John McCain Repeats Vegas HSR Lie, Adds New Non-True Details
Given that legislators who want to provide accurate information to their constituents have no had ample time to learn that the stimulus package does not contain an $8 billion earmark for high-speed rail between LA and Las Vegas, I’m going to go ahead and call John McCain a liar:
So, we will be seeking fair and transparent use of the money. I believe that Arizona can compete with any other state or locality to get the much-needed money. Already we’re seeing a good example. There was $2 billion in the Senate bill of the stimulus package for light rail; there was zero in the House. It came out of conference – only Democrats, no Republicans in the room – with $8 billion for light rail. And guess where it’s going to go? A light rail between Las Vegas and L.A. Everybody knows that.
Could we have competed for that money? Maybe so. So it’s business as usual in Washington, and I think that Americans are generally very disappointed. Sorry for the long answer.
It can’t be the case that “everybody” knows that because it’s not true. The thing that John McCain wants where different states can compete for the high-speed rail money is what the bill already says. Except McCain has piled ignorance onto dishonesty by confusing high-speed rail (advanced passenger trains that run between cities) with light-rail (relatively low-capacity trains used for intra-city mass transit). They have a light rail system right in Phoenix so it’s not as if there’s no way he could have informed himself about these issues.
172 Responses to “John McCain Repeats Vegas HSR Lie, Adds New Non-True Details”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
John McCain is and has been a cheap liar.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
bobby jindal lied about it on MTP too
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
It’s so dumb that they’re doing this, because that really would be the best use of the money. Instead it’s going to end up building routes like Indy-Cleveland to shut them up, which, while not useless, shouldn’t really be on the top of the list of things to build.
I wonder if anyone’s asked Mr. Ensign what he thinks?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
I guess Specter, Snowe and Collins are Dems now. Woopie! Now we can ignore Johnie Mac entirely.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
just fyi, Ray LaHood has a blog (or rather, the Secretary of Transportation has a blog, Ray LaHood has been confirmed as its user) http://fastlane.dot.gov/
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Ah, you don’t imagine that the McCain’s ever stoop to ride Phoenix’s light rail, do you?
Adam
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
How DARE you say a light rail system can run several hundred miles over a mountain range? Don’t you know John McCain was a POW?!?
Commie.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Er, can’t run.
Get off my lawn.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Wait a tick, are you suggesting that John McCain is unfit to hold federal office or otherwise commenting upon his character and qualifications?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Actually, I’ve heard a speaker from Siemens (which makes both light rail and high-speed rail equipment) say that technologically they would have no problem making a light rail vehicle that goes 150 mph. You’d need to keep the stations far apart and fence off the tracks, though, which loses most of the advantage of light rail.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
McCain has piled ignorance onto dishonesty
A fine (political) epitaph for the man.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
1) The Democratic Party is heading for a crash in 2010 –and it is the fault of Obama and the leadership.
2) They are spending $Trillions of our dollars — without giving a SINGLE fucking reason why. Their fucking economic explanation sound like a voodoo man’s mumbo jumbo.
3) WHICH is letting the Republicans cast this massive expenditure as (a) Waste b) Payoff for Democratic donors (c) all of the above
4) The reason WHY the Republicans will SUCCEED –and the Democrats will fail — is that the Republicans are hanging this disaster like an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.
Obama’s chickenshit desire for “bipartisanship” is turning him into another Friedrich Ebert — the Social Democratic leader whose timid compromises and refusal to confront the right wing caused the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
And you think that McCain rides the rail to actually UNDERSTAND the difference??
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Adam, February 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
In terms of bang for the buck, 110mph Rapid Rail either Pittsburgh / Cleveland / Toledo / Fort Wayne / Chicago, Cleveland / Columbus / Dayton / Cincinnati and Cincinnati / Indianapolis / Chicago are all better deals than maglev Las Vegas to Anaheim.
Given the distance involved and the need to build a new rail alignment, the best option for Las Vegas is a junction at Mojave with the San Francisco / San Jose / Fresno / LA / Anaheim line, which would permit 220mph trains to run from either the Bay or the LA Basin to Las Vegas. But of course, unlike individual corridors in the Ohio Hub and Midwest Hub, that could not be finished by 2012, because Stage 1 of the CA-HSR has to be ready to go for that to work.
There are just more 1m+ cities in the Great Lakes, closer together, so that 110mph Rapid Rail is fast enough to be viable, and more existing rail rights of way with available space, so that 110mph Rapid Rail can be built without the expense and time required for new alignments.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Actually, the proposed Chicago Hub network was already near the top of the list, and for good reason. You’ve got lots of decent-sized cities about the right distance apart, relatively low construction costs, airport congestion that is affecting the entire national system, and so on.
The Chicago Hub network would be an incredible waste of money. A hugely expensive boondoogle rail network connecting a bunch of dying shithole rustbelt cities that people are fleeing in droves.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Of course, as has been discussed before, we know that Matthew thinks that lying about high speed rail is a good thing.
Get with the program. It’s okay for proponents of HSR to lie about it. Lying is only a problem when opponents do it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Accurately reporting the high-end numbers from ridership studies is now the equivalent of making up facts out of whole cloth. I did not know that.
Watching a wingnut try to navigate a question of honesty is like watching a rhesus monkey try to rebuild a carburetor.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Not really. The monkey might actually end up rebuilding the carburetor by accident.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Yeah,
It would be nice if lying wasn’t the only thing the Republicans were doing these days, though.
I remember when they were the truth tellers.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Don’t come to us for Great Lakes water when you’re dying of thirst in your desert real-estate-industry fantasy land, asshole.
-a proud Greater Clevelander
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
You were alive in 1860?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
So if money gets allocated later this year for a LA – Vegas HSR line are we going to see MY run a whole series of posts apologizing to McCain et al for calling them liars?
Don’t worry – we’ll be watching
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
And so we head into another long tedious day in which Matt is accused of thinking “that lying about high speed rail is a good thing”, all based on a comment of his that proponents should choose the high-end projections to balance the low end projections chosen by opponents.
But who would be closer to telling the truth? Well, every system in the country has exceeded the middle projection for ridership in the past few years.
So it would appear the real liars here would be Al and Charles with their insistence that the wrong figures be chosen. Of course, being recognized as a liar never stopped a troll. They’ll keep at it all day, just as though they were creating something of beauty or value. Maybe in their world, they are.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’m probably biased by living in Cincinnati, but it seems like HSR is going to be most effective in areas that have existing capacity for development–namely, Rust Belt cities that were larger in the past, or that have relatively depopulated downtown areas.
That way, we not only get the benefit of connecting cities with very high transportation rates, but we also get the private investment along the fixed route. Cincinnati’s Greyhound station is pretty isolated; if it were a fixed rail station, the unused block next to it would probably become a shopping center or hotel.
Phoenix/Las Vegas, on the other hand, are possibly developed to their extents. What’s more, the desert around them is pretty uninhabitable, so there’s likely to be no way stations–another key element in maximizing development capacity for the transportation dollar.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Don’t come to us for Great Lakes water when you’re dying of thirst in your desert real-estate-industry fantasy land, asshole.
What “desert real-estate-industry fantasy land,” fuckface?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Actually, way past their long-term-sustainable extents, physically and even economically (their rapid growth in recent years was simply the real-estate bubble feeding on itself.)
