Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bad Economics

honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 3:48:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wasting 100 billion jobs on "high speed" rails.

If it was economically feasible businesses would build the rails.

All in the name of "creating jobs" AKA wasting 100 billion dollars of taxpayer money on special interests.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 3:54:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol get it right bro "$8 billion in grants". This means it's partially funded by the Obama administration.

Besides, it creates immediate and permanent jobs. He wouldn't go through with it if it wasn't viable.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 3:55:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
He's not creating jobs. The $8 billion is coming from the taxpayers, as the government has no money. If the public wanted high-speed rails, then the market would supply it. The demand for high-speed rails do not exist. Subverting capital from where taxpayers could have spent it themselves is foolish. That $8 billion dollars would have either been saved by taxpayers (good) or spent on other goods and services, which in turn would create jobs (good). Indeed, bad economics.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 3:57:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

They get employed by the new industry.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 3:59:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 3:57:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

They get employed by the new industry.

So it's a transfer of jobs at best. That just means that jobs are (a) lost or (b) stay the same at the cost of the taxpayer.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:00:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 3:57:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

They get employed by the new industry.

Except they don't all get employed by it. Some fraction that's left does, after one realizes that there is less valuable product to be the referent of what they are paid. This leads to either unemployment or lower wages or some combination thereof.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:03:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:00:20 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs

How?

You left out part of my post.

What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

If a newer or green industry is created, then that destroys the older industry by making it (a) obsolete or (b) just forcing them out of business. Those industries that are destroyed will, obviously, leave all employees out of work. Thus, creating a destruction of jobs.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:05:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:04:32 PM, honkerburger wrote:
Why hasn't the rail been done by public companies? Reason: Its not profitable.

I think you mean private companies.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:06:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

cash for clunkers to save auto manufacturers

A high speed rail to destroy the auto manufacturers.

Tons of sense.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:07:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:05:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/30/2010 4:04:32 PM, honkerburger wrote:
Why hasn't the rail been done by public companies? Reason: Its not profitable.

I think you mean private companies.

lol yes i do
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:13:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:06:32 PM, honkerburger wrote:
cash for clunkers

http://www.edmunds.com...

"Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:15:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 3:59:33 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/30/2010 3:57:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

They get employed by the new industry.

So it's a transfer of jobs at best. That just means that jobs are (a) lost or (b) stay the same at the cost of the taxpayer.

But the said industry is better.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:16:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:06:32 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/30/2010 3:57:21 PM, Nags wrote:
Oh yeah, his plan destroys jobs, just like other green jobs and other nonsense. What does he think happens to the workers who had their industries and jobs destroyed by this government plan?

cash for clunkers to save auto manufacturers

A high speed rail to destroy the auto manufacturers.

Tons of sense.

I think you'll find few people are willing to buy cars for the sole purpose of driving across states which the rail offers transport to.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:16:17 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I think you'll find few people are willing to buy cars for the sole purpose of driving across states which the rail offers transport to.

LOL so you think that by supplying something you create an equivalent demand for it?
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:23:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:15:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
But the said industry is better.

Better in the equivalent of taxpayer dollars being spent? I think not. Thus a waste of resources.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:24:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:15:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
But the said industry is better.

Not really. There's an optimum time for replacement of an industry with a higher-tech or newer version of said industry. Just became something is "newer", doesn't mean that something is "better", as you claim. If this were true, then owners of plants and factories and the equipment therein should just destroy them for newer plants and factories and equipment. This isn't profitable though. One should not replace said commodities unless the commodities have become valueless or have required a negative value -- either by depreciation or just by becoming obsolete. The industry isn't better, it's just newer.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:26:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:21:03 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/30/2010 4:16:17 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I think you'll find few people are willing to buy cars for the sole purpose of driving across states which the rail offers transport to.

LOL so you think that by supplying something you create an equivalent demand for it?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com...

