Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder what will happen when the petroleum cartels double the cost of diesel and jet fuel. They have already pushed gasoline prices to the point of decreasing use so the other two forms of transportation are likely to get hit next.
I wonder what will happen when the petroleum cartels double the cost of diesel and jet fuel. They have already pushed gasoline prices to the point of decreasing use so the other two forms of transportation are likely to get hit next.
They will take advantage of our desperation, as this country finally gets a taste of the realities. A glimpse of it was visible in summer 2008, and that was with gas prices at about $3.50/gallon.
They will take advantage of our desperation, as this country finally gets a taste of the realities. A glimpse of it was visible in summer 2008, and that was with gas prices at about $3.50/gallon.
yeah I remember paying very close to $4 per gallon at that point and it was pretty painful. If I had other alternatives, I would have taken them in a heart beat
I wonder what will happen when the petroleum cartels double the cost of diesel and jet fuel. They have already pushed gasoline prices to the point of decreasing use so the other two forms of transportation are likely to get hit next.
The trucking industry is already planning for this future in it exploration of biodiesel and LNG. LNG make the most sense since it could be piped off the main trunks that already run across the states and diverted into the truck stops.
As usual, it is going to be the middle class guy who gets it up the analpore because it is he who depnds upon his automobile for his current lifestyle.
And once again it the the government that is to blame here. They haven't allowed a nuclear power plant to be built in over 30 years which could free up more fuel for refinement into gasoline. But they also haven't given any permits for any new refineries as well. So you could increase all of the light sweet crude oil you want, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference, since refineries are operating at 98% capacity now.
Nor has the government provided any incentives in terms of tax credits to switch autos over from gasoline to LNG. The have their head up their kysters with solar and electric power pak cars. How stupid is this when hyrogen is already powering cars and buses in CA and LNG is in the best position to be the fuel for motor vehicles in the future.
It is the government that has created this problem of an oil/gasoline shortage, by not allowing nuclear fuel, oil exploration, and refinery development, not the oil companies.
That's a bit like saying that Doritos aren't Kosher because they weren't specifically sanctioned by Moses.
I.e., a really very poorly thought-out position.
But then, this thread is awash with the dreariest sort of cardboard-capitalist cant.
Tell me, why does your federal government invest heavily in roads? Because roads are essential to the ability of your economy to function, but, at the same time, are a loss-making enterprise themselves.
Likewise, where are the financiers queuing up to pay for your schools and your military? Answer: they're not, because these too are loss making enterprises in themselves, but their cost is borne, by the taxpayer, because it is thought that this cost will be outweighed by the wider economic benefit of having a population that is not illiterate, and a territory that is not occupied by foreign powers.
So it is with HSR in the United States. You can argue one way or the other over whether it is a good idea, or a good investment, and over whether it should be publicly or privately run. But the notion that it can only be economically worthwhile if it directly turns a profit is plainly and simply wrong, as evidenced by the plethora of long-established loss-making national enterprises that are universally recognised to be economically not just beneficial, but essential.
I am a Capitalist and proud of it.
You anaology is ridiculous. The Constitution in Article II section 8 gives the authority to Congress to establish roads, a post office, etc. It does NOT confer the operation upon the government.
Roads , railroads etc are a national security interest but no where in the Constitution does it confer upon the government to operate the roads and the rails.
If your argument for schools were valid there would be no private schools at all. Once again, the government can establish the schools but private enterprise has proved to operate the schools with better results than the government.
We don't need financiers to pony up for the operation of schools. Taxpayers already pay on avearge $12,000 per pupil per year on every student, some with avearge results, and others, with disaterous results. That same $12,000 applied to the privatization of the operation of the schools would produce better students and a lower drop out rate. This has already been proven in private education.
Whoever proposed the privatizing of the military? We could save a ton of taxpayer money by bringing all the troops home from the wars abroad and all foreign miliatry bases occupied by the US. We could use the military to protect our borders and prepare them for attacks against US soil and not particpate in nation building all over the world. Let NATO, minus the US, and the UN decide and handle world problems. The US needs to get out, and get out now.
I just thought of a really good idea. I think we can improie Amtrak greatly if we did what the Japanese and British did and privatize their entire passenger rail operations. The way they work are different but similar.
The UK's passenger trains are owned and operated by First Group, but they don't directly own and manage the train companies throughout Britain. They have regional franchises that own and operate within their own specific regions and they have a harmonized structure with First Group being like the federal government, and First Great Western, First CapitalConnect, etc. being like states.
Or we can go the Japanese route, and structure the company like JR Group. They have JR Group, which is a consortium made up of JR East, JR Central, JR West, etc. Each has their own geographic region that they operate in, but they are completely independent on how they operate and maintain their section of the network, and JR Group exists to harmonize ticket services. Each train company also operates local rail lines in their respective regions to serve their intracity passengers. You can say this system is set up like a confederation
Each country saw its ridership increase and efficiency increase as well as service quality increase after privatization. Amtrak should be done away with, and go either the First Group route, or the JR route. Considering the size and scope of the U.S., I think Amtrak would be better off operating like the JR Group of rail companies.
Excellent post that proves privatization is nearly always better than government operations.
You anaology is ridiculous. The Constitution in Article II section 8 gives the authority to Congress to establish roads, a post office, etc. It does NOT confer the operation upon the government.
Roads , railroads etc are a national security interest but no where in the Constitution does it confer upon the government to operate the roads and the rails.
There is no Article II/Section 8 in the constitution. But I knew (when I asked you about it earlier) that you implied Article I.