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Phoenix/Las Vegas, on the other hand, are possibly developed to their extents.
Ha ha. “Possibly.” The sun “possibly” will explode tomorrow.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Campesino, under what circumstances are McCain’s and other Republicans’ claim about what is in the stimulus bill not dishoenst? I’m just reading their quotes, and I’m seeing what the stimulus bill supports, and they’re clearly lying about it. What any hypothetical laws proposed in the future might say is irrelevant.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Al thinks that CBO estimates about the stimulus (based only on part of it) are just fine, but Matt’s estimates about a particular light rail line are satanic evil. Weird. But, really, nothing compared to the people defending George Will’s “Green Doomsayer” column.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
McCain is saying that ALL the stimulus money allocated for high-speed rail is going to a LA-Vegas line. Which is not only untrue, but ridiculous.
You’re welcome.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Picture if of the Houston LRT. I ride it every day to work. It’s very nice, quiet, and fast.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Accurately reporting the high-end numbers from ridership studies is now the equivalent of making up facts out of whole cloth.”
This stuff about using “high-end esitmates” is crap. MY suggested using “unrealistically optimistic” numbers to support HSR. That is, numbers that no reasonable person would find reasonable. That is, numbers they know to be false. That is, lying.
Again, it is worth noting that Kevin Drum called the ridership numbers, developed by Lehman Brothers, to be “fantasy squared.” And Matt said, effectively, “use them anyway.”
Besides, if this is the standard, all of MY’s previous handwringing about the GOP lying about HSR are off base. Remember, the stimulus bill DOES contain $8 billion for HSR. And there is an HSR project in Reid’s district. So someone could use an unrealistic estimate and assume that all $8 billion would be spent on that one project.
I think that is unreasonable. But not outside the realm of the possible. There is nothing in the bill that divvies up the $$ differently. So why is “assuming” that all $8 billion will be used on one project is a lie, but “assuming” that unreasonable ridership estimates amounts to mere “politics”?
Maybe the notion that Reid will get all the money is a “fantasy.” But so are MY’s preferred ridership numbers.
Seemsa double standard, no?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
A light rail line between LA and LV would be bloody uncomfortable…
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I’d love to see Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Trinidad-Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Ft. Collins-Cheyenne.
Actually, there is a case to be made that the commuter traffic to Denver starting as far south as Pueblo and as far north as Cheyenne would be make the routes feasible. It the trains can go roughly 100 mph, that’s only an hour commute (and only 40 minutes from Colorado Springs and Ft. Collins, both of which are decent-sized cities).
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
OK, OK, I was being diplomatic about Las Vegas and Phoenix. It should have said:
“Las Vegas and Phoenix are the nipples on the devil’s tits which are the burgeoning Desert West. Only morons would ever want to live in their cultural anti-matter; these same morons are using outrageous quantities of energy to make the hellscapes livable. It would probably be better for energy prices, the global ecosystem, and the quality of American art if we were simply to reenact the Manhattan Project over the already burnt skies of these execrable metropoles, rather than make it easier for poor deluded fools to arrive there.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
In fairness, I wouldn’t call Phoenix light rail a system. It’s one line connecting ASU, the airport, downtown and some apartments up Central Ave. Unfortunately, it soaked up so much budget that 91st Ave, where the Cardinals’ football stadium and Coyotes’ hockey arena are located, doesn’t even have a bus line.
Meanwhile, the whole Valley is zoned like an archipelago of apartments and strip malls in an ocean of single family homes. Apartments are mostly nowhere near the shopping and the stores are always built far to the backs of their parcels, such that even if you do ride the bus to Wall Mart, you’re going to walk a quarter mile through your destination’s parking lot.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
*high-fives Luke*
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Las Vegas and Phoenix are the nipples on the devil’s tits which are the burgeoning Desert West. Only morons would ever want to live in their cultural anti-matter;
I’m sure the vast numbers of people flocking to those cities, and other fast-growing cities in the south and west, are perfectly happy with your decision to stay in your festering rustbelt stinkhole.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“But in the end, pointing out Matt’s failings doesn’t amount to a defense of McCain.”
I agree. I do not think McCain’s presentation is defensibleat all.
But I also think that the larger narrative that this post aims at–namely to demonstrate that Republicans are dangerous liars compared with good ole, honest progressives–is demonstrably false.
If MY could demonstrate that his side is actually more honest with regard to this issue, the “Republicans are lying about HSR” might actually be a point worth considering. But seeing that he has lied about it himself and encouraged others to do so destroys that narrative.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
They’re especially happy now that they’re losing their jobs and discovering that their McMansions are unsaleable at anything more than a fraction of the price they paid for them. Oh, wait…
And: water. Heh.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Great news! The Denver RTD is eliminating ten transit routes, including one light rail line and several express bus routes.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I’m sorta puzzled by the GOP ire. I’d like to see high speed railroads around the country, but I doubt they would be moneymakers. LA to Vegas is, on the other hand, has the best chance of being a moneymaker – hard to think of a better place to put a high speed rail system. Maybe Schwarzenegger can take the Dimwit governor of S. Carolina’s federal money and put it into this project.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
So, to sum up, Kevin Drum made up an opinion from the whole cloth. No factual basis at all, just his feeling that he lives there and can “see California”. Move over, Sarah Palin.
And Matt said, no, we should use the projections developed from facts by a company that does statistical work.
And this makes Matt the liar? I don’t think so.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
According to Zillow the median home price in Phoenix as of January was about $170,000. About the same as in early 2005. In the U.S. as a whole, the median home price in January was about $205,000. About the same as in late 2004. In other words, home prices in Phoenix have held up slightly better than the U.S. average.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“And this makes Matt the liar? I don’t think so.”
No. THIS makes Matt a liar:
“It would be irresponsible for advocates of any large-scale infrastructure project to do anything other than present unrealistically optimistic measures.”
So let’s break this out. You are advocating for a specific infrastructure project. You get some ridership numbers from somebody. You know, through experience and commons snese, that these numbers are unrealistically optimistic. That is, you know that they are wrong.
The honest thing to do would be… come on. You know the answer… The honest thing to do would be to…
Use the numbers anyway in hopes of misleading the public about the public benefits of the project!
Wait. No. That’s not the honest thing.
That’s lying.
Let’s say you have a wife. You tell her you are going to a bachelor party. Knowing everybody involved, you know damn well you are going to a strip club. In discussing that fact, one guy says, laughing his ass of, “I think we should go to the library!”
When your wife asks what you will be doing at the party, you tell her, “Last I heard, we were going to the library.”
Now, maybe using that unrealistically optimisic account of your friends’ morals might qualify as honesty to your wife.
If it does, she’s stupid.
Because regardless of who said that, you KNOW it’s unrealistic. And what MY is saying here is to use ridership numbers you KNOW to be wrong.
That’s lying.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Roger, the trouble with HSR-as-profitable-enterprise in this instance is that we shouldn’t really care about using it as a loss leader at this point. Much like TVA and rural electrification, the goal is to promote parallel development along the lines.
With fixed-route transit, you want to link an underdeveloped space with a developed one, so that the underdeveloped one will become desirable for commerce and housing. If Las Vegas and Los Angeles are already fully developed, then we’d be tearing down one development to replace it with another.
