The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 3 Nov 2009 00:24 > Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the > consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley Ok, he's got it ok to here... but like all anti-car folks it falls apart, because the only place they demand free market down to the last aspect is when it is the roads and private automobile. But at least the non-drivers are only paying for the most local of roads. The ones they would need even if automobiles had never been invented. Non-transit users aren't so lucky. (in the chicago area part of the sales tax is to fund transit) > Even more irksome is the fact that spending on transit creates twice > as many new jobs as spending on highways. In fact, every billion > dollars reallocated from road-building to transit creates seven > thousand jobs.' Congress's recent $41 billion highway bill, had it > been allocated to transit, would have employed an additional > quarter-million people nationwide. Ta DA! They have absolutely no freaking problem with government controlled and near totally socially funded transit. Private car owners take a far greater percentage of the costs than the transit rider. If transit were run as a business instead of a social service it might actually be useful to more people. > Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners > choose to drive as much as possible. I don't know anybody that does. > One need look no further for a > reason why American cities continue to sprawl into the countryside. In > Europe, where gasoline costs about four times the American price, > long-distance automotive commuting is the exclusive privilege of he > wealthy, and there is relatively little suburban sprawl. The way our wise socialist masters want it to be. It seems they believe we should be poor, living in tenements in the inner city and the countryside left pristine for the wealthy to enjoy. Al Gore will always be allowed to fly and drive. Also note that european gasoline taxes are not only going to the 'cost of driving' but fund many other things too. > The American Gosplan pertains to shipping as well. In the current > structure of subsidization, trucking is heavily favored over rail > transport, even though trucks consume fifteen times the fuel for the > equivalent job. The government pays a $300 billion subsidy to truckers > unthinkingly, while carefully scrutinizing every dollar allocated to > transit. That's because the government doesn't have money of its own. It takes it from people. People want private automobiles so they can disguise the trucker subsidy. They can't disguise the transit subsidy. transit also serves a far smaller segment of the population and that segment grows ever smaller as transit service is cut back. Also it seems (at least in IL) giving certain groups free transit has made the problems worse. > While there are many supposedly "anti-business" arguments for a higher > gas tax - from fighting global warming to supporting public transit - > the real justification is economic: subsidized automobile use is the > single largest violation of the free-market principle in U.S. fiscal > policy. Hardly. Not by a long shot. The biggest is the banks, followed by the military industrial complex, followed by health care related items, then probably social security. Automobiles are probably near the bottom of the list if all the taxes motorists pay alone are taken out. It's gasoline taxes on motorists that supply a good amount of money to transit. > Economic inefficiencies in this country due to automotive > subsidization are estimated at $700 billion annually, which powerfully > undermines America's ability to compete in the global economy. What really undermines it is the banking system that runs this country's economy and the spending on war and war related items. This guy would have some credibility if he argued for private roads and private rail funded by private companies and individuals. Instead he complains the roads aren't 'free market enough' but rail should be more socialist.
From: Larry Sheldon on 3 Nov 2009 09:32 elmer wrote: > Scott in SoCal wrote: >> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth >> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] >> >> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours >> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a >> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, Since we know at this point that we have a typical bigcityeastcoastcommunist rant, I stopped reading at this point. Some of us moved to where that is rarely a problem -- even it the first major snow storm of the year it rarely took me more than an hour to cover the 23 miles home. And I would rather sit in my car, with one or two of my friends or my radio, perhaps sipping on my coffee, than stand like a sardine is a can of smelly people who look like they might be inclined to do me harm as I try to wold on to my brief case, wallet and a filthy strap against the ministrations of a driver that seems to alternate from full accelerated to panic stop every few seconds. (Did that by the way for most of thirty years, and spent a lot of time sitting and waiting when the system broke for reasons we rarely found out about. Having to run from stop to stop, stand in the crowd (and maybe the rain) to "make connections" was a part that I was mostly able to avoid.) I'll not cast aspersions on those who choose to live under the tyranny of the transit system, but I'm glad I was bright enough to save my money and escape.
From: Larry Sheldon on 3 Nov 2009 09:49 >> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the >> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley That is the purest nonsense. Does money grow on trees? Do you find it under rocks? (No, those people are trying to stop mining.) Do you pump it out of the ground? (Same problem). The consumer pays all of the cost and more. There is no free lunch.
From: Brent on 3 Nov 2009 10:17 On 2009-11-03, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the >>> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley > > That is the purest nonsense. > > Does money grow on trees? Do you find it under rocks? (No, those > people are trying to stop mining.) Do you pump it out of the ground? > (Same problem). > > The consumer pays all of the cost and more. There is no free lunch. What is meant by a 'free good' is that someone else pays for it. Government run health care is going to be paid for by every productive person but lots and lots of people are going to see it as free. This will create shortages, etc. The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*. In a way road use still functions like a 'free good' in that costs are distributed to a huge number of drivers and burried in the prices of fuel, registration, etc. Most people do realize they are paying them, just ask any bicyclist hating motorist and he'll bring up taxes. That said it is only the road itself that is 'socialized' (and mostly within road users) with driving. Drivers have to take care of the vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs. The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light. transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders. The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very rarely use it. If he had made an argument that both should stand on their own two feet with -direct- costs to the users, he would be credible. Instead what he is left with is a demand that transit be funded better with tax dollars. *as private businesses it is their right to structure their prices as they see fit and provide parking as they see fit. Until they believe it is more profitable for them to charge for parking separately, they won't.
From: larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite on 3 Nov 2009 12:31
On Nov 3, 9:57 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> > said: > > >elmer wrote: > >> Scott in SoCal wrote: > >>> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth > >>> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] > > >>> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours > >>> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a > >>> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, > > >Since we know at this point that we have a typical > >bigcityeastcoastcommunist rant, I stopped reading at this point. > > Since you apparently prefer to wallow in ignorance rather than expose > yourself to new ideas, I stopped reading your posts at this point. nice try Scott you can see the ignoramuses you are dealing with what they don't realize is they are paying for all these subsidies for cars and roads, and esp trucks but they expect transit to be clean, 100% efficient, WITHOUT subsidy |