President SUPERTRAIN
literally.
Transportation will play a central role in Obama’s first months in office, not just for policy changes aimed at improving highway, air and rail travel, but as a road toward economic recovery, energy independence and environmental protection.
Solve road congestion, Obama’s reasoning goes, and you put people to work.
Use less gasoline and help clean the air.
Build better trains and move goods more efficiently.
Get people out of their cars and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“We will create millions of jobs,” he said recently, “by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.”
[...]
Bush’s transportation philosophy “seemed to be, ‘This is what the federal government should be responsible for and nothing else.’ And the ‘nothing else’ category was public transportation,” said William Millar, executive director of the American Public Transportation Association, whose members include transit agencies.
Obama, on the other hand, has described himself as a strong advocate of mass transit.
While Bush proposed what some lawmakers described as “starvation budgets” for Amtrak, Obama has pledged support for the passenger rail carrier and for developing a national network of high-speed passenger trains.
I’m excited. The economic cost of traffic jams is both incredibly high and also absurdly preventable. Getting things totally right requires smart state and local policies, but a federal government that offered good incentives rather than bad ones could make a huge difference plus the direct federal role is pretty big.
53 Responses to “President SUPERTRAIN”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 12th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
How about all the people who will lose their jobs because of these plans? The massive waste from abandoned infrastructure and technology? The low-income workers who currently man many of the factories would produce that dirty energy we currently enjoy who will be laid off and the entire industries that could potentially buckle?
As usual – supposedly environmentally friendly policies have little foresight and could cause more harm, waste, and cost.
Good times indeed.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Because of course the new infrastructure and facilities and whatnot will require exactly no employees!
Your logic is flawed, and has been every time its ever been suggested over many, many years to oppose any number of innovations.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I’m well aware the new plans require employees. Wow.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Right now it costs me $100 to get from NYC to Boston via Amtrak. or $10 via Chinatown bus. Not really sure how we could ever get the train to compete with the bus.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Not really sure how we could ever get the train to compete with the bus.
Huh? They compete right now. Lots of folks prefer the comfort, amenities and greater safety of a train — hence the higher price.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Sod the Supertrain – re-open the Camas Prairie Railroad through the Lapwai Canyon in Idaho.
BTW, Matt, are you moonlighting as a restaurant critic for the NY Times?
December 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
@Fencedude – also, I don’t oppose innovation. I’m opposed to the government deciding which industries will succeed and fail. They do not have the information to make such decisions and could cause more harm than good by dismantling entire industries. Perhaps that will not happen, we don’t know really, because no plans have actually been made.
Furthermore – regarding employee and “jobs creation” issues. Obama is banking on creating 2.5 jobs. Is this a net number? I’m doubtful. He doesn’t reveal in his plans the losses, which I believe is misleading. Nor could you expect the disappearance of jobs and industry to directly correlate in time and location to the appearance of new jobs. Geography matters. Unless of course, every coal-mining town is also going to be home to some of this new booming infrastructure.
Back to the innovation issue – you are speaking to someone who deeply cares about environmental issues and applaudes all efforts for private industry to make changes towards eco-friendly policies, which they do willingly without government coercion. (Because often innovation that decreases negative environmental impact reduces cost inputs over the long term which is highly profitable for companies.) If anything, the government has only stood in the way of innovation for years.
I’m more baffled that Barack Obama believes he can construct infrastructure for the United States better than those who use it on a daily basis.
For example, many global-warming bills are eliminating the coal industry (mostly employing low-income workers in economically depressed areas, areas where massive build-ups of infrastructure may or may not be needed) Dramatic moves towards electric-based technology will increase costs of providing electricity nationally. (Basic econ here, more demand=higher prices.) So consumers will see electricity prices increase (ballpark here) 4 to 5 times.
There are ancillary negative consequences warranting discussion (if nothing else) that seem to evade most of the privelaged, elite, environmentalist’s discussions.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I’m a bit surprised that Matt is so excited. From what I’ve heard about the new infrastructure spending is that it’s primarily new roads and bridges.
Melina, re: 2.5 million jobs… I noticed that President Elect Obama has changed his rhetoric since the election to say “create or keep” instead of just “create” millions of jobs.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I’m more baffled that Barack Obama believes he can construct infrastructure for the United States better than those who use it on a daily basis.
I’m baffled why anybody would think this about Obama. Surely he and his advisers will, you know, consult with folks out in the provinces before putting the finishing touches on a infrastructure bill, doncha think?