That’s less of a net capital improvement than building something in an unused space.
Also, if HSR will actually be so profitable in the West, then private enterprise should be clamoring to build it.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t build that line, I’m just saying that linking Rust Belt cities will be far more stimulative.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“It seems to me that “Republicans are lying about HSR” is a point worth considering regardless of whether Matt’s “side” also lies about HSR.”
Agreed.As stated, it’s worth noting that Republicans are lying about HSR. I am not contesting that fact. I am not sure how to get that point across. John McCains is a lying scumbag. Does that do the trick?
Now, clearly, MY is engaged in a broader project aimed at showing how, beyond HSR, progressives are on the side of reality, empiricism and all other kinds of honesty, while Republicans are lying liars.
This very issue, however, shows that broader narrative to be full of shit.
So two issues here: Is McCain lying about HSR? Sure.
DOes this fact prove the larger narrative MY is offering? No,it does not. In fact, it does the opposite, illustrating at least one case in which at least one purportedly honest progressive is at least as divorced from reality as the people he criticizes.
Which of course supports a prety well established third narrative that sees both sides of the political aisle as equaly dishonest and opportunistic. This third narrative having very real consequences regarding huge policy issues.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Now, clearly, MY is engaged in a broader project aimed at showing how, beyond HSR, progressives are on the side of reality, empiricism and all other kinds of honesty, while Republicans are lying liars.
============================================================
So based on the quotes I cited in # 55, you and MY are convinced that the WaPo, LV Sun and Harry Reid’s media spokesman are all lying liars
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Campesino, you’re not making any sense at all. Just stop, take a deep breath, and figure out what you’re trying to say.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Roger, the trouble with HSR-as-profitable-enterprise in this instance is that we shouldn’t really care about using it as a loss leader at this point. Much like TVA and rural electrification, the goal is to promote parallel development along the lines.
You’ll have to do better than that. There are lots of things the government could spend money on with the goal of promoting development. That doesn’t mean that they would be successful at achieving that goal or that they make any sense economically.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
And all you idiots going on about McMansions in Phoenix don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. The biggest real estate fiasco in the Valley is the Centerpoint towers in downtown Tempe. This is the densest, most walkable, most urban area in the entire state of Arizona. Right next to the ASU campus and Mill Avenue and Tempe Town Lake. The light rail line goes right through it. But they only sold 41 of the 375 condos in the towers. The builder went bankrupt and the towers aren’t even finished.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
And as far as the “flocking” of people to Arizona being some kind of demonstration of the merits of the place, people flocked to invest their money with Bernie Madoff, too.
Back in reality, in no other country this side of Stalin’s USSR would anybody have the bright idea of moving millions of people to a desert.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Tyro Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Campesino, you’re not making any sense at all. Just stop, take a deep breath, and figure out what you’re trying to say.
=============================================================
Sam M and MY say that progressives are on the side of reality, empiricism and all other kinds of honesty, while Republicans are lying liars.
Republicans say – Harry Reid worked really hard to put HSR money in the stimulus bill so his pet LA-Vegas project will get lots of money = lying lie
Harry Reid’s spokesman says – Harry Reid worked really hard to put HSR money in the stimulus bill so his pet LA-Vegas project will get lots of money = reality, empiricism and all other kinds of honesty
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Just to support your point about profitability, some of the other purposes of HSR include reducing congestion at airports and on highways, reducing foreign energy consumption, reducing environmental impact, using land more efficiently, reducing transportation accidents, and so on.
You’ll have to produce evidence that those alleged benefits are worth the huge public subsidies before this claim makes sense. Your last attempt contradicted your position. The estimated value of the benefits was almost a billion dollars less than the cost of the subsidies.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Campesino, it’s hard to claim that what McCain said is anything other than a lie. Sam M’s comments are irrelevant to the point, as is your screaming about what if SOMEDAY someone, somewhere, might later approve $8 billion for an LA-LV HSR line. I’m not sure why you’re bothering to go to the mat for McCain on this, or the Republicans in general, who are lying through their teeth or (as is the case with various middle aged republican party guests I’ve encountered) simply not very well-informed.
Seems you just don’t like having to deal with the reality of calling McCain a liar, point-blank. But your comments are really too obscure to figure out what, exactly, you’re trying to say other than engaging in some obfuscation.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Finally, in November 2008 Phoenix was back to where it had been around April/May of 2004. The 20-city is back to where it was around February/March of 2004, so not a big difference.
In other words, the Case-Shiller Index is basically consistent with Zillow’s reports of trends in price changes over the past five years. And comparing declines over the past 12 months isn’t very meaningful. You have to look at those declines in the context of the run up in prices in prior years. Cleveland and other dying rustbelt cities have had smaller recent declines only because no one was buying housing there even during the boom.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
DTM,
By the way, the aforementioned Cleveland was down 5.2%.
Oops:
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Nope.
Yep.
A project makes economic sense if the total benefits to society provide a reasonable return on the total costs to society.
Gibberish. What is “the total benefits to society provide a reasonable return on the total costs to society” supposed to mean quantitatively? Show me your cost-benefit analysis.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Zonie–what, were students supposed to buy those condos? I guess I’ve only spent 1 night in Tempe, but I don’t think I saw anybody over the age of 21. And the problem seems to have been that the builder didn’t actually have the money to build the tower–otherwise the project wouldn’t have been contingent on selling all the units sight-unseen.
See, that kind of project is called a “scam” and “zoning laws” are around to keep “people” from getting “scammed”. Since Phoenix (and all of Arizona, really) has shit for zoning laws, the result is a city which is, unto itself, a shitty scam.
Face it, Phoenix, Vegas, and Orange County are the physical manifestations and incarnations of everything in our economy that’s going to shit. I mean, isn’t Vegas’ municipal motto “Look on my works o ye mighty and despair”?
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Sam M,
The stimulus bill contains funding for HSR projects that are on a currently existing list of DoT-approved projects. All of the HSR money must be spent, as per the bill, on those projects and those projects only.
The theorized Las Vegan/Los Angeles project is not on that list. To say that it even might be funded is either a lie, or indicates that the speaker doesn’t have the facts.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Heh heh heh.
“Las Vegan.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
New Republican talking point: “Obama wants to take money from people like Joe the Plumber, and buy a train for vegans.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Also, as far as dying Rust Belt cities go, the populations of the MSAs of Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and most others have been growing for the past generation. Not booming, but definitely not shrinking.
Much has been made of the shrinking of the municipalities. This is, of course, stupid–municipalities worldwide have been shrinking since the early 1900s, as suburbs have come into existence.
It seems like people don’t think Phoenix is a boomtown. It’s totally a boomtown. Don’t worry, there’s life after bust. Just look at the Rust Belt.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Joe From Lowell:
I guess the Senate Majority Leader is in the dark, then:
“Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in a statement that the transportation secretary “will have complete flexibility as to which program he uses to allocate the funds,” but he acknowledged that “the proposed Los Angeles-Las Vegas rail project would be eligible.” Summers said the rail funding “was a major priority for President Obama, and Sen. Reid as a conferee supported it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203502.html
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I haven’t looked at Zillow, but the other poster seemed to be claiming it showed that Phoenix was back to early 2005 levels. According to Case-Shiller, Phoenix was actually down 16% from January 2005 to November 2008 (and down more the deeper you go into 2005). That is a pretty big discrepancy.
