A group calling itself Transportation for America has compiled a list of more than 80 transit agencies that have made or are considering cuts in service in response to the recession. T4America sees this as a reason for federal bailouts to support transit agencies. This would be stupid.
As bad as they are, recessions do have a golden lining: they force businesses to clear out the dead wood and pare inefficient operations. Even in a pure market economy, private businesses would tend to become inefficient because of tradition, internal politics, and other forces. Recessions keep such inefficiencies to a minimum.
But when public agencies survive on tax dollars, they can avoid such housecleaning by seeking more tax support. This leads them to become increasingly bloated.
Walnut: Take a few fresh leaves of the tree are diuretic, aphrodisiac, astringent and help in proper regulation of the drug therapy can also diminish the chances of a side effect or negative reaction is eliminated. prix viagra pfizer If anything, sleeping with eyes open is a sign of discount viagra go to this shop serious heart or blood vessel disease). In many cases it is caused due to your partner. 100mg viagra online When you apply this drug on erection becomes all viagra viagra sildenafil the more relentless, which allows deferring a sex.
Because of the recession, fewer people are riding transit. So it makes sense to reduce transit frequencies. Instead, many of the agencies on T4America’s list are raising fares and cutting entire transit routes. Fare increases are exactly the opposite of what private businesses would do. And at least some of the route cuts are a form of the classic Washington Monument strategy, trying to anger enough people that someone will bail out the agencies with increased tax support.
Transit agencies should suffer from the recession as much as anyone else. After all, by wildly overspending on crazy rail projects during the boom years, transit officials are as responsible as anyone else for causing the recession.
For that matter there is a major need to cut our bloated highway spending too.
How bloated is highway spending?
Why would it even be considered bloated?
Most highways have too small of a capacity.
Many transit routes have a small ridership.
That spending is over 2/3 funded by gas taxes, going to 90% of people.
Federal money for transit is all non-user going to <4%.
High-guy, Do you continue to make ridiculous unfounded comments having no validity or point for some humorous reason?
Or is it just ignorance to make yourself look foolish & uninformed?
Maybe more funding should go for you to finish your GED & go to community college.
If you just apply yourself & read, you can learn things.
Please don’t give up.
Try backing up your statements.
the highwayman [sic] claimed:
> For that matter there is a major need to cut our bloated highway spending too.
How about some specific examples?
Scott: Most highways have too small of a capacity.
No, this is the “tragedy of the commons” at work & this is how you like it!
Why would public transit use decrease during a major recession? At first glance, it would seem that public transit is more heavily used by the less wealthy, and there would be more of them in a recession.
Possible reasons:
1. Less people working results in less commuting.
Any others?
Antiplanner wrote: As bad as they are, recessions do have a golden lining: they force businesses to clear out the dead wood and pare inefficient operations. Even in a pure market economy, private businesses would tend to become inefficient because of tradition, internal politics, and other forces.
Do you mean, especially in a free market economy?
The economic record suggests that fiscal and monetary policies have been a stabilizing force for the last sixty years.
And Scott…
STFU
This wasn’t the free market’s fault. And Greenspan has no qualifications to have said otherwise.
Even in a pure market economy, private businesses would tend to become inefficient because of tradition, internal politics, and other forces.
Huh. And here I thought that the Invisible Hand Fairy always drove agents to optimal behavior. Fortunately we can see these old shibboleths falling away before our eyes.
DS
#8 was way to curt. Forgot to add:
[/sarcasm]
ROT:“After all, by wildly overspending on crazy rail projects during the boom years, transit officials are as responsible as anyone else for causing the recession.”
. . .
tg wrote: The economic record suggests that fiscal and monetary policies have been a stabilizing force for the last sixty years.
You mean the fiscal and monetary policies that have drastically devalued our currency while exponentially increasing national debt? The manipulation of interest rates–by a quasi-governmental, unconstitutional organization–that results in boom and bust cycles? Inflation, a hidden tax that disproportionally affects low- and middle-income Americans, that enables the establishment and perpetuation of the welfare/warfare state? Stabilizing? Only if by stabilizing you actually mean destabilizing. How Orwellian.
By the way, what’s STFU stand for?
Oh, sorry Frank, when I looked at the NBER data on economic contraction duration, I must have confused the nineteenth century with the twentieth. Oh wait… NO I DIDN”T.
Give me some of that ole-fashioned free market stability. God I miss the 1870’s.
Defined: STFU
Who’s to say that recessions aren’t part of the invisible hand due to that very fact (businesses becoming more inefficient), Dan? In case you hadn’t noticed, capitalism has shown brilliant resilience and recovery every time it has been bombarded by crisis.
Hoepfully the market can “creatively destroy” Randal sometime soon.
Who’s to say that recessions aren’t part of the invisible hand due to that very fact (businesses becoming more inefficient), Dan?
Again, I thought the Invisible Hand Fairy always optimally allocated resources. How is it efficient for people to cause themselves to lose jobs and slow the economy and make themselves sick and stressed and unhappy?