December 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I’m a bit surprised that Matt is so excited. From what I’ve heard about the new infrastructure spending is that it’s primarily new roads and bridges.
Google “Orzag” (if I’m spelling his name correctly).
December 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Until I went and read the original article, I thought this was a Joe Biden speech.
“Literally! Transportation will play a central role…”
December 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
What, Mixner’s still on va-ca and Milena is filling in for him? The line of idiot trolls never ends does it?
December 13th, 2008 at 12:07 am
…many global-warming bills are eliminating the coal industry…
Yeah, look at coal production fall off a cliff in this chart due to jackbooted government interference.
Forget the environment, do you deeply care about the fact that you’re spouting pure bullshit?
December 13th, 2008 at 12:48 am
I’m not sure I understand how creating jobs through infrastructure projects i.e. repairing roads, bridges, highways,possibly railroads, and funding existing public projects hurts existing companies. How is that related to dismantling industries?
December 13th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Let’s try this another way. After Katrina, the streetcars in New Orleans were pretty jacked up. No streetcar service until about a year ago. So for about 15 months, I had to drive everywhere or take a taxi. Now, I have to drive my truck for work, but when I’m off work, I don’t like to drive at all if I can help it. It’s not an environmental thing, I just like to move around light. I like to grab some food, see a movie or a show, get drunk at a bar and then have a nice relaxing streetcar ride to my stop and walk a couple blocks to my house. Before I had this job, I actually didn’t own a vehicle at all for about eight years, and I took the streetcar or taxis everywhere. But enough about me.
The thing is, for about a year and a half (because they started streetcar service before all the work was done), the city had big crews of guys going over the tracks, realigning them, resetting the overhead wire supports and digging a bunch of stuff up for some reason. This is all stuff that needed doing, I assume, and the whole time, all the people who normally rode the streetcar were driving or taking buses on alternate routes. But now the streetcars are fixed! Now lots of people can ride the streetcar and go places without having to deal with all the extra traffic on St. Charles! And I still have a truck, and I still buy gas and I still take it to the shop. I just don’t drive as much. People got extra work for a while, no one lost their job to the streetcar, the people that run and maintain the cars are back to full-time, and my city is a better place to live. And incidentally, the streetcars are zero emission.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:58 am
I find it interesting that Obama opposed Canadian National Railway’s acquisition of the EJ&E, which CN was going to use to improve rail traffic congestion in Chicago. Residents along the EJ&E protested that increased rail traffic would upset their lives and Obama agreed with them.
December 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I’m opposed to the government deciding which industries will succeed and fail.
Well, when the government and the public are the primary customers for such things, I don’t think that it’s entirely unreasonable for them to make decisions about which products it wants to support.
If anything, the government has only stood in the way of innovation for years.
Actually, it was lots of industry execs who kept telling the government “there’s no way we can solve these technical problems” when calls were make for the industry to improve their environmental records.
I appreciate that you have certain libertarian religious beliefs that you cling to, but I suggest you temper them with a bit of reality.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:31 am
@Tyro –
When the government and the public are the primary customers, they are free to do whatever they want with their own money, obviously. The thing is, they keep taking mine and don’t seem to care what I’d like done with that money.
Tyro – I’m assuming you don’t work in an industry that is subject to government technology standards that don’t allow its employees to innovate beyond what has been legislated under the threat of pecuniary punishment and the inability to engage in regular business. If you did, you’d understand my claim has less to do with religion, and far more to do with reality. But nice try.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I still see absolutely no demand for cross-country rail, a huge need for the huge bucks involved to be spent on dying mass transit like the underfunded NY system or the capitalization of the never-ending 2nd Avenud subway, an incredible need to refocus transit and housing together toward a less spreadout nexus (whereas the intercity rail could actually end up encouraging more driving), an imbalance of basic equity between the urban and suburban dwellers who depend on mass transit versus the business class that jets between Chicago and Washington, and political rather than technological obstacles accounting for, say, the slow train trip south once you pass DC (where freight starts to have priority). Matt is no doubt entitled to his boy toys. He’s earned them as a young star blogger. But can’t we just buy him a new video game? They’re so much cheaper.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’m about as nervous as Matt is excited. We could very easily spent on the wrong infrastructure. High speed trains, like the recently passed California one, are very expensive, and in use not very energy efficient. But, these catch the publics attention. Investment in electrifying rail for the use of unsexy freight trains is more important, but likely to be bypassed in the rush to approve highly public visable projects with uncertain or poor paybacks.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:02 am
When the government and the public are the primary customers, they are free to do whatever they want with their own money, obviously.