The Zillow January 2009 baseline shows Phoenix back to early 2005 and the U.S. average back to late 2004. According to you, the Case-Shiller November 2008 baseline shows Phoenix back to April/May of 2004 and the 20-city average back to February/March of 2004. They disagree about the magnitude of the changes, but both measures show Phoenix doing slightly better than the average.
Well, that all depends on when you bought.
Only a small minority of homeowners bought their homes in the last 12 months.
Local housing price are a complex function not just of demand but also supply, credit availability, speculation, and so on.
The point is that the rustbelt cities had smaller recent price declines only because they never had the huge runup in prices in prior years. As Charles pointed out, looking at prices going back to 2000 Cleveland is a basket case, second only to Detroit.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Sam M,
See here.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Right, as of today it appears it was a better idea to buy in Phoenix rather than Cleveland up to around 2004, and a better idea to buy in Cleveland rather than Phoenix since that point.
It doesn’t appear that way at all. Cleveland has been dying for a generation and Phoenix has been growing by leaps and bounds. Unless you’re a real estate investor hoping to buy and flip a house for a quick profit, short-term trends aren’t very meaningful.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Also, as far as dying Rust Belt cities go, the populations of the MSAs of Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and most others have been growing for the past generation. Not booming, but definitely not shrinking.
Some of the suburbs (cars, sprawl) surrounding those cities have grown. The cities themselves are dying. And even some of the suburbs are dying. Between 2000 and 2006, the Pittsburgh MSA lost 58,000 people. The Cleveland MSA lost 34,000 people. Cincinatti eked out a tiny increase in the core city, less than a thousand people. Almost all the population growth, 89,000 people, occurred in the suburbs.
Much has been made of the shrinking of the municipalities. This is, of course, stupid–municipalities worldwide have been shrinking since the early 1900s, as suburbs have come into existence.
It’s been going on for a long time, therefore it’s “stupid?” What’s stupid is that comment.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Charles, if I’d invested my life savings in the down payment on a Las Vegas house in 2006, I’d think short-term trends are very meaningful.
Whether a trend is meaningful has more to do with the magnitude of the change than the time over which it occurs. If you look at the trend of the height of one of the old Las Vegas casinos, you’d see a very flat trend except for a very short time period during which the building was demolished by explosion. The short-term trend during that time period was very significant, notwithstanding the shortness of the time period.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You take all the cognizable expected benefits, reduce them to NPV, then add them up. You take all the cognizable expected costs, reduce them to NPV, then add them up. You then calculate benefits as a ratio of costs.
The ratio of total benefits to total costs of a project tells us nothing useful about how much, if anything, the government should spend on it. This applies to HSR and all other transportation projects.
But I have already linked you to such studies in the past–multiple times
The study you linked to found that the estimated public benefits were lower than the estimated public costs by almost a billion dollars. That’s a very bad deal for taxpayers.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Dying? I live about 30 miles from Cleveland (I need to live near my workplace, otherwise I’d prefer to be in the city or an old-line suburb like Cleveland Heights or Lakewood) and spend a good deal of time there at things like Cleveland Orchestra concerts, the art museum, the variety of excellent restaurants, rehearsals of the community orchestra I play in, etc. I’ve been to Phoenix and Scottsdale for work-related conferences and training. I wouldn’t move to Phoenix if I had a job offer that included a free house.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I thought we were talking about speculative (eg, commercial) development projects. Those are what we’re trying to stimulate, after all.
I guess I was unclear about city-center depopulation–it’s stupid to make a big deal out of the depopulation of a given city, since it’s happened in every city. Then again, you’re a troll, so I don’t know why I’m bothering to clarify.
I’m not making an argument as to quality of life in Cleveland versus Phoenix. I’m making an argument about policy-based betting on growth over the next generation. It seems unlikely that in a world with expensive energy and/or water these desert cities will be able to attract the same population as during the cheap-energy period.
At any rate, Zonie pointed out that mass transit projects in Phoenix have very recently shown to correlate to failed developments. We don’t want to stimulate FAILED development, we want to stimulate PROFITABLE development.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Joe from Lowell sez: “See here.”
I did see there. And it does not say anything at all about LV-LA being off the list of possibilites. Indeed, as I linked, that very day, Harry Reid’s spokesman told the WaPo that the LV-LA link is eligible for the funds. Not some clown from Heritage. Reid’s spokesman.
MY makes a point that given the way the bill is structured, funding for the LV-LA leg seems less likely than projects in Ohio. But of course, even if correct, all that shows is that expecting all $8 billion, or even some of it, to go to the LV-LA project is unrealistic.
But by MY’s standards, saying things that you know to be unrealistic is not dishonest. It’s simply “politics.”
So what we have is Reid’s spokesman saying that his rail project is eligible for funding. And Republicans offering a completely unrealistic interpretation of that data. Which is dishonest. For exactly the same reason that knowingly offering unrealistic ridership numbers is dishonest.
Because it amounts to saying something that you know to be untrue. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Look, I understand that politics is often an exercise in dishonesty. But for MY to claim that progressives are above that, somehow committed to empiricism in a principled and consistent way that the GOP is not, is plainly ludicrous. As evidenced by the fact that he is openly dishonest about the very issue he is using to paint the GOP as dishonest.
Look, if you are going to lie about HSR projects, which MY seems committed to doing, try to take the GOP to task for lying about welfare mothers or WMD. Don’t pick the very issue you choose, openly and unapologetically, to lie about. That’s tranparently stupid.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
First, you can get all this data on the S&P/Case-Shiller page if you are interested in checking my numbers.
It’s not my job to go looking for a page you claim to be reporting. It’s your job to provide it.
Anyway, when you say “both measures show Phoenix doing slightly better than the average,” again that very much depends on when you bought.
No, I don’t think it does. The price curves track closely over the past few years. The price comparison you yourself cited shows Phoenix doing better than the average, and so does the Zillow price data.
I believe Phoenix underperforms the 20-city index for buyers going back to the fall of 2004.
You “believe” that, do you? You just said: “in November 2008 Phoenix was back to where it had been around April/May of 2004. The 20-city is back to where it was around February/March of 2004.” Prices were rising in 2004. So, according to your own statement, Phoenix prices have held up better over the time period you cite than the 20-city average. Zillow shows the same thing.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
And long-term trends are hard to predict.
Well, it’s certainly possible that the rustbelt will come bouncing back. It just doesn’t look very likely. Where there is growth, it will be in suburbs. The cities have been dying for a generation.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I guess I was unclear about city-center depopulation–it’s stupid to make a big deal out of the depopulation of a given city, since it’s happened in every city.
No, it hasn’t happened in every city. The newer, more car-oriented, lower-density cities in the south and west are generally growing.
I’m not making an argument as to quality of life in Cleveland versus Phoenix. I’m making an argument about policy-based betting on growth over the next generation. It seems unlikely that in a world with expensive energy and/or water these desert cities will be able to attract the same population as during the cheap-energy period.
