The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?

[quote name='dorino']I do, actually. People responsible for traffic accidents are held responsible, right?[/QUOTE]

Gotta hand it to thrust, he is tenacious.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We spend $520 million per year for 28 million people to ride a train and $25.185 billion per year for the remaining 280 million people to drive on federal interstates.

The taxpayer subsidy for train is $18.57.

The taxpayer subsidy for car is $89.94.[/QUOTE]

By this same metric, what is the per taxpayer cost of corporate welfare vs. individual welfare?
 
re strell and foc:
orson-wells-clapping.gif
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']"Since 1972 Amtrak has received more than $13 billion of federal subsidies."

$520 million per YEAR in subsidies for a more efficient form of transportation. (The article was published in 1997.)

http://ask.yahoo.com/20040507.html

"According to this piece in the Seattle Times, Americans used 8.93 million barrels of gasoline a day in 2003. A barrel holds 42 gallons, so that's roughly 375 million gallons per day."

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

"The Federal Gas Tax is 18.4 cpg"

$25.185 billion per YEAR in subsidies for a less efficient form of transportation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815170729322339.html

"Overall, Amtrak is on pace to serve a record 28 million passengers in its current fiscal year, up from the previous high of 25.8 million last year."

...

We spend $520 million per year for 28 million people to ride a train and $25.185 billion per year for the remaining 280 million people to drive on federal interstates.

The taxpayer subsidy for train is $18.57.

The taxpayer subsidy for car is $89.94.[/QUOTE]

Not sure where you are going with this, but people actually drive cars, >1% of the population rides trains. This isnt about accessability, I bet train capacity for the entire year is far more than 28 million. Not to mention I thought you would hate train subsidies since at least back in the ninetys, mostly wealthy people used them. As we are seeing with ethanol, all the subsidies in the world are not going to make people ride trains more. We have a train here in Buffalo, and they want to build another one for some reason, even though noone uses the first one.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not sure where you are going with this, but people actually drive cars, >1% of the population rides trains.[/QUOTE]
If we spent on tracks and track maintenance what we drop on highway spending bills, people would ride in trains and laugh off the idea of everyone owning cars.
 
[quote name='speedracer']If we spent on tracks and track maintenance what we drop on highway spending bills, people would ride in trains and laugh off the idea of everyone owning cars.[/QUOTE]

wanna bet?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not sure where you are going with this...[/QUOTE]

Knoell doesn't understand something.

Rather than apt insults, let's try it a different way.

Is it cheaper to drive to work in a 10 year old economy car with no monthly payment or in a 1 year old semi truck with a monthly payment?
 
[quote name='Knoell']wanna bet?[/QUOTE]
Bet on a theoretical position? How would we go about doing that?

The 2005 federal highway bill spent $293.7 billion over six years. The one before was $33.6 billion per year, again six years. So we've dropped a half a trillion dollars on highways over the last 12 years. The current bill is looking like it will be six years/$500 bil, putting us at a flat trillion over the last 18 years.

But that's only the federal government. The state of Texas and city of Houston combined spent $6 billion for highway maintenance in Houston alone from FY1992 to 2001. When you sum up Houston and Dallas, Texas paid $11billion during that span. Just the state's part! Houston has been allotted $43 billion for maintenance from 2000-2020. Just Houston! And just the state's part!

The money that goes into highways and maintenance is mind boggling. We can't possibly imagine what our world would look like if we used the money on trains and the like because the amount of money we're talking about is so large.

There's other sources, like the 9% of the stimulus that went to highways. That's a cool $70.83 billion that'll never be noticed. A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.
 
Since we're talking about roads and road construction, can someone come down to southeastern Ohio and run a seminar training the dumbfucks here how to properly use a roundabout?

My town just crushed an intersection to install one at a cost of $3 million, and in the 3 days it has been open, I've been nearly hit 3 times (out of a total 5 going through it) by people that don't have a fucking clue how to use one (or alternately what YIELD means). Maybe that's Obama's plan: stimulate the economy by sending everyone in town to the body shop or car dealer.
 
speed,

knoell uses the words "bet" and "guarantee" to cover up the fact he has zero worthwhile to say in response but doesn't want to admit it.
 
i hate amtrak. i wish they could become profitable and lower their prices. every time i look for a train ticket i always end up flying or driving because its often times cheaper or as much.
 
