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.
It irrefutable fact that the transcontinental railroad could not have been built when it was without government support. Asa Whitney and the other visionaries of the railroad lobbied congress for government support to get it built. So if they couldn't do it without government support, at what point is US history would have it been built? And what would have been the impact to the growth of the US because of that delay? We'd probably be a third-world nation. Nice try, guys.
Why do it yourself when you can get someone to do it for you?
It irrefutable fact that the transcontinental railroad could not have been built when it was without government support. Asa Whitney and the other visionaries of the railroad lobbied congress for government support to get it built. So if they couldn't do it without government support, at what point is US history would have it been built? And what would have been the impact to the growth of the US because of that delay? We'd probably be a third-world nation. Nice try, guys.
Proving it was built with the aid government intervention ( which no one is disputing) vs. not being built at all without government intervention, are two entirely different matters.
My contention is an intercontinental rail line of some form would have been built without land grants (guv intervention) just as other existing rail lines at the time had been.
And it may have been a more practical route if the railroads had to fund it in its entirety.
Keep laughing,the only thing you've proved is that you were a good listener in government school.
Proving it was built with the aid government intervention ( which no one is disputing) vs. not being built at all without government intervention, are two entirely different matters.
Debatable but facts remain - it WAS built w/ govt. aid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
My contention is an intercontinental rail line of some form would have been built without land grants (guv intervention) just as other existing rail lines at the time had been.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
And it may have been a more practical route if the railroads had to fund it in its entirety.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Keep laughing,the only thing you've proved is that you were a good listener in government school.
OK, I see it. Model 4 will be $5K, right? If they are making such good progress, why do working class people have to help rich people buy them?
That's just a silly and ignorant argument. Hopefully that is in jest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
You are delusional.
Nope. There was a wide gap between the US government and private sector putting satellites into orbit. How long would it have taken the private sector to gather the capital and focus on creating GPS compared to the the US govt?
No, you condemn them all and get as many as you can when you can.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face to adhere to some fantasy free market right wing populist ideas doesn't seem like a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Why do it yourself when you can get someone to do it for you?
Lets pretend the US govt stops all subsidies and tax breaks for every private sector company, you think the rest of the world is going to to say, "yay, let's all play fair"?
You're free market notions are naive despite your cute, warm and fuzzy quip about doing things yourself.
Filed under: if you cant follow along please dont comment.
AT BEST, all you've demonstrated is how far behind the private sector would be on such grand endeavors like intercontinental railroads.
Apparently you didn't receive proper education otherwise you'd know that it was the US Govt that bought and took lands needed to expand westward to the Pacific Ocean (Manifest Destiny). You also would know that America subsidized this through land accusations, military force on native tribes, and various Homestead Acts that subsidized land for families moving westward. It was very much a government backed westward expansion to colonize the land and control the vast natural resources.
My contention is an intercontinental rail line of some form would have been built without land grants (guv intervention) just as other existing rail lines at the time had been.
We understand that's your contention. Seems hard to argue, though.
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.