True. Which is exactly what we’re doing. This is our money, and we’re using it to construct public infrastructure that we want. It’s what I pay the government to do.
I’m assuming you don’t work in an industry that is subject to government technology standards that don’t allow its employees to innovate beyond what has been legislated under the threat of pecuniary punishment and the inability to engage in regular business.
Please stop babbling. In certain cases, certain corporate interests have gotten the government to pass anti-technology regulations to ensure that no one else can compete with them, but much of the time, your libertarian fanaticism notwithstanding, in the real world, government regulations and goals do force a lot of technological innovation. No one from the defense industry whines that the government forces them to stop innovating lest their weapons become “too good.”
Your charming cluelessness is a bit of a relief from Mixner’s obstinate, purposeful ignorance, however.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“While Bush proposed what some lawmakers described as ’starvation budgets’ for Amtrak…”
I guess “proposed” is the operative word here, since W has given more money to Amtrak than any president since its inception – which is yet another reason to loathe him beyond the most obvious ones (Iraq, torture, warrantless wiretapping, et cetera).
December 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The thing is, they keep taking mine and don’t seem to care what I’d like done with that money.
Let me guess, you’d like to be able to take 1/1000th of a cruise missile and 150 feet of I-40 home to put on your mantle? They’ll look great with the stockings!
Once we throw off the shackles of statist tyranny I’m planning on buying peace on earth and goodwill toward men on the free market with my massively expanded untaxed income. Or maybe I’ll just wait for it to arise as an unfettered expression of revealed preferences. Decisions, decisions!
December 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Milena Thomas’ comments regarding whether government should make transportation decisions reflect an appalling lack of understanding of the history of the automobile industry in this country.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
If anything, the government has only stood in the way of innovation for years.
Vague platitudes about “government” – as if it was some kind of undifferentiated commoditiy measured by the pound, gallon, or page, which require no understanding or consideration of the differences between various policies – are the lifeblood of libertarian religion.]
You can see this in Milenna’s comments – you want the the government to do X and Y to make Z happen? Don’t you know the government did A and B which kept Z from happening? – just as you can see it in the libertoid denials about the lack of regulation of mortgages and mortgage derivatives. Look, the federal code is a big book! Lots of regulations! How can you say a lack of regulations was the problem? See? Big Book!
December 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
@Tyro –
The government has also taken my money for their projects, and I object. I’m also not alone in that objection.
I’m happy to pay any toll on a road I plan to use – but I take issue with the numerous projects my money is spent on that I will never have any use for.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Lobstakilla:
Not to mention that it really misses the critical and successful role that the government has played in acting as a giant venture capital firm throughout American history – think about the distribution of practically free land to expand America’s agricultural sector, or the massive public investments and subsidies to roads, canals and railroads, or the huge stimulus to automobile and goods transportation through the Interstate Highway Program, or the advances to air travel (most of Americas first big wave of airports were built by the public, and a lot of the technical advances that made it possible to create passenger aviation as anything more than a niche market wouldn’t have happened without federal purchasing of high-powered airplanes in WWII), and the list goes on. If you want to get into the more high-tech areas, let’s talk about the emergence of modern computing from WWII code-breaking or the invention of the internet by DARPA government researchers, or the huge role that public subsidization of medical research has played in creating modern medicine.
Heck, for all the conservative axiomatics over “government can’t know better than folks on the ground,” the historical record of the U.S’ investment practices is on balance pretty damn good.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Get people out of their cars
Which in turn will reduce wear and tear on their cars which will require them to buy fewer cars which will … you see where this is going.
At least MattY’s consistent about this, with (nominally) opposing the auto bailout and opposing the use of cars in general. But the whole reason why there’s a crisis is that people are not buying enough cars (from every maker – but the US makers were not yet in a position to weather such a storm).
Also, you want to reduce gasoline consumption and get people out of their cars? – raise the gas tax. And stop fretting that it’s not a ‘progressive’ tax.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
In certain cases, certain corporate interests have gotten the government to pass anti-technology regulations to ensure that no one else can compete with them…
You are correct, and I oppose those actions.
…but much of the time, your libertarian fanaticism notwithstanding, in the real world, government regulations and goals do force a lot of technological innovation. No one from the defense industry whines that the government forces them to stop innovating lest their weapons become “too good.”