The problem with trains for local transit is that you're at the whim of the track designer and whatever sprouts up along the line. I mean really, I can't go grocery shopping using a train as my mode of transportation.
Once you get enough stops along a light rail line to make shopping reasonable, you've taken away the speed of travel that made it a good idea in the first place.

For cross country travel, train is definitely better than bus, especially if you get a private car so you can stretch out, LOCK YOUR DOOR take a nap or whatever. Also, you can get completely shitfaced on a train and hardly anyone notices. Greyhound is a nightmare, especially in large Urban areas because people are basically swine and completely unaccomodating to anyone else.

But what it all comes down to is that our cars are the fastest and easiest method of travel. Well aside from airplanes but you can't hop onto a plane for a five mile trip...
 
[quote name='nasum']The problem with trains for local transit is that you're at the whim of the track designer and whatever sprouts up along the line. I mean really, I can't go grocery shopping using a train as my mode of transportation. Once you get enough stops along a light rail line to make shopping reasonable, you've taken away the speed of travel that made it a good idea in the first place.[/QUOTE]
That's why you have express lines and non-express lines. Developers understand this, which is why they build like crazy on property where rail lines are extended. Portland is a great example of that.

You're not going to fix it all in a year or 4. You have a plan and do it in phases. 99% of our travel is to work and picking up random shit from random stores. That's no problem for rail.

There's other implications as well. Like Americans getting off their fat asses and walking a block to the station, then a block to the store, then back. The horror of using a rolling cart!
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i hate amtrak. i wish they could become profitable and lower their prices. every time i look for a train ticket i always end up flying or driving because its often times cheaper or as much.[/QUOTE]

Amtrak isn't going to be profitable unless it has equal footing with high volume and short distance traveling such as morning and afternoon commutes.

Build a bridge exclusively for a train between Louisville and Jeffersonville and you'll make a mint.

...

Flying is cheaper than riding a train because there is only two points of infrastructure.

The speed difference is key since you don't have to staff an airplane as long as a train and the time factor for a hurried person.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Flying is cheaper than riding a train because there is only two points of infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
There's another industry that gets ridonkulous subsidies and monopoly protection.
 
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/20...-play-in-the-well-endgame/?xid=rss-topstories
As a result, work on the relief well—which had been tantalizingly close to completion—had to be halted, and the weather could even force Allen to reopen the cap that has stanched the flow of oil into the Gulf over the past week. If a tropical storm does end up passing near the well site, Allen will be forced to pull back his ships and stop relief well drilling until the storm is passed. And because moving all those ships takes time, he'll need a cushion on either side. "If we have to evacuate the area to move off the area and then come back and redeploy, we can be looking at 10 to 14 day gaps in whatever our line of operations are," Allen said Wednesday morning.
​
Click to expand...


I hope they do not need to reopen the cap for this storm.
​
 
[quote name='speedracer']Our briefing this morning said 7 of 10 predictive models had the storm coming within 150 miles of Houston, so it's not looking good.[/QUOTE]

Quit being a pussy. You said you wanted cheap property. God delivers.
 
Alright, not oil related, but close enough. Why aren't there more solar panels? I mean just on random buildings and shit. It doesn't seem like they're really all that expensive and would be a good investment for many businesses (maybe a little too expensive upfront for a lot of individuals at this point).
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Quit being a pussy. You said you wanted cheap property. God delivers.[/QUOTE]
I specifically asked for a 3br, 2 1/2 bath with no pool. God let me down again.
[quote name='SpazX']Alright, not oil related, but close enough. Why aren't there more solar panels? I mean just on random buildings and shit. It doesn't seem like they're really all that expensive and would be a good investment for many businesses (maybe a little too expensive upfront for a lot of individuals at this point).[/QUOTE]
Because everyone runs their electricity network differently so there's a bajillion different specs so you can't make 1 or 2 or 5 models and sell it to entities (companies, peeps, etc), who would then sell the generated power to energy companies. That's important because as soon as you could do that, you'd have a shit ton of people buying from you so they could sell back which would further lower the costs, making it cheaper for everyone.

The federal government could force em (and Chu has complained and suggested it) but without that, it won't happen. Gotta up demand. Gotta find a standard so demand can get to it cheaply and efficiently. States won't do it because it would dramatically reduce their own political power over the process. Texas has a GIGANTIC political (and fee) structure built around maintaining the status quo and naturally their status quo works no where else.

Also, Republicans hate that idea because it's big government and regulation. Rawr bad.

That's the condensed version.
 
