From: hancock4 on 13 Nov 2009 17:05 On Nov 13, 12:05 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > . . . Cheap energy is a bubble it's a bubble that will burst. when > government does everything it can to build an economy around cheap > energy it will make it pop more explosively. 1974, 1979, 2008. > Rural people have had a disproportionate effected by the transportation > policies of the last half century. Whether you regard that as a good or > bad thing is a matter of taste. About 10-20 years ago rural people paid a premium for utility and other services since the cost to provide was higher due to low density. New more recent policies leveled out those higher prices; but that meant other recipients had to pay more. I can't help but get the feeling from reading posts around here that many rural people don't realize the subsidized services they're getting; and yet complain about subsidies other people get.
From: jim on 13 Nov 2009 18:58 hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > On Nov 13, 12:05 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > > . . . Cheap energy is a bubble it's a bubble that will burst. when > > government does everything it can to build an economy around cheap > > energy it will make it pop more explosively. > > 1974, 1979, 2008. > > > Rural people have had a disproportionate effected by the transportation > > policies of the last half century. Whether you regard that as a good or > > bad thing is a matter of taste. > > About 10-20 years ago rural people paid a premium for utility and > other services since the cost to provide was higher due to low > density. New more recent policies leveled out those higher prices; > but that meant other recipients had to pay more. I think you are 60-70 behind. The rural electrification programs goes back to 30's. The interstate system is heavily weighted towards rural stretches that receive far more funding than they produce in use tax. And don't even think about getting started on farm subsidies. 80 years of handouts to farmers completely dwarf anything what has ever been given to any inner city residents. > > I can't help but get the feeling from reading posts around here that > many rural people don't realize the subsidized services they're > getting; and yet complain about subsidies other people get. Yes when people start obsessing about who is getting their fair share of what you end up with something that looks a lot like Washington today.
From: gpsman on 14 Nov 2009 01:37 On Nov 13, 12:19 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > gpsman wrote: > > > > Among other things, there are going to be > > > less trucks on the road if those taxes would increase. > > > Non sequitur. > > Obviously you are in complete denial of reality. I'm in complete denial regarding your ability to predict any such effect from such vague criteria with such certainty, not to mention your assertion that the goods will then somehow find alternate (and obviously cheaper) transport, be replaced by other goods that will be trucked lesser distances, or be deemed unworthy of transport, all of which are in reality improbable. > > > The important issue is not really whether trucks are being subsidized, but > > > whether the energy used by trucks or cars or anything else is being subsidized. > > > If you use the tax structure to keep the cost of energy as low as possible then > > > you have removed some incentive to use it efficiently. > > > I think fuel taxes suggest that is not the case. > > Well that would be true if fuel taxes were fuel taxes used by government > to fund government functions, but instead they are really promotional > green stamps. So, fuel taxes are a rebate, like a rebate...? Maybe "green stamps" is a economic term with which I am not familiar but I think you are speaking in vague generalizations and implying things don't work as they "should" due to the inherent and unvarying malfeasance and/or incompetence of "government". From whom have I read that perspective before, ad nauseum? > > Then your unsupported assertion that: "Subsidy to truckers contributes > > to more congestion on the highways more wear and tear on the highways > > and gives nothing in return unless you like diesel exhaust" is > > obviously false. > > Your quoting me out of context. I don't think so. > I said it gives nothing in return to the > motorist as a class. You said: "You have to wonder where the notion comes from that it is more in a motorists best interest to subsidize trucking than it is to subsidize mass transit." > As you pointed out the only thing the motorist gets > is a break in the cost of fuel delivered from pipeline terminal to gas > station - that is probably at most a fraction of a penny per gallon. I suggested it as a motorist benefit, not as "the" benefit. If the average trip to fuel points was 25 miles I think it might amount to more than your fraction. > Consumers as a class do get lower prices, but whether in the long run > that is a net savings is debatable since they also pay for the subsidy. There is no other more practical or efficient method by which to transport the vast majority of materials and goods which is why the US economy, and in reality all "modern" economies are sustained by trucking and cheap freight rates. > And they pay for the economic depressions that subsidized energy causes. I'm no economist but pretty sure depressions are not due to single causes. I'm no psychologist but pretty sure your views of how things work are unrealistically short-sided and simplistic, how they "should" work are idealistic, and you assume and conclude that what is possible is probable or certain rather freely. There aren't any trucks roaming the roads in search of demand, they're there due to demand, and when their numbers drop you can bet somebody is going to be subsidizing more than unemployed drivers. ----- - gpsman