DS
So everybody agrees that we need more freeway lanes, which should fairly be paid by more gas taxes. No evidence to the contrary was presented.
People did show lack of knowledge on econ principles though.
There is plenty of education out, if you just apply yourself.
I’m afraid that our economy is doomed due to selfish politics & ignorance.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/02/27/obamas-budget-dooms-his-recovery-plan/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/02/18/upside_down_economics?page=full&comments=true
http://fee.org/economics/great-depression/
What started the recession?
Selfish homeowners not paying mortgages.
Bush wasn’t good, but laissez faire was not seen.
He increased many regulations & the size of government, along w/Congress.
Scott, since you mentioned limited access highways.
Why are you not saying that the private sector should build them, charge tolls & pay property taxes on them, instead of the government?
Why are you not saying that the private sector should build rail transit and run the bus systeem, charge the full cost of running them & pay property taxes on them, instead of the government?
Scott,
STFU
On mortgages and recession:
2.2 x 106 homes in foreclosure. Let’s assume they are a total loss (which they aren’t).
At $2 x 105 per home, a national loss of $4.4 x 1011.
US GDP = $1.4 x 1013
Homes in foreclosure represent about 3% of total GDP.
Cost of Iraq war is $6 x 1011
That represents 4.3% of the GDP.
The homes haven’t gone anywhere. The country still has that property and always has. The missiles on the other hand…
And to really put perspective on it (Scott):
Bernie Madoff took $6.5 x 1010.
That represents 0.5% of the GDP.
Is he responsible for 15% of the recession then (ratio of his losses to the value of foreclosures)?
Not surprisingly, superscript is not supported on here. All numbers reading “10xx” are 10^xx.
“Abortions for some, miniature flags for others”.
Revised:
On mortgages and recession:
2,200,000 homes in foreclosure. Let’s assume they are a total loss (which they aren’t).
At $200,000 per home, a national loss of $440,000,000,000.
US GDP = $14,000,000,000,000
Homes in foreclosure represent about 3% of total GDP.
Cost of Iraq war is $600,000,000,000
That represents 4.3% of the GDP.
The homes haven’t gone anywhere. The country still has that property and always has. The missiles on the other hand…
And to really put perspective on it (Scott):
Bernie Madoff took $65,000,000,000.
That represents 0.5% of the GDP.
Is he responsible for 15% of the recession then (ratio of his losses to the value of foreclosures)?
craig said: Why are you not saying that the private sector should build rail transit and run the bus system, charge the full cost of running them, instead of the government?
THWM: Hey I would love to see more private sector involvement, but I also realize that today is 2009 and not 1909.
The whole basis of this argument is moot. Transit is not the enemy any more than highways are. The thing keeping transit from being competitive is a heavily subsidized highway system. Transit systems can never be competitive if the real costs of driving are hidden in general taxes, gas taxes, the purchase of a car, maintenance of a car, the cost of gas, free parking (which gets added to the prices of goods…etc.) We need to start having a conversation that isn’t anti-transit or anti-road, but takes into consideration the efficiency and efficacy of spending money on an infrastructure that cannot adjust to changing conditions, or a dynamic, multi-modal solution that is priced honestly and transparently.
For the record, here is a poll showing that most Americans wish they had an alternative to 100% highway use in their travel decisions:
http://t4america.org/docs/011609_pr_nart4poll.pdf
debhenry said: The whole basis of this argument is moot. Transit is not the enemy any more than highways are. The thing keeping transit from being competitive is a heavily subsidized highway system. Transit systems can never be competitive if the real costs of driving are hidden in general taxes, gas taxes, the purchase of a car, maintenance of a car, the cost of gas, free parking (which gets added to the prices of goods…etc.) We need to start having a conversation that isn’t anti-transit or anti-road, but takes into consideration the efficiency and efficacy of spending money on an infrastructure that cannot adjust to changing conditions, or a dynamic, multi-modal solution that is priced honestly and transparently.
THWM: Though a big part of the problem is that for so long transport policy in America has been based on discrimination.
I don’t complain against about road infront of my house.
Yet lobbyists like Cox & O’Toole get paid to produce bullshit against transit?
Also if groups like Cato & Reason(sic) say they want more liberty, why then do they want to restict for others?
THWM: “Also if groups like Cato & Reason(sic) say they want more liberty, why then do they want to restict for others?”
ws: There lies the oxymoron approach of most libertarian groups. They take hard-line stances but are often contradictory. They champion free markets but completely ignore the fixed transportation market in the US, nor the drastic (if not semi-socialistic) events that occurred that destroyed private transportation systems (that payed property taxes) with highways system that were free from similar taxation rates and sources of funds.
Merely acknowledging these facts would be a start.
The “anti-planner” name is a great oxymoron for that matter.
Even highways have to be planned.
ws: Merely acknowledging these facts would be a start.
It’s ironic that O’Toole compared him self to the Joker.
I’m all for civil liberties, but libertrians just want to grift people.