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Again, I’m not arguing against innovation, which you repeatedly accuse me of. Heh, I’m not even arguing against ALL government intervention, but even you might agree the quality of that intervention, and its efficacy should be considered.
I’m arguing against the instances when government interferes, and makes the wrong decisions. For example, CAFE standards have been meant to reduce emissions by requiring higher MPGs on cars. We’ve seen an approx. 14% reduction from where emissions would have been without the CAFE standards. What should have been done is allow gasoline prices to rise to their true (much higher) levels, which would then take into consideration the true costs of consuming gas. We consume too much gas because there is no cost of the externalities.
Despite being a crazy libertarian, with what information I have at the moment, I’d be in favor of a Pigouvian tax on gasoline, so we could pay the true price for gas, inclusive of pollution, which would eliminate the need for the CAFE standards, which as you mentioned, can be loopholed to render them useless. You could not avoid a gas tax. But the government makes the wrong choice because it prefers to hide costs from consumers in the upfront cost of cars versus each time a consumer heads to the gas station.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Gravity has made me fall down and I object. I am perfectly happy to use gravity when I need it to keep stuff from floating away, but I am ideologically opposed to skinned knees.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Milena, you wrote:
What should have been done is allow gasoline prices to rise to their true (much higher) levels, which would then take into consideration the true costs of consuming gas. We consume too much gas because there is no cost of the externalities.
I think the point of CAFE standards (or cap-and-trade for that matter) is to focus on outcomes. Like you mentioned, the government has limited information on supply and demand functions. So there’s a really good chance that whatever tax levels we choose will be either too low or too high to achieve e.g. a 14% reduction in emissions rates.
By plugging in our goals first (reduction in emissions), we let the market solve for the true price of these externalities by itself. We pay neither more nor less than the reduction requires.
the CAFE standards … can be loopholed to render them useless.
Simple tax schemes are really attractive in the abstract, but I don’t see any evidence that they’re more immune to loopholes in practice.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Bilena,
Gravity has made me fall down and I object. I am perfectly happy to use gravity when I need it to keep stuff from floating away, but I am ideologically opposed to skinned knees.
This doesn’t really address network effects at all, so I’ll give it a try.
Milena wrote:
I’m happy to pay any toll on a road I plan to use – but I take issue with the numerous projects my money is spent on that I will never have any use for.
The problem with toll roads everywhere is that your road system will quickly be rendered useless.
Cars are so popular because we know that there are roads to everywhere. That’s what your road-subsidy-taxes are buying: access to the entire network whenever you want. A toll only buys you access to one road, which will sustain that road as long as enough people use it regularly.
Roads that aren’t used as regularly will disappear. This might sound good, but removing a road in the network has pretty strong spillover effects. You can no longer rely on the fact that roads will take you everywhere, so the network of roads becomes less valuable. Maybe instead of driving a car, you ride a bicycle, because there’s no car-sized road on the last leg of your trip. Now more roads disappear, because fewer people are paying tolls. And so on.
This hypothetical isn’t perfect and I’m all for bicycles. Just trying to demonstrate why I might have to spend money on “projects … that I will never have any use for.”
December 13th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
@duckhawk – In the above comment, I meant cap-and-trade is slightly better than CAFE, not taxation.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
@duckhawk –
A tax is also a method to focus on outcomes. Cap-and-trade is a slightly better method. I do think adjusting tax levels is a much more efficient way to control that outcome, versus adjusting CAFE standards and making industries comply to technology that may or may not be the best solution. I think it is important to note, CAFE standards lead to compliance, but not necessarily more or better innovation. Auto companies tend to simply focus on the mandated technologies, and ignore other factors that could help increase efficiency or reduce emmissions because no one is “punishing” them to do so. CAFE is an option, I simply don’t think it is the best one.
Re: loopholes. I think looking to european countries that employ a VAT-style tax show that evasion is decreased, of course as long as taxes remain at low enough levels as to make the cost of a black market higher than tax compliance.
@BB – you are too clever for me. Laws of nature and laws of man are so similar, I do have a lot of trouble telling them apart.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
@duckhawk – I should clarify my objection to “roads I have no use for.”
I’m speaking more about projects like The Big Dig, for example, which I considered wasteful. Also, I live in Michigan, and our roads are terribly constructed, are frequently in disrepair because they are contracted to the lowest bidder, using cheap materials, and our governor uses this as her method for “jobs creation.” By creating sub-par roads, she is sure to have them fall apart and need additional labor to build them again.