From testimony today:
An electronics technician aboard the ill-fated oil rig Deepwater Horizon told an investigative panel Friday that an alarm system was partially shut down on the day the rig exploded.

Mike Williams, who worked for rig owner Transocean Ltd., said a three-way alarm system to warn of fire, explosive gas and toxic gas was turned on to monitor conditions, but its sound and light alarms had been disabled.

He testified he knew the alarm settings from a computer monitor into which it fed. He said in 2009 he asked about the settings and was told the company "didn't want people looking up at 3 a.m. to a false alarm."

Williams said that if the system had been fully operational, an alarm likely would have sounded before the explosion, which happened late on the night of April 20.

Williams testified he had no warning of the blast before it occurred.

The rig's drilling room also had chronic computer problems, including one computer that carried the nickname "the blue screen of death," he said

Williams said the computer had a 1990s operating system and was subject to periodic failure.

Williams also said the Deepwater Horizon was to be sent to a shipyard for extensive repairs. He said he was told the rig would be there for an extended time because "it was in very bad shape."

The Deepwater Horizon was working in the Gulf of Mexico about 40 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River when it exploded and burned.

The rig sank two days later. Since then, millions of gallons of oil have poured into the Gulf.

The Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement will conclude a week of hearings on Friday, then resume Aug. 23-27 in Houston.
Click to expand...
Transocean just got itself a gold ticket to the liability ball.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We're done with shitting on Amtrak, right?[/QUOTE]

Which one is government run and subsidized?

We're not devoid of those people who simply can't speak reasonably, and instead knee-jerk take the reactionary right stance on anything? Like thrustbucket didn't spontaneously combust, right? And he didn't suddenly start allowing himself to deviate from the idea that government run orgs are alwaysalwaysalways run worse than private industry, right? On second though, spontaneous combustion is more likely.

Yeah, so, we're not done with Amtrak. teh frie markit solv eberyting!
 
Penn State and Ohio State are run horribly and are terrible compared to Harvard myke, didn't you know that, fucking libtard?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which one is government run and subsidized?

We're not devoid of those people who simply can't speak reasonably, and instead knee-jerk take the reactionary right stance on anything? Like thrustbucket didn't spontaneously combust, right? And he didn't suddenly start allowing himself to deviate from the idea that government run orgs are alwaysalwaysalways run worse than private industry, right? On second though, spontaneous combustion is more likely.

Yeah, so, we're not done with Amtrak. teh frie markit solv eberyting![/QUOTE]

It sounds like the only thing that's spontaneously combusted is all the mirrors in your house.

PS - You're weak-minded mis-characterization of me is an outright lie, and you know it is. Who's not trying now?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Bet on a theoretical position? How would we go about doing that?

The 2005 federal highway bill spent $293.7 billion over six years. The one before was $33.6 billion per year, again six years. So we've dropped a half a trillion dollars on highways over the last 12 years. The current bill is looking like it will be six years/$500 bil, putting us at a flat trillion over the last 18 years.

But that's only the federal government. The state of Texas and city of Houston combined spent $6 billion for highway maintenance in Houston alone from FY1992 to 2001. When you sum up Houston and Dallas, Texas paid $11billion during that span. Just the state's part! Houston has been allotted $43 billion for maintenance from 2000-2020. Just Houston! And just the state's part!

The money that goes into highways and maintenance is mind boggling. We can't possibly imagine what our world would look like if we used the money on trains and the like because the amount of money we're talking about is so large.

There's other sources, like the 9% of the stimulus that went to highways. That's a cool $70.83 billion that'll never be noticed. A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.[/QUOTE]

Sigh....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Public_funding
Along these lines, in a June 2008 interview with Reuters,[57] Amtrak President Alex Kummant made specific observations: $10 billion per year is transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund; $2.7 billion is granted to the FAA; $8 billion goes to "security and life safety for cruise ships." Overall, Kummant claims that Amtrak receives $40 in federal funds per passenger, while highways are subsidized at a rate of $500–$700 per automobile. Moreover, Amtrak provides all of its own security, while airport security is a separate federal subsidy. Kummant added: "Let's not even get into airport construction which is a miasma of state, federal and local tax breaks and tax refinancing and God knows what."
Click to expand...

According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[75] On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak. The analysis does not consider social costs and benefits, or difficult to quantify effects of some regulation, such as safety regulation
Click to expand...

Huh, it seems that per passenger trains are subsidized far less, but they dont take the passenger nearly as far as any other mode of transportation on that subsidization. Secondly if more than the 97% of the country that drives cars suddenly switched to trains, wouldn't the goverment HAVE to spend far more than they are on cars to maintain that capacity?