Who will buy a car for the sole purpose of driving to the destinations on said map? Maybe a handful of idiots. The vast majority of people buy cars for convenience. Going to work, going to the stores, etc, not long road trips.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:27:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:23:24 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/30/2010 4:15:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
But the said industry is better.

Better in the equivalent of taxpayer dollars being spent? I think not. Thus a waste of resources.

.....Which eventually pays itself off.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:29:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:26:42 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Who will buy a car for the sole purpose of driving to the destinations on said map? Maybe a handful of idiots. The vast majority of people buy cars for convenience. Going to work, going to the stores, etc, not long road trips.

Protip: People buy 2 cars if two people work. If someone commutes to a city (which ridiculous amounts of people in the suburbs do. They will take a bus to the train depot and use the train to commute. Since the car won't be driven to the city the family will only need 1 car.

If both work in the city they probably will still buy a car, however it will be driven far less thus be used much less and thus not wear out much less. Therefore the demand for vehicles will decline.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:33:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:27:15 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
.....Which eventually pays itself off.

No it doesn't. If it "paid itself off" and was the most profitable (cheapest) and safest for of transportation the market would have supplied it. The technology has existed for a long time. Therefore it states within reason that since the rails haven't been supplied they haven't been demanded.

Lets put it in perspective. Lets say the UK bought flying cars for everyone living in London. Do you think this is a good thing since the industry is better and it will eventually pay itself off?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:33:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:29:49 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/30/2010 4:26:42 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Who will buy a car for the sole purpose of driving to the destinations on said map? Maybe a handful of idiots. The vast majority of people buy cars for convenience. Going to work, going to the stores, etc, not long road trips.

Protip: People buy 2 cars if two people work. If someone commutes to a city (which ridiculous amounts of people in the suburbs do. They will take a bus to the train depot and use the train to commute. Since the car won't be driven to the city the family will only need 1 car.

If both work in the city they probably will still buy a car, however it will be driven far less thus be used much less and thus not wear out much less. Therefore the demand for vehicles will decline.

These are national high speed rails. They don't go from suburb to city, rather, city to city.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:34:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:29:49 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/30/2010 4:26:42 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Who will buy a car for the sole purpose of driving to the destinations on said map? Maybe a handful of idiots. The vast majority of people buy cars for convenience. Going to work, going to the stores, etc, not long road trips.

Protip: People buy 2 cars if two people work. If someone commutes to a city (which ridiculous amounts of people in the suburbs do. They will take a bus to the train depot and use the train to commute. Since the car won't be driven to the city the family will only need 1 car.

If both work in the city they probably will still buy a car, however it will be driven far less thus be used much less and thus not wear out much less. Therefore the demand for vehicles will decline.

Actually there is usually a balance between the intercity rails/buses and cars. The more crowded the roads, the more the demand for rails and buses goes up. When more people begin riding the rails and buses, that frees up the roads (to some point, pending the degree that people move to rails and buses) to make it easier for those that choose to stay on the roads. Everyone wins. those that chose to use the service, and those that benefit from others getting off the road, lowing the amount of traffic jams.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
These are national high speed rails. They don't go from suburb to city, rather, city to city.

Do you think that the cities are the only places that these rails stop?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:36:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:35:58 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/30/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
These are national high speed rails. They don't go from suburb to city, rather, city to city.

Do you think that the cities are the only places that these rails stop?

Do you think High speed rails go from Suburb to city centre?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2010 4:38:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/30/2010 4:34:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually there is usually a balance between the intercity rails/buses and cars. The more crowded the roads, the more the demand for rails and buses goes up. When more people begin riding the rails and buses, that frees up the roads (to some point, pending the degree that people move to rails and buses) to make it easier for those that choose to stay on the roads. Everyone wins. those that chose to use the service, and those that benefit from others getting off the road, lowing the amount of traffic jams.

Your right, thank god obama saved us from traffic jams. No one else built the rails because they were just too stupid and didn't know how to build them. Thank the lord we have the government behind the drivers seat of our economy. They know what we need better than we know.