(Also, Obama has been very impressed with her performance for some reason, and is planning initiatives that he has indicated may look like many of hers. I do believe she had been considered as Energy Secretary at some point. So I’m concerned that anyone who wishes the nation to mirror Michigan is neglecting the outcomes that can be expected.)
I understand just taxes are required to be paid. However, I am very tired of paying taxes and seeing them wasted. I’d be much more convinced to support public works projects if the results warranted the ongoing costs. I see more mismanagement of my tax contributions than anything else.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Since you apparently understand the concept of externalities, I am honestly puzzled why you do not understand the basic rationale for public subsidies of infrastructure.
Milena is apparently under the impression that draconian global warming legislation is currently crushing the American coal industry, so I wouldn’t assume that he or she has a firm grasp on much of anything.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
@DTM – Obama is not talking about basic infrastructure support, which though I’ve argued in my home state is poorly executed, I do not propose replacing entirely with toll roads in terms of realistic public policy formation. (Though the idealist in me would love such an arrangement, even though I do grasp the concept of efficiency through government provision of pure public goods.)
I don’t suppose I should really comment on any of Obama’s plans, as he isn’t yet President, but here is what he has posted on his site:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.
This sounds like “make work” to me. I don’t support it.
Without some sound review of where exactly state and local provision of transportation is falling short of providing for “the nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs”, by what logic this should become a federal initiative, and how it will be supported ongoingly so that states are not left footing the bill for infrastructure that they would not have been able to otherwise afford…these questions must be answered first.
@DMonteith – I see you are eager for my response to your stunning coal chart. Most likely any reductions in anti-coal policy at home have been offset by the skyrocketing demand globally.
But check out this direct quote from Barack Obama on economic policy – so you can sleep at night wondering where I get all my crazy talk from. Barack Obama said, “If somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
December 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Milena, doesn’t the Commerce Cause provide some justification for Federal initiatives in transportation infrastructure? Combined with the Federal govt’s enormous structural power, this makes it very easy for states to dodge financial responsibility for big roads and interstate rail. All non-Federal initiatives are pretty poor and have little prospect of getting better.
As for “where exactly state and local provision of transportation is falling short”, Matt begins to answer this question when he writes that the “economic cost of traffic jams is both incredibly high and also absurdly preventable”. I’m not sure why you think building out public transit and HSR is equivalent to digging ditches in terms of utility.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
@duckhawk – I’m not even going to wade into any constitutional arguments – I don’t have any expertise there. But my general feeling is that keeping the federal powers under control is paramount.
If expanding federal power and spending truly meant temporary intervention, we’d be having a different conversation. But once you begin to expand federal spending like this, the states may not be able to maintain without continued support.
Is interstate coordination to create HSR infeasible? If so, why? Is it simply too expensive and the federal government is required for scale efficiency? What happens 20 years after the project is done? Where is the plan for sustainability? If today’s stewardship of transport is failing, why would these new plans suddenly fare better? Will HSR provide enough ancillary benefit to those who may never use it? (HSR will service and benefit mostly densely populated, wealthy areas, yet could still be subsidized by those who won’t receive said benefit.)
Also, we have to keep in mind, govt. subsidy created our highways and roads, crushing rail expansion post WWII (which would have been a more appropriate investment since HSR would be a nice thing to have here.) So, part of the reason Europe has better transport is because they happened to make the better gamble on transportation 70 years ago. I think we have to realize that unless these initiatives solve a critical need that has no other possible solutions, it must be met with skepticism. How can we be certain we are making the right gamble today?
The problem of traffic jams are bad, but “absurdly preventable” doesn’t mean the only solution is the most massive infrastructure spending project in recent history. A simple, easily adjustable gas tax could be extremely effective, and the cost would be shouldered by those who use transport the most, so it is also the most equitable. I think until we’ve actually tried something like this, massive expenditures should not be undertaken with little quantifiable gain.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
@DTM – how has my argument changed? I’m missing something.
many existing transportation infrastructure projects which have already been studied and deemed economically sound, but have not been pursued further due to lack of federal funding.
I would argue part of “economically sound” means “not needing subsidy.” Do you mean that these studies concluded a one-time grant could make a project self-sustaining in some way? Couldn’t a state municipal bond offering accomplish securing capital if a project is truly economically sound? This could alleviate some of the taxpayer burden, as long as debt-servicing was reasonable, which if the project was truly economically sound, favorable rates should be won. Otherwise we are just looking at subsidy for the sake of commodity egalitarianism.