In reality with trains its not about the cost, the routes that they take are not filled as they are now. People just don't want to ride them whereever they go now the trains are not filled to capacity, people dont want to have to live by a train schedule, they don't want to have to wait for a train to go somewhere. Sigh I guess you guys still wont get it, but I tried at least. You can call Americans greedy, environment killers, whatever but it is silly of you all to attempt to convince people that trains are only failing because of lack of subsidization, and the over subsidization of cars, but not the personal preference of Americans. It is also silly of you all to think any amount of money will change that.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Keep it simple, Knoell. How much is the federal government spending to move 28 million people around per year on trains?

I want you to set the number.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to multiply it by 100? Because the basic costs for 28 million people sure will stay the same when you increase capacity 100 fold right? :roll: As you increase capacity you will need to spend more than you did before to increase that capacity 100 fold.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/feinberg_bp_hasnt_put_money_in.html[/QUOTE]

So whats your problem with this article? Did you see the one little line that the article slipped half way down the article?

The company has continued to pay claims while Feinberg waits to take over.
As of Saturday it had paid $243 million in claims, according to company records, none of which will be counted against the $20 billion.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Knoell']Are you going to multiply it by 100? Because the basic costs for 28 million people sure will stay the same when you increase capacity 100 fold right? :roll: As you increase capacity you will need to spend more than you did before to increase that capacity 100 fold.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'll increase that cost 100 fold as soon as America has 2.8 billion people.

In the meantime, I suppose I'll increase that cost 12 fold because America currently has less than 310 million people. The extra fold allows the population to grow another 27 million.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/...30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing

Now, here is your part of the game. Please provide a number the federal government would have to spend per year to transport 28 million people. You can pull it out of thin air or you can provide some documentation to back it up, but please provide a number of some sort.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, I'll increase that cost 100 fold as soon as America has 2.8 billion people.

In the meantime, I suppose I'll increase that cost 12 fold because America currently has less than 310 million people. The extra fold allows the population to grow another 27 million.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/...30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing

Now, here is your part of the game. Please provide a number the federal government would have to spend per year to transport 28 million people. You can pull it out of thin air or you can provide some documentation to back it up, but please provide a number of some sort.[/QUOTE]

If it costs X amount of money to support >1% of the population riding trains, wouldn't it take 100 times that amount of money to support 99 or 100% of the population?

It isn't just that simple to calculate how much that would cost, you would be leaving too many factors out. Think of it like this: If you are building a 1 story building, and it costs 500,000 to build. You couldnt just multiply that cost by 10 to get the cost of a 100 story building.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Provide a dollar amount, Knoell. I'm not asking for anything complicated.[/QUOTE]

I know what you are trying to do, and Ive already explained what is wrong with your simple plan.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I know what you are trying to do, and Ive already explained what is wrong with your simple plan.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'm so devious.

How much would it cost replace everything cars and trucks do with trains?

Just pluck a number out of thin air or put some effort into it.

Can you do that?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, I'm so devious.

How much would it cost replace everything cars and trucks do with trains?

Just pluck a number out of thin air or put some effort into it.

Can you do that?[/QUOTE]

2 :roll:
 
[quote name='Knoell']2 :roll:[/QUOTE]
I think what he's trying do is make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

It's working.
 
[quote name='dorino']I think what he's trying do is make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

It's working.[/QUOTE]

Explain to me what hes trying to do that is making me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Ill take your lack of response as proof you don't know what you are talking about.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Explain to me what hes trying to do that is making me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Ill take your lack of response as proof you don't know what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

What I'm trying to do is get you to buy into an argument.

It is one thing to say "You're wrong and here's why."

It is another thing to say "Based on your starting point, you're wrong and here's why."
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What I'm trying to do is get you to buy into an argument.

It is one thing to say "You're wrong and here's why."

It is another thing to say "Based on your starting point, you're wrong and here's why."[/QUOTE]

Then by all means explain your point, why do you need a number from me? I have already explained why increasing it like that would be wrong, which is what you said you wanted to do and yet now you claim you really didn't mean to do it that way, but will not explain how else you would calculate it. I bet that if you go back in time to when cars first appeared and serviced 1% of the population, you wouldn't be able to multiply the government spending by twelve and get the amount necessary to service what it does today. Accounting for inflation of course. Why do you think this would be accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top