They may not attract the “same” population. They do seem likely to continue to grow. Not just the desert cities, but cities in the south and west more broadly. Cities in the northeast and midwest look destined to grow much more slowly, if at all. Many are dying.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Eh. City of Cincinnati’s population has been growing since around ‘95, riots or no riots.
The fate of the exurbs will be a pretty huge determinant–as gas prices go up, the ability to commute from 30 miles away will decrease. Also, who gives a fuck if it’s suburban stimulus or city-center stimulus–THE IDEA IS TO STIMULATE DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT EXIST. I understand that you’re a troll, but that’s the point of the whole stimulus package.
I think a lot of people confuse migration away from steel- and coal-producing micropolitan areas with migration from regional metropoles that trade with the small towns. That simply hasn’t been the case. The decay of manufacturing has indeed destroyed the small towns in Ohio, but the 3 Cs haven’t experienced any kind of cataclysmic decline.
What’s Sam talking about now?
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
In other words, for such projects, the reasonable contribution by the government could be anything from 0% to 100% of the costs, largely depending on how much of the benefits take the form of revenues once you have maximized the return (because revenues are what allow you to attract private capital).
Incomprehensible. What do you mean by “once you have maximized the return?” At what point in the life of the project is that? And why does it depend on “revenues” from that point rather than total revenues, or revenues prior to that point. And “return” on what? Government spending? Total spending? Why should the government contribution depend the ability to attract private capital through “revenues?” Your argument here is completely unintelligible.
As far as I can tell, you are just making up this term “public benefits”
It means what you usually call “positive externalities.” You do know what that means, right? Benefits other than those internalized by the users of the service. Things like reducing congestion and air pollution.
in that you are using it to exclude benefits to riders from the cost-benefit calculation.
Why should benefits to riders, or rather, non-external benefits to riders, be subsidized by taxpayers? If taxpayers should subsidize the transportation benefit you get from riding a HSR, why shouldn’t they subsidize the transportation benefit I get from driving my car?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Eh. City of Cincinnati’s population has been growing since around ‘95, riots or no riots.
Eh. The core city grew by less than a thousand people between 2000 and 2006. The surrounding suburbs grew by 89,000 over the same period. Pittsburgh and Cleveland lost population in both the core city and the suburbs.
The fate of the exurbs will be a pretty huge determinant–as gas prices go up, the ability to commute from 30 miles away will decrease.
What share of people living in exurbs have 30-mile commutes? And what share of people living in metropolitan areas live in exurbs rather than suburbs? And why don’t you think the effect of rising gas pricess will be offset through some combination of more fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling, telecommuting, job-switching, and rising incomes?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I did see there. And it does not say anything at all about LV-LA being off the list of possibilites.?
WTF?
Did you not notice that map in that link? The utter lack of little blue lines going between Los Angeles and Las Vegas?
This is like a global warming denier thread!
But of course, even if correct… Wait a second, “even if correct?” The project isn’t on the list of DoT approved projects, but it’s still a debatable question whether it’s an approved project?
I don’t care what you have to say about honesty after this. Good Lord!
Have a good one. Have a whole lotta good ones. Bye.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
And on the same exact day MY posted that map, we had Reid’s spokesman saying: “Reid’s project is eligible.”
If Reid’s project isn’t on the list of acceptable DOT projects, why is Reid’s spokesman saying it’s eligible? And seeing that he said that, isn’t that good reason for GOP operatives to, you, BELIEVE HIM?
Look. You can dig up whatever maps you want. I have a guy from Reid’s office saying that this project is going to be eligible for the money. So it’s hardly preoposterous for people to base some comments on that fact.
Was he lying?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Neither of them are lying. The DOT mapped out a plan in 2005 that did not include the entire universe of rail projects that the 2009 stimulus bill makes eligible for funding.
So while HSR between LA and Vegas is not on the DOT map, it is eligible for funding. Just like lots of other rail projects! The eligible projects won’t all get built, and maybe LA-LV will be rejected or maybe it won’t. No money has been set aside specifically for that LA-LV project. And the selection process that might provide funding for it has yet to occur.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Tyro Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Campesino, it’s hard to claim that what McCain said is anything other than a lie. Sam M’s comments are irrelevant to the point, as is your screaming about what if SOMEDAY someone, somewhere, might later approve $8 billion for an LA-LV HSR line. I’m not sure why you’re bothering to go to the mat for McCain on this, or the Republicans in general, who are lying through their teeth or (as is the case with various middle aged republican party guests I’ve encountered) simply not very well-informed.
Seems you just don’t like having to deal with the reality of calling McCain a liar, point-blank. But your comments are really too obscure to figure out what, exactly, you’re trying to say other than engaging in some obfuscation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How sad are you.
Republicans say there is pork and hidden earmarks in the stimulus bill and give the LA-Vegas as an example.
Instead of defending this on the merits or denying it (tough to do as Reid’s spokesman is busy touting it!) Matt is forced to try to distract attention by calling Republicans who’ve guessed the amount wrong as “liars”.
Old rhetorical device – McCain says that ham weighs 10 lbs and we all know it weighs 5 lbs – he’s a liar, liar! – look at HIM, DON’T look at that ham on the table!
Why Matt would take on a pitiful crusade like this is beyond me
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The money won’t have any meaningful effect on HSR in the United States. $8 billion is just a drop in the bucket of what would be needed. At most, a few existing services may run a bit faster (the federal government, you will recall, defines High Speed Rail to include any train capable of a maximum speed of 90 mph or more).
The New York Times had a good article last week on the prospects for HSR:
.
1965. That was 44 years ago. And we now have a grand total of zero high speed rail services, unless you count the Acela (average speed: 84 mph)
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘charles’.
Far too touchy about anything that touches upon Sprawlsville, Arizona and its senile senior Senator.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Joe from Lowell says that MY’s graph from Feb. 13 proves that the LV-LA rail project is not eligible for the funding. Despite someone in Reid’s office saying otherwise. So who’s right? Well, this is what the daily paper in Las Vegas had to say TODAY:
“Under the bill, the proposed maglev train between Las Vegas and Anaheim, Calif., one of [Reid's] pet projects, would be among those eligible to apply.”
Here is the link:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/40074517.html
Uh oh, Joe.
Care to explain?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Maybe HSR would be good for exurbs. Maybe it would make it easier to build parallel light rail lines.
You’re such a dick, Mixner. I don’t know why you come here.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
The money won’t have any meaningful effect on HSR in the United States.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. Most of it will be sucked up by needed repairs and maintenance that should have been funded in the regular Amtrak budget years ago.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Maybe HSR would be good for exurbs.
Maybe the cow will jump over the moon.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Nuke the Rust Belt! People smell! Phoenix isn’t sprawly desert hell! Nuke the Rust Belt! People smell! Phoenix isn’t sprawly desert hell! Nuke the Rust Belt! People smell! Phoenix isn’t sprawly desert hell! Nuke the Rust Belt! People smell! Phoenix isn’t sprawly desert hell! Nuke the Rust Belt! People smell! Phoenix isn’t sprawly desert hell! Nuke the Rust Belt! People smell! Phoenix isn’t sprawly desert hell!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
You seriously don’t know how to use Google?
You seriously don’t know how to post a link?
From November 2004 to November 2008, Phoenix has lost 12.15%. The 20-city has lost 10.98%. The comparison gets worse the farther in time your starting point goes.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. You wrote: “in November 2008 Phoenix was back to where it had been around April/May of 2004. The 20-city is back to where it was around February/March of 2004.” Your link confirms this. Both indexes were rising in 2004. February/March 2004 is further in the past that April/May 2004. Hence, the home price trend in Phoenix was slightly better than the 20-city average.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
DTM,
Build a model, figure out what particular proposal gives you the highest ratio of benefits to costs … You take all the cognizable future benefits and costs and reduce them to NPV. … if there is some transaction cost problem, or radically different costs of capital between the government and potential private sources, the government might dispense with private capital entirely. But in many cases it makes sense for the taxpayers to do private-public partners, or for the taxpayers not to participate at all.
Still incomprehensible. You’re trying to determine the appropriate value for what you describe as the “reasonable government contribution” to your proposed transportation project, remember? So once you’ve designed your project to “maximize the return” as you describe above, then what? How are you proposing to determine the “reasonable government contribution” to the total project costs?
OK, but externalities are not the only form benefits realized by the public take.
Positive externalities are the only benefits that justify public subsidies, because they’re the only benefits that the public receives. That’s why they’re called “externalities” or “public benefits” or “social benefits.” These benefits are things like reduced congestion and reduced pollution. The public should not pay for internal benefits to the users of the system, because the public does not receive those benefits. The users themselves should bear those costs. Hence, your proposed HSR system should receive public subsidies only equal to the value of the externalities. The study you linked to on the MWRRI estimated that the value of the positive externalities for that project would be about one billion dollars less than the proposed public costs. That is a very, very bad deal for taxpayers.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
No, as I said above, “when you say ‘both measures show Phoenix doing slightly better than the average,’ again that very much depends on when you bought.” Noting this isn’t “moving the goalposts”, it is just acknowledging the facts.
You’re moving the goalposts because you’re changing your timeframe. You correctly stated that in November 2008, Phoenix housing was worth about the same as in April/May of 2004. But housing in the 20-city average was worth less than in April/May 2004. Hence, Phoenix housing prices have held up better over that period than the 20-city average. The Zillow data confirms this for Phoenix prices vs. the U.S. average.
The broader point is that, contrary to the rantings of certain ignorant fools, housing prices in Phoenix have largely followed the national trend over the course of the inflation and collapse of the housing bubble.
As for Cleveland and other dying rustbelt cities, the reason they had smaller housing price declines after the bubble started to collapse is that they had smaller price rises when the bubble was inflating. As Case-Shiller notes, Cleveland has the second-worst housing price record since 2000 of any city on its list. Only Detroit was worse.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am
DTM,
Once you have determined the project is economically worthwhile in general and you have structured it to maximize the return, you can then look at how best to finance it. Again, although there are sometimes reasons why obtaining private financing is not a good idea, as a rough rule of thumb you can often get private financing for up to around the amount of the NPV of the expected revenues. You then subtract that from the NPV of the expected costs to get an estimate of the minimum necessary government contribution.
You’re evading the question. If private funding is insufficient for the total project costs, then obviously it would be necessary to obtain the rest of the funding from the government if the project is to be fully funded. That’s not the issue. The issue is how much government funding is justified. The “reasonable government contribution,” to use your phrase. How do you propose to determine that?
No, you are misusing those terms by treating social benefits as equal to externalities.
I’m not “misusing” terms. Whatever “Thayer Watkins” says, whoever he is, the term “public benefits” or “social benefits” is generally used to refer to the benefits you are calling “positive externalities.” That is, benefits to parties other than those directly involved in the economic transaction. But to keep you from quibbling over this point as an excuse for further evasion, we’ll call these benefits “positive externalities.” Why should public subsidies pay for benefits other than positive externalities? Why should public subsidies pay for internal benefits, e.g., the transportation benefit received by a HSR rider? Why shouldn’t the rider pay for that benefit himself?
“Should” in what sense? Are you making a moral argument?
In the sense that the recipient of a benefit should pay the cost of providing that benefit to him. In the sense that those who do not receive the benefit should not have to pay for it. Why should taxpayers pay for the transportation benefit received by HSR riders? Why shouldn’t HSR riders pay for this benefit themselves?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Right, and if you look at OTHER periods, Phoenix housing prices have NOT held up better.
I am referring to the period YOU YOURSELF cited.
The truth is that during the core bubble period, Phoenix prices inflated more, and now have collapsed more.
No, the truth, as I said, is that housing prices in Phoenix have largely followed the national trend over the course of the inflation and collapse of the housing bubble. That’s why housing prices for both Phoenix and the national average are now about the same as they were 4-5 years ago. The price curve shapes diverged most around the peak of the bubble in mid-2006, but the basic trajectory has been the same.
Which, again, is cold comfort for someone who bought (or perhaps refinanced) in Phoenix instead of Cleveland since about November of 2004.
It’s much colder comfort for people who live in Cleveland.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:23 am
DTM,
And again, why are public parks free? Why aren’t public school children charged tuition? Why doesn’t the police officer who patrols your neighborhood hand you a bill?
Many public parks are of course not free. For most others collecting entrance fees and preventing unauthorized access would be infeasible or too costly. Free public K-12 education is provided because children are not in a position to pay for it themselves and because universal basic education is vital to the functioning of our society and economy. Law enforcement is a public good.
Why should taxpayers pay for the transportation benefit received by HSR riders? Why shouldn’t HSR riders pay for this benefit themselves?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:35 am
DTM,
The justification for the necessary amount of government funding was provided in a prior step, when it was determined the project was economically worthwhile.
No, “economically worthwhile” as you defined it, means merely that the total benefits of the project exceed its total costs. Why should taxpayers pay for the benefits of the project that they do not receive? Why is that a “reasonable government contribution?” Why shouldn’t the recipients of those benefits pay the costs of providing them?
This is not a general axiom of government spending,
I don’t know what a “general axiom of government spending” is supposed to mean.
Why should taxpayers pay for the transportation benefit received by HSR riders? Why shouldn’t HSR riders pay for this benefit themselves?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:39 am
That very much depends.
No, it really doesn’t very much depend. Cleveland has much bigger problems than house price fluctuations from the housing bubble.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:10 am
DTM,
In the case at hand, again what you would want to do is set fees to riders such that the total return (ratio of total benefits to total costs) was maximized.
Why would “you want” to do that? If total benefit were maximized at a fee of zero, so that in order to fund the project taxpayers would have to pay all the costs, and riders would pay nothing for the benefit they get from riding the train, why should taxpayers agree to do that? Why should taxpayers pay more in costs than they get in benefits? If riders are unwilling to pay the full cost of the benefits they receive from riding, why should other people pay those costs for them?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:13 am
DTM,
First, of course some riders will be taxpayers.
In which case they’ll pay a share of the taxes used to fund the project. Why should other taxpayers pay the costs of providing the benefit riders get from riding?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:17 am
DTM,
The economic definition of a public good is something which is is non-rivaled and non-excludable. The police officer cruising your neighborhood is both rivalrous (he can’t be two places at once) and excludable (he can refuse to help a given person if he so desires).
I said “law enforcement,” not “police officers.” If you seriously think you have a serious proposal for implementing a feasible fee-based public law enforcement system, I’d love to see your description of it.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:21 am
So does Phoenix
Really? What problems are those?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:51 am
What problems are those?
Being home to a no-life sockpuppeteer fucktard like you, just for starters.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:23 am
“Why should other taxpayers pay the costs of providing the benefit riders get from riding?”
Why should pedestrians pay for roads and highways? Why should people who don’t go to national parks pay for those? Why should people who don’t fly pay for airports and constantly bail out the airlines?
It’s pretty silly to get all antsy about a transit project when there are all these other things as well. I’m sure there’s some service you use quite a bit that is taxpayer-subsidized. So why don’t you pay for it yourself, hippy?
February 24th, 2009 at 11:59 am
DTM,
Suppose there are three taxpayers, A, B, and C. There are also three possible public projects with high expected returns, 1, 2, and 3, of which A, B, and C will be the disproportionate beneficiaries respectively. If one looks at Project 1 in isolation, one might wonder why B and C would agree to help fund it, since A would disproportionately benefit. And so for Projects 2 and 3–if viewed in isolation. But if you look at Projects 1, 2, and 3 together, you can understand why taxpayers A, B, and C might collectively vote to fund all three of them.
Incomprehensible. How does “looking at Projects 1, 2, and 3 together” explain “why taxpayers A, B, and C might collectively vote to fund all three of them?”
Stop evading and answer the question. Why should taxpayers agree to pay more in subsidies for your proposed HSR than they get in benefits? If the user fee that maximizes returns is zero, so that taxpayers would have to pay all the costs, and riders would pay nothing for the benefit they get from riding the train, why should taxpayers agree to do that? In fact, why should taxpayers agree to pay anything more in subsidies than they get in benefits? If riders are unwilling to pay the full cost of the benefits they receive from riding, why should other people pay those costs for them?
Example: Under your criterion of “maximizing returns” the fee paid by riders of the train is $100. But the full cost of providing each ride is $300. So taxpayers would have to subsidize each ride by $200 in order for the project to be funded. Why should taxpayers agree to do this? If riders are unwilling to pay the full costs of providing their rides, why should other people pay those costs?
Do you have an answer or don’t you?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
DTM,
That doesn’t help. “Law enforcement” is just built up out of a bunch of goods like “police officers”, and they are mostly not public goods.
Nonsense. The benefit of enforcing the law is preventing and punishing crimes. How do you propose to exclude individuals from that benefit? How does “consumption” of the benefit by one individual reduce the benefit for others?
Um, I am the one who is noting that it is very common for taxpayers to agree to fund things for which little or no fees will be charged to direct beneficiaries. And I have no plan for converting all those things to a fee-based system, because I don’t have a problem with that state of affairs.
You are the one who asked “Why doesn’t the police officer who patrols your neighborhood hand you a bill?” My answer is: Fee-based law enforcement is not feasible, because law enforcement is a public good. If you dispute this, deescribe your proposed fee-based law enforcement sytem.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
DTM,
To sum up, even assuming that you are insisting on government activity netting out to a Pareto improvement, there is no reason to further require that each particular government action net out to a Pareto improvement. Rather, it only makes sense to apply this requirement across the sum of all government actions
Stop evading and answer the question. I’m not asking you about “Pareto improvement.” I’m not asking you about a hypothetical situation of three projects and three taxpayers. I’m asking you why taxpayers should agree to pay more in subsidies for a proposed HSR than they get in benefits. If riders are unwilling to pay the full cost of the benefit they get from riding, why should other people pay that cost for them?
Do you have an answer or don’t you?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
This is High Speed Rail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANB-yZIJP6o
This is Light-Rail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g1UOe360uk
Questions?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
DTM,
For a case of exclusion, the law enforcement system could decline to prevent or punish crimes if committed against the person or property of the excluded individual.
How? How could the law enforcement system do that? If a criminal is locked up, for example, he is prevented from committing a crime against me, whether I am paying for his incarceration or not. So how can you exclude me from this benefit?
For a case of rivalry, the law enforcement system could exhaust its resources preventing or punushing crimes committed against the person or property of one individual, and be left without the resources to prevent or punish crimes committed against the person or property of another individual.
How?
But I would agree with your claim that fee-based law enforcement isn’t “feasible”
You asked “Why doesn’t the police officer who patrols your neighborhood hand you a bill?” If you agree that this is not a feasible way to enforce the law, why did you ask the question?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
DTM,
First, again some riders are taxpayers.
We’ve been over this. Why should other taxpayers pay the costs of providing the benefit riders get from riding?
But anyway, as I have explained multiple times now, the reason why a taxpayer should not necessarily object to some of their taxes helping to fund a project from which they do not personally expect to get a net benefit is that they may still be benefiting from the overall system of public finance organized in this fashion.
What benefit from “the overall system of public finance organized in this fashion” would taxpayers get from paying the cost of the benefit HSR riders get from riding? If each ride costs $300, and the “return maximizing” fee is only $100, taxpayers would have pay the other $200 for the system to be funded. Why should they agree to do this? What benefit from “the overall system of public finance organized in this fashion” would they receive to compensate them for this cost? Answer the question.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
DTM,
Police Officer Al: Someone is breaking into that house.
Police Officer Bob: Is the address on the list?
Police Officer Al: Nope.
Police Officer Bob: Oh well.
Well, make up your mind. You just said that you agree with me that fee-based law enforcement is not feasible. Now you’re apparently saying that you do think it’s feasible (apparently, through some kind of “list”). Which is it?
Punishing criminals deters crime. How do you propose to exclude individuals from this benefit of crime deterrence (through a “list” or in any other way)? Punishing criminals also serves our understanding of justice. How do you propose to exclude individuals from this benefit of justice (through a “list” or in any other way)? Locking criminals up prevents them from committing crime. How do you propose to exclude individuals from this benefit of incapacitating criminals (through a “list” or in any other way)?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
DTM,
I asked the question because I knew it would force you to admit that: (a) we frequently provide benefits to people which other taxpayers are helping to fund; and (b) that there is nothing inherently wrong or inexplicable about this fact.
You keep repeating this irrelevant observation. Yes, some government policies act to redistribute wealth. Some people pay the cost and other people receive the benefit. Yes, this is not “inherently wrong” or “inexplicable.”
That is completely irrelevant to the issue in dispute. We’re not talking about government policy in the abstract. We’re talking about the issue of taxpayer subsidies for high speed rail. I’m asking you why taxpayers should agree to pay more in subsidies for a proposed HSR than they get in benefits. If riders are unwilling to pay the full cost of the benefit they get from riding, why should other people pay that cost for them?
Do you have an answer or don’t you?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
DTM,
Operator: This is 911, what is your emergency?
Caller: Someone is breaking into my house!
Operator: Sorry, all our police officers are busy on other calls. Good luck! [call terminated]
No physical resource is perfectly nonrival. Public goods are goods that are effectively nonrival, given practical and economic constraints. Not goods that are perfectly nonrival.
You claim that law enforcement is not a public good. Give us some examples of goods you do consider to be public goods. Or are you just denying that there is any such thing as a public good at all?