From: jim on 14 Nov 2009 10:36 gpsman wrote: > > On Nov 13, 12:19 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > gpsman wrote: > > > > > > Among other things, there are going to be > > > > less trucks on the road if those taxes would increase. > > > > > Non sequitur. > > > > Obviously you are in complete denial of reality. > > I'm in complete denial regarding your ability to predict any such > effect from such vague criteria with such certainty, not to mention > your assertion that the goods will then somehow find alternate (and > obviously cheaper) transport, be replaced by other goods that will be > trucked lesser distances, or be deemed unworthy of transport, all of > which are in reality improbable. You just confirmed my statement. You are asking me to prove to you that there is no truck on the road carrying a cargo where the cost makes any difference. That is so far removed from reality its ridiculous. The notion that trucking as an economic enterprise is entirely inelastic and entirely impervious to cost is absurd on it's face. The simple fact is if taxes and fees on trucks were lowered then the number of trucks and truck shipments would increase and if taxes went up then the opposite would happen. And no I will not be bothered to try to prove that statement. Sorry, if your stuck in LaLa land it's not my job to pull you out. > > > > > The important issue is not really whether trucks are being subsidized, but > > > > whether the energy used by trucks or cars or anything else is being subsidized. > > > > If you use the tax structure to keep the cost of energy as low as possible then > > > > you have removed some incentive to use it efficiently. > > > > > I think fuel taxes suggest that is not the case. > > > > Well that would be true if fuel taxes were fuel taxes used by government > > to fund government functions, but instead they are really promotional > > green stamps. > > So, fuel taxes are a rebate, like a rebate...? No I wouldn't call it a rebate. It's more like dues or a promotional fee. It is similar to the state of Wisconsin puts a tax on milk and uses that money to promote dairy products. California does the same. This is not big government stealing money from poor dairy farmers this is a partnership between government and industry to promote the industry's products. The industry benefits because with increase sales they more than recover the promotional fee. > > Maybe "green stamps" is a economic term with which I am not familiar > but I think you are speaking in vague generalizations and implying > things don't work as they "should" due to the inherent and unvarying > malfeasance and/or incompetence of "government". Quite the contrary. The current system of roads, trucks and cars is a monument to government competence. There is absolutely no way the private sector could have achieved anything even remotely approaching as much on its own. I mean not even close. And that was my point, this was a political decision. There is no reason to believe that a different political decision could not have been carried through with the same level of competence. For example, a hundred years ago when most long distance transportation inside the country was by rail the government could have established the same sort promotional dues for rail travel and they could have plowed all those fees they collected from every passenger and every piece of freight back into building rail infrastructure. And the oil and auto, truck and tire manufacturers would have been left in the lurch. The road system could have been entirely left to the private sector and local municipalities and it is extremely doubtful any of it would have developed anywhere near as much under that scenario. There is no good reason why that version of history could not have been done with the same level of government competence. And those certainly aren't the only possible scenarios. The current system is a partnership between government and certain industries to promote their products and there is absolutely no doubt that it has been extremely successful at doing just that. > > From whom have I read that perspective before, ad nauseum? > > > > Then your unsupported assertion that: "Subsidy to truckers contributes > > > to more congestion on the highways more wear and tear on the highways > > > and gives nothing in return unless you like diesel exhaust" is > > > obviously false. > > > > Your quoting me out of context. > > I don't think so. > > > I said it gives nothing in return to the > > motorist as a class. > > You said: > "You have to wonder where the notion comes from > that it is more in a motorists best interest to subsidize trucking > than it is to subsidize mass transit." Yes, so where does that come from? > > > As you pointed out the only thing the motorist gets > > is a break in the cost of fuel delivered from pipeline terminal to gas > > station - that is probably at most a fraction of a penny per gallon. > > I suggested it as a motorist benefit, not as "the" benefit. You suggested no other benefit at all that specifically benefits only motorists and not just people in general. > > If the average trip to fuel points was 25 miles I think it might > amount to more than your fraction. Well yes maybe you could get it above a cent if you raised the tax on diesel by $4/gallon. Do the math -> a tanker carries 8000 gallons and it consumes maybe 20 gallons of fuel to make that average delivery. But even that equation would change over time. At that level of tax the trucks on the road would eventually be able to make that delivery using only 10 gallons of fuel so the actual increase cost to the motorist would then become about a 1/2 cent. So you would need to raise the diesel fuel tax to maybe $10/gallon before the motorist will see an extra penny/gallon on the price of gas. > > > Consumers as a class do get lower prices, but whether in the long run > > that is a net savings is debatable since they also pay for the subsidy. > > There is no other more practical or efficient method by which to > transport the vast majority of materials and goods which is why the US > economy, and in reality all "modern" economies are sustained by > trucking and cheap freight rates. Yes, and you apparently are convinced that there is no chance that might be a serious problem looking into the future? I mean, given that it is only those economies that are not so dependent on trucking that just happen to be the only economies that have been growing steadily instead of shrinking in the past year - that doesn't tell you anything at all? > > > And they pay for the economic depressions that subsidized energy causes. > > I'm no economist but pretty sure depressions are not due to single > causes. Well economies shouldn't be so dependent on a single commodity. It might be a good idea to not put all your eggs in a basket with a weak bottom. > > I'm no psychologist but pretty sure your views of how things work are > unrealistically short-sided and simplistic, how they "should" work are > idealistic, and you assume and conclude that what is possible is > probable or certain rather freely. HA HA HA yeah right. I haven't said much of anything at all about how things work or how they should work. All I said was if you raise or lower the tax and fees on trucks it will raise or lower the number of trucks on the road and you choked on that. -jim > > There aren't any trucks roaming the roads in search of demand, they're > there due to demand, and when their numbers drop you can bet somebody > is going to be subsidizing more than unemployed drivers. > ----- > > - gpsman
From: jim on 14 Nov 2009 18:35
gpsman wrote: > If your idea is to reduce the number of trucks by deliberate reduction > of trade, that's just silly. I said if you reduce taxes there would be more trucks on the road. How does your pea brain interpret that to mean "your idea is to reduce the number of trucks by deliberate reduction of trade" -jim |