It is funny that you assume the word "establish" proves that the government wasn't meant to be the operator/provider of the service. And that it really mean that private enterprise should control it all. They use "establish" a uniform law for naturalization as well. Does that mean after writing the law, it is no longer the government's job to execute it? Establishing courts would mean government getting out of the way?
Good post. I just don't understand how so many of these anti-rail posters claim unconstitutionality or unprofitability as their reasons for why rail shouldn't be invested in. Like all roads that the government paves are for reasons of national defense (which is FAR from true) or like all roads are paid for by only those who drive (which is FAR from true). It's a short-sighted argument.
This country is going to sink money into infrastructure regardless of what we decide to invest in. However, we (as Americans) need to start considering the big picture over what each individual wants for just themselves. We need mass transportation that is more fuel efficient and more sustainable than our massive network of roads. It's a "bang for your buck" question.
You are distorting the issue. Some here are not arguing against high speed rail. I am arguing against the government operation of it. The government can't seem to operate anything at a profit. It is private enterprise that can operate the rail systems for a profit, not the government. Name one government operation that earns a profit. Not the Post Office not AMTRAK.
We point to Article I Section 8 that grants the authority of the government to establish an infrastructure but by no means grants the government the authority to operate it. It grants the government to establish a post office and post roads but dosen't grant authority to operate the PO or over the roads. This is the difference.
Government programs are in shambles. They come back year after year of losing money only to ask for more, which never seems to make any difference at all, as in education.
There is nothing wrong with the government providing the right of way, or even possibly the rail bought from private industry, but the OPERATION must be left to private enterprise so it is profitable, safe, clean and provides a real alternative to other methods of transportation to get people out of autos and planes and onto the rails. Leasing the right of way would produce competition for the right of way and that would reduce costs of ridership. The government has no interest in reducing costs, nor does it have any interest in providng the best service for the money because they know the taxpayers ends up ponying up anyway. Private enterprise and competition is the solution, not government boondoggles and failed programs who milk the taxpayers because they know there are no alternatives.
You are distorting the issue. Some here are not arguing against high speed rail. I am arguing against the government operation of it. The government can't seem to operate anything at a profit. It is private enterprise that can operate the rail systems for a profit, not the government. Name one government operation that earns a profit. Not the Post Office not AMTRAK.
Government programs are in shambles. They come back year after year of losing money only to ask for more, which never seems to make any difference at all, as in education.
There is nothing wrong with the government providing the right of way, or even possibly the rail bought from private industry, but the OPERATION must be left to private enterprise so it is profitable, safe, clean and provides a real alternative to other methods of transportation to get people out of autos and planes and onto the rails. Leasing the right of way would produce competition for the right of way and that would reduce costs of ridership. The government has no interest in reducing costs, nor does it have any interest in providng the best service for the money because they know the taxpayers ends up ponying up anyway. Private enterprise and competition is the solution, not government boondoggles and failed programs who milk the taxpayers because they know there are no alternatives.
So, based on this post, you and I agree on lot. However, my contention with this whole issue is that people are pushing rail to be privatized without fixing the issues with restrictions and taxes that would stop it from happening all together (until this happens, rail can't even be born, much less survive). That's besides the issue that roads aren't even discussed as being a major subsidy by all of the American public, even those who don't use them.
I'm for multiple methods of transport, but rail always seems to be left out in the cold...and I believe it's the most efficient, reliable and potentially the most profitable method.
You anaology is ridiculous. The Constitution in Article II section 8 gives the authority to Congress to establish roads, a post office, etc. It does NOT confer the operation upon the government.
Roads , railroads etc are a national security interest but no where in the Constitution does it confer upon the government to operate the roads and the rails.
The broader point is that the work of a constitution is to establish the spirit of law, rather than the specifics; the fact that the US constitution does not specifically sanction the creation of state-operated railways has little bearing on whether or not such an enterprise would benefit the US economy.
Quote:
If your argument for schools were valid there would be no private schools at all. Once again, the government can establish the schools but private enterprise has proved to operate the schools with better results than the government.
We don't need financiers to pony up for the operation of schools. Taxpayers already pay on avearge $12,000 per pupil per year on every student, some with avearge results, and others, with disaterous results. That same $12,000 applied to the privatization of the operation of the schools would produce better students and a lower drop out rate. This has already been proven in private education.
I've already said that you're welcome to argue that services should be privately or publicly run; but whether it is paid to a public body or a private firm, that $12,000 will sure as hell not be raised from an investor, because there will be no direct return on that investment. But there will be a return on the 'investment' for the wider economy, because successful economies really only emerge from societies that have a g
high level of general education - and if you can name me a major economy that has achieved, for example, universal literacy, without an education system that is at heart PUBLICLY funded (however it may be delivered), then I will give you a damn sight more than a gold star.
[/quote]Whoever proposed the privatizing of the military? We could save a ton of taxpayer money by bringing all the troops home from the wars abroad and all foreign miliatry bases occupied by the US. We could use the military to protect our borders and prepare them for attacks against US soil and not particpate in nation building all over the world. Let NATO, minus the US, and the UN decide and handle world problems. The US needs to get out, and get out now.[/quote]
The point is that without public investment - investment that acknowledges that the military will operate at a loss - you would have NO military. (on a separate point, who exactly do you think pays for and staffs NATO, other than its member states?!).
If you think that everything should be paid for (as opposed to merely provided) privately, you will have to get used to the idea of a military, police force, education system and road network that you have not automatic right to, but which rather, can only be accessed by private subscription.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