Not that it matters whether you agree that law enforcement is a public good or not. You asked why police don’t give us a bills for their services. I explained that fee-based law enforcement is not feasible. You agreed. So your question has been answered. Now address my question about public subsidies for HSR.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
DTM,
Again, each taxpayer gets a net benefit from supporting the bundle of projects,
I’m not asking you about a “bundle of projects.” I’m asking you about a proposed HSR project. What benefit from “the overall system of public finance organized in this fashion” would taxpayers get from paying the cost of the benefit HSR riders get from riding? Answer the question.
Of course the form this net benefit takes will vary greatly by the taxpayer. Some are getting some of their net benefits from HSR. Others from using publicly-funded airports. Others from using publicly-funded roads.
This is just utter nonsense. You cannot ASSUME that the taxpayers you want to subsidize the riders on your HSR project would get a compensating benefit from roads or airports or anything else. So what is this benefit from “the overall system of public finance organized in this fashion” that you referred to? If each ride costs $300, and the “return maximizing” fee is only $100, taxpayers would have pay the other $200 for the system to be funded. Why should they agree to do this? What benefit from “the overall system of public finance organized in this fashion” would they receive to compensate them for this cost? Answer the question.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
DTM,
This scenario demonstrates that law enforcement is excludable. It doesn’t demonstrate that fee-based law enforcement would be “feasible” (which I would translate to mean “not too costly”).
You already agreed that fee-based law enforcement is not feasible. So how are you going to determine which individuals to exclude? If you can’t do that, how is law enforcement excludable?
I’m just going to keep giving you the same answer: they should be willing to do this if HSR is part of a bundle of projects, and they will be net beneficiaries from that bundle.
Ha ha ha ha! So for all the taxpayers you want to subsidize the MWRRI, or the California HSR, or whatever other HSR project you have in mind, what is the “bundle of projects” from which you claim they will be net beneficiaries? Show it to us. Show us your cost and benefit estimates supporting your claim that they would be net beneficiaries.
Your own source on the MWRRI estimated that taxpayer costs for that project would exceed the benefits in “positive externalities” they would receive from it by almost a billion dollars. What is the “bundle of projects” from which you claim these taxpayers would be net beneficiaries?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
DTM,
For any given taxpayer, it is all the projects which their taxes fund. All of them.
More nonsense. Show me how you have determined that “for any given taxpayer” that you want to subsidize the MWRRI, or the California HSR, or whatever other HSR project you have in mind, the benefits they would receive from other projects exceed the costs you want them to pay for your HSR project.
You can’t. Your claim is utterly ludicrous. The only HSR cost-benefit analysis you’ve cited is a study of the MWRRI, and that study estimated that taxpayers would suffer a net loss of almost a billion dollars. That’s a very bad deal for taxpayers, which is one reason why the MWRRI will probably never happen (and it’s not even a true HSR, anyway).
February 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
DTM,
Fortunately, for most taxpayers it is pretty easy to infer a conclusion. To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. If your life as a taxpayer isn’t like that, then congratulations: you are a net beneficiary from the taxes you pay.
More irrelevance. Why does the fact, if it is a fact, that the taxpayers you want to subsidize a proposed HSR project are net beneficiaries from the taxes they currently pay mean that they should agree to your request? Unless they get an additional benefit of equal or greater value to the subsidies you want them to pay, why should they pay them? Answer the question.
And in this case, the actual incremental amount of taxes paid per taxpayer for HSR is tiny.
Brilliant. Let’s say someone proposes a new tax that would be used to pay Donald Trump $10 million a year. The tax would be imposed equally on every American taxpayer. The “actual incremental amount of taxes paid per taxpayer” would be tiny. Does that mean the proposal is a good idea? Your arguments get more and more laughable.
That, of course, isn’t true on even your own terms. Once you include the riders, who are in fact going to be taxpayers, the taxpayers as a whole will get a nice return.
More quibbling to evade the issue. I’m obviously talking about the taxpayers who pay more in costs than they receive in benefits. Why should these taxpayers pay for the benefits the riders get from riding? Why shouldn’t the riders pay for those benefits themselves? Answer the question.
… [blah blah blah] textbooks [blah blah blah] …
You can keep blabbering on about “textbooks” as many times as
you like, and I’ll keep ignoring it. Answer the questions.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Did I mention that I have no life?
I have no life. Phoenix is like that.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Детективное агентство предлагает конфиденциальные услуги:
помощь в поиске и установлению личности по мобильным номерам;
поиск пропавших без вести;
поиск мошенников;
коллекторская деятельность, возврат долгов;
наружное наблюдение и другие конфиденциальные услуги.
Профессиональные сыщики нашего агентсва помогут в решении проблем c детьми, соберут для Вас данные о собственниках, имуществе и банковских операциях.
Подробнее: http://nat-pinkerton.ru
March 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Предлагаем уникальные услуги по рассылке рекламы. Рассылаем на форумы, блоги, гостевые и доски объявлений.
Подробнее http://www.spamer.in
March 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Детективное агентство предлагает эксклюзивные услуги:
помощь в поиске и установлению личности по мобильным телефонам;
розыск пропавших без вести;
поиск должников;
коллекторская деятельность, возврат имущества;
наружное наблюдение и другие конфиденциальные услуги.
Профессиональные детективы нашего агентсва помогут в решении проблем в семье, соберут для Вас данные о собственниках, имуществе и банковских операциях.
Подробнее: nat-pinkerton.ru
March 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Детективное агентство предлагает эксклюзивные услуги:
помощь в поиске и установлению личности по мобильным номерам;
розыск пропавших без вести;
поиск должников;
коллекторская деятельность, возврат долгов;
наружное наблюдение и другие эксклюзивные услуги.
Профессиональные оперативные сотрудники нашего агентсва помогут в решении проблем в семье, соберут для Вас данные о собственниках, имуществе и банковских операциях.
Подробнее: http://nat-pinkerton.ru
March 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Криптиды. Попытка исследования загадочных животных. Снежный человек, чупакабра, Мокеле-мбембе и другие удивительные создания.
подробнее cryptid.ru
March 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Таможенное оформаление грузов. Любые направления
Таможенный брокер Альфагрупп
http://www.zoll.ru
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Детализации звонков с мобильных. Распечатки, распечатки SMS с привязкой к месту
подробнее http://detalka.net
March 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Дикие кабаны:
Отряд парнокопытных (Ordo Artiodactyla), род (Genus sus); семейство свиней (familia suidae).
March 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Частное детективное агентство предлагает эксклюзивные услуги:
помощь в поиске и установлению личности по мобильным номерам;
розыск пропавших без вести;
розыск мошенников;
коллекторская деятельность, возврат долгов;
наружное наблюдение и другие конфиденциальные услуги.
Профессиональные сыщики нашего агентсва помогут в решении проблем c детьми, соберут для Вас данные о собственниках, имуществе и банковских операциях.
Подробнее: http://nat-pinkerton.ru
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
Герметичный корпус,проста в эксплуатации:
-напряжение на нагрузке 800В
-выходная мощность до 300ВТ
-уверенный радиус лова от 2м
-выдерживает затопления водой
2 вида: 14х14х5(см)-4,800т.р, 11х8х4,5(см)-5,200т.р
Гарантия,доставка по России
тел:89172968729(Казань)
electroud@rambler.ru