Another basic issue is a form of collective action problem: states and localities are competing to lower tax rates in order to attract residents and businesses, but this tax rate competition leads to a common shortage of funds for worthwhile capital projects.
Again, I think the worth of the capital projects is subjective. How are we determining worth? If tax competition is indeed winning business, how could these same states be missing (to an extent that warrants federal intervention) infrastructure support needed for those businesses? And if the infrastructure support is lacking, the marginal benefit to the residents/businesses must still be higher than the marginal cost, otherwise they wouldn’t move there. Furthermore, tax revenues would theoretically increase from increased business volume and support could come in the form of muni offerings, so the claim that tax competition alone is squashing government funding of economically sound projects doesn’t hold.
Again, funding at the federal level is the most promising solution to this issue since it removes at least some of that competitive effect, although obviously not at the international level. Then there is also the basic issue that the federal government has the lowest borrowing rates. And so forth.
I know federal spending is the most promising solution given the goals, but my contention is that the goals are not necessary. Your point about international competition is tricky – because there is the matter of keeping up with the Joneses when many other countries are heavily subsidized and centrally planned, but that doesn’t seem to be a strong enough argument for us to follow suit.
Also, about those low borrowing rates has negative effects, the crowding out effect of private investment once government entrance into markets increases. This makes private investment that much more unlikely because as you said, the government always wins the lowest rates. This results in needing ever-increasing levels of government support because private industry cannot compete.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:28 am
@DTM – I see your confusion. I’m just volleying a lot of what is being thrown at me. I don’t support this plan at all, that’s my official statement. If you wanted to get into the “I oppose all subsidy” discussion, it would lead to discussing libertarian philosophy which I tried to steer clear of since earlier someone asked me to “eat” them and their brother.
Recognizing the hostility in the room, my shift to state v. federal is because I like to look at the possible levels of government involvement, and if someone is arguing a project is absolutely necessary, I’d look at the ways in which it could be accomplished with the most efficiency given the constraints.
Does that make any sense?
Anyhow, I’ve enjoyed the volleys, it’s rare to find people online who are intelligent and confident enough to discuss issues without puerile invective.
December 14th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Most likely any reductions in anti-coal policy at home have been offset by the skyrocketing demand globally.
This sentence makes no sense. Reductions in anti-coal policy would presumably have effects that work in the same direction as demand increases and would not be subtracted from or offset by demand spikes. It pays to keep track of your double negatives.
But, assuming that you meant to make sense, according to this table export growth and import growth over the past 6 years have canceled each other out. This behavior is incompatible with a putative dystopian nightmare of American climate change fascism. Under such a regime, given constant production, one would expect to see exports rise and/or imports fall as domestic consumption falls (neatly mirroring the loss of our freedoms, of course).
I’m beginning to think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And as for Obama’s quote, given your deep concern for the environment and profound respect for Pigou, I’d expect you to be applauding. Unless, of course, you’re misrepresenting your concern and respect. Also, you initially referenced existing legislation that is currently crushing the coal industry. Does your fluency in English extend to distinctions between the present and future tense?
December 14th, 2008 at 1:57 am
…it’s rare to find people online who are intelligent and confident enough to discuss issues without puerile invective.
Hmmm…I, on the other hand, find that it’s rare to find any of the Cato interns that clutter every Yglesias thread on transportation to be intelligent and confident enough to discuss issues with any integrity or reference to evidence supporting their bullshit.
Also, I’d like to think that my invective is maybe one notch above puerile. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
December 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am
@DMonteith – You win the coal industry argument due to my sloppy writing and references.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
In one sense, DMonteith wins the thread- “Cato interns” seems to sum up pretty well the troll situation on these transit threads.
Ironically, nobody noticed that Obama and MattY are simply wrong- building transit lines will not ease congestion on the highways. Experience doth show that no matter how many highways you build, traffic increases to congestion.
What transit does do is ease congestion for the transit user. In Manhattan you can walk faster than a cab or bus, or you can use the subway and go twenty times faster than the cab or bus.
Rail transit is a solution for cities, for regions, for individuals, but people who drive will usually be stuck in traffic.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
@DMonteith – You win the coal industry argument due to my sloppy writing and references.
Fair enough. I withdraw the integrity crack with apologies.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:35 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 3:37 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra