
> if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't
> necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house
> with less than 1% down.
>
Then you gambled on a rise in equity to make up for what you did not
have going in. Fine if it works; sucks when it fails.
>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>
> Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial
> winner.
>
No, just someone who understands that renting is much more efficient.
Unless you're up to owning. But isn't what we see around us the
Great Lie - ownership is Better? It is if the numbers say it is, but
in the presence of the Cult of the Greater Sucker...
>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>> ownership.
>
> Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty
> small, over the life of a house.
>
Whoo boy. I am speaking to someone who did not keep good
records. And peripheral costs are not completely encapsulated
by maintenance.
>>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>>>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>>>> sucker.
>>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
>>> equity in my house isn't income either.
>>>
>> but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
>> the only way to win is not to play.
>
> The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That
> isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
So never have to move, and you're OK. That's fine if you don't work
for a living.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
> (snip)
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>> altogether.
>>
>
> Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
> deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what
> they can take in without using a gun.
But gummint ain't people. Understand that first.
> The government ought to try that
> sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut.
It mostly cannot.
> I work for
> them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
but thats for reasons of the support of transparency. Instrumentation is
expensive, *objective* instrumentation even more so.
> Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile,
> instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save
> millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every
> drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could
> cut expenses bigtime.
No, not really. Every man jack of the bureaucracy lives mostly
in fear of being noted on the pages of history.
> Note that I blame congress as much or more than
> whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill
> would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy
> train.
But it's much bigger than they are.
> Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in
> the hole, the less they take home.
>
you first have to understand that the standards for public debt
are radically different than for private or encorporate debt.
Done properly,GDP growth erases public debt like it never happened.
It is like buying shoes for your chlidren two sizes too large, because
they will grow into it. The problem is that the standards of appropriate
debt shift with the wind.
> --
> aem sends....
--
Les Cargill
krw
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on misc.consumers, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> said:
>
>>He's no different than any of the little
>>leftist who want to own your soul.
>
>Sorry, I'm not interested in owning your soul. I have enough junk
>around here as it is. :)
You're a damned liar, too.
Rod Speed
> h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote
>> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote
>>> That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost
>>> of driving, many will decide it isn't worth the cost.
>>> And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses.
>> Assuming they live where there are buses.
> Once the demand is there, the buses will come.
Nope, not where buses are uneconomic they wont.
Opus
> >The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car
> >users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a
> >payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected
> >to earn a profit at the farebox.
>
> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
> transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
> issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
Here in TX road taxes only pay for about 1/3 of the costs of building
the roads that are (partially) funded by road taxes, those being the
state highways and farm-to-market roads. Federal highways
(interstates) are built with mostly gas taxes that are derived mostly
from not driving on the Interstates, and county roads and city streets
are entirely funded from the general funds of those jurisdictions. So
all of the roads and streets in TX are built from general funds in all
or part. And aside from a few private lots in downtown most parking in
Dallas County is required to be free by law, with minimum areas set by
law for each building, In my travels I found similar situations in
most cities.
So, even though I don't own a car, I pay for the roads through my
taxes to the general fund, and I pay for "free" parking because my
taxes are higher because parking lots are required to not be revenue
generators by law. And the roads I have to ride my bicycle on are not
safe because the cars go too fast on them because there is not enough
money to pay for police officers to enforce the speed limit, because
the state has said that 50% of the fines will go to them, so nobody
writes tickets any more.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Phil W Lee wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jym Dyer wrote
>>>>>> Scott in SoCal
>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because
>>>>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>>> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque
>>>>> array of funding serves to keep most of us from
>>>>> thinking about the true cost of driving.
>>>> In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect
>>>> in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.
>>> I've yet to hear of one that doesn't
>> Then you need to get out more and look at
>> western europe where they heavily tax fuel etc.
> Since you clearly can't read headers, I'll spell
> it out for you - I LIVE IN WESTERN EUROPE!
THEN YOU ARE A PIG IGNORANT CLOWN.
>>> - most spend FAR more.
>> Thats a lie.
> Ah, the ad-hominem.
You wouldnt know what real ad hominem was if it bit you on your lard arse.
THAT IS A STATEMENT OF FACT, NOT AD HOMINEM.
> No figures though,
How odd that we havent seen even a single figure from you, ever.
> as they'd disprove your argument.
Thats a lie.
>>>>> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging
>>>>> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per
>>>>> person is going to involve more resources, no matter
>>>>> how accountants distribute the numbers.
>>>> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant
>>>> claim about SUBSIDYS.
>>>> When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of
>>>> transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra
>>>> mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.
>>> And the government obligingly pays for the cost
>>> of constructing sufficient roadway to accommodate it.
>>> THAT'S a subsidy.
>> Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes.
> Car taxes have never even come close to paying the cost of
> building and maintaining the road infrastructure. Not anywhere.
Wrong, as always.
>>>>> When point A and point B are so much further
>>>>> apart because so much land area is devoted to
>>>>> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking),
>>>>> that, too, is going to involve more resources.
>>>> Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate
>>>> matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.
>>> So try driving without a roadway.
>> Dont need to, they are paid for with road taxes.
> Figures please,
How odd that we havent seen even a single figure from you, ever.
> or admit that you are wrong.
Nothing to admit.
>>> If you're using the roadway, you're accepting the subsidy.
>> There is no subsidy if its only part of what is raised in road taxes.
> But there is, as it is far more than is paid in road taxes.
Thats a lie.
>>>>> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources
>>>>> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
>>>> Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.
>>> Nowhere near.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Figures please,
How odd that we havent seen even a single figure from you, ever.
> or FOAD.
You're one thats always been dead from the shoulders up.
>>>> And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway,
>>>> who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact
>>>> subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.
>>> How much maintenance do you think a cycleway
>>> or footpath needs compared to a roadway?
>> None needs much when its done properly in the first place.
> And the cost of building it properly for the expected load scales similarly,
Irrelevant to your lie. Have fun producing the figures that show that
cycleways or footpaths are paid for by cycle taxes or pedestrian taxes.
>>> Just as a clue, the damage caused by traffic rises in
>>> proportion to the 4th power of the axle weight of the vehicle.
>> So its the trucks that do most of the wear and tear on roads.
> Not on residential roads,
Wrong, as always.
> but yes, trucks should be taxed far higher
> to reduce the level of subsidy they receive.
And they are. And when the roads have to be there
for the trucks, the cars get them for free, fool.
>>>>> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card
>>>>> Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess
>>>>> what? You lose.
>>>> Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and
>>>> I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.
>>> Guess you'd better find your own planet then,
>> This one is fine.
>>> but I don't think you'll have much luck redesigning the laws of physics anywhere in this universe.
>> No laws of physics involved in whether the road taxes are used to pay for the roads.
> If you can't see the connection, then you're clearly beyond educating.
You never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.
The Real Bev
> "Rod Speed" wrote:
>
>>Phil W Lee wrote
>>
>>> THAT'S a subsidy.
>>
>>Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes.
>
> Car taxes have never even come close to paying the cost of building
> and maintaining the road infrastructure. Not anywhere.
Bullshit. Maybe 30 years ago California had a surplus of gas tax money such
that the other voters (not me or my friends, I don't know anybody that dumb)
voted to transfer some amount of it into the general fund. Years later it was
determined that there wasn't enough gas tax money to maintain the roads
properly, so the other voters voted to add an additional gas tax to be devoted
to "transit" or "transportation", which included public transportation.
They do it with smoke and mirrors, and so few see the tricks that the public
always gets screwed.
--
Cheers, Bev
======================================================================
"Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft[0], recently referred to LINUX as a
cancer. Unsurprisingly, that's incorrect; LINUX was released on August
25th, 1991 and is therefore a virgo." -- Kevin L
krw
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Prove it.
Your own words work for me.
SMS
> Les Cargill wrote:
> (snip)
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>> altogether.
>>
>
> Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
> deficits.
And you would be wrong. It was reducing revenue while at the same time
increasing spending. No one actually believed that Reaganomics had any
basis in reality, but enough people wanted to party for a few years with
the realization that they wouldn't be the ones having to pay the bill
when it came due.
krw
wrote:
Is that why revenue went *UP*? What a moron.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> So you come up with some fantasy about the cost of building roads,
Taint a fantasy, plenty of roads are paid for by road use taxes like fuel taxes.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where they belong>