I have long been critical of big corporations and their out of control greed but that statement would seem to be as bad in the other direction. If I'm misjudging Mr. Cortez please let me know. I don't care for extremes very much, most people don't live in the far far left or the far far right. Most people live somewhere in the middle, maybe venturing a little to the left at times and venturing to the right a little at times. Just my opinionOriginally Posted by sturg33
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...o-america.html
Following the horrible devastation of World War II, the United States was the only economic power on Earth with undamaged industrial and agricultural sectors. To rebuild the world economy, the U.S. worked to reduce trade barriers and spread free-market capitalism.
At the same time, our trading partners imposed high trade barriers on certain products, while we allowed their goods to flow more freely into the U.S.
...
Changing times require changing policies. Just because America’s trade practices made sense decades ago does not mean these same trade practices make sense in the 21st century.
We have moved beyond the post-World War II and Cold War period when America’s economic dominance was unchallenged and trade concessions were essential to worldwide economic growth. While our trading partners’ economies have meaningfully improved, America’s approach to trade failed to adjust, leading to increasingly large trade deficits.
For example, the U.S. imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on car imports. But American car manufacturers must pay a 10 percent tariff to sell their cars in Europe – four times higher than Europeans must pay to sell their cars in the U.S. This helps explain why German manufacturers sell three cars in America for every car we sell in Germany. It also helps explain why our trade in goods deficit with Germany was $64 billion in 2017.
Japan’s protectionist trade barriers are so restrictive that in 1989 the Reagan administration labeled Japan an unfair trading partner. Today those protectionist policies largely remain in place. As a result, Japanese car manufacturers sell 100 cars in the U.S. for every car we sell in Japan. Our trade deficit in goods with Japan stood at $49 billion in 1989. It jumped to $69 billion in 2017.
While China is not as yet a major auto exporting nation, since 2008 it has manufactured more cars annually than any other nation. It primarily sells those cars inexpensively within China, while imposing a 25 percent tariff on American cars imported into the country.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
The misspelled “prophets”
Ivermectin Man
But muh data.
Pretty much every Democrat and supporter of Democrats gets called a socialist regardless, so it's kinda interesting to see what people do with an actual socialist.
It's also interesting to see your response to an idea that's as far out of the box in one direction as yours are in another.
was "abolish profit" aimed at for profit prisons ?
that seems to make more sense in the context of the banner
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
The data shows rapidly declining ridership
Curious what you think that is.
And I have news for you, if you don't allow a business to make a profit, you won't have any government services
Um, the data shows declining ridership. It also shows 600K/day trips, which flies in the face of the author's consclusion and your anecdotal contribution. Correct?
Well, I'm not advocating for abolishing profit, though I'm in favor of policy that effectively does so in certain segments of certain economical sectors.
So, dude. Indulge me. You say you want discussions that are predicated on data. I offer a data point that obviates the conclusion of the author, and, by extension, yourself. You don't address it, but simply say that "well, ridership is declining."
Rideshare services are going to kill cab companies, yeah. But public transit is another thing entirely, and you can't just say dumb **** like "nobody rides the Metro" when it's just patently untrue. Your personal experience is irrelevant. Come on. At least put forth a little effort.
Holy **** dude... I wasn't sure what you meant with your snarky data comment.
I'll address your point when I'm off mobile. Happy to have a discussion finally. Calm down
OK.. so a few points here.
1. The ridership of metro or uber/lyft is irrelevant to me. The government is deciding to tax one in order to pay for theirs. That's government in a nutshell - tax sucess and subsidize failure
2. I can't find data of ride-sharing in DC either, but I feel comfortable we can use national trends to understand that at a minimum, growth in ride-sharing is soaring. Of course the metro would suffer from this
3. The metro is a city embarrassment... and their ridership is declining rapidly.
That second sentence - specifically about weekend ridership, is heavily due to ride sharing. Also - I can't find any data posted but they are already acknowledging that 2019 is worse than last yearUpdated 2017 weekday ridership numbers show an average of 612,652 linked trips across the entire Metrorail system last year, the fewest since 2000. Weekend ridership has cratered in Northern Virginia, new data provided to the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) show.
From WTOP last year
Metro has additionally raised prices on fares as well as parking, which I'll project is adding to declining ridership“Service disruptions due to the SafeTrack program have affected rail and bus ridership in many corridors, and overall ridership continues to face service reliability challenges as well as the impact of alternative transportation options,
But after reading your post and looking at more data, I'm not sure what you're quibbling about. Nobody is saying that ride share can outright replace metro, but it is eating into the business, according to metro itself. So, what does the government do? It penalizes the successful service that customers love, in favor of subsidizing the service that customers hate. That is bad economics, in my opinion.In the article it says that Metro ridership is down because of poor infrastructure, etc, and that it's using old infrastructure to serve a larger community than it was designed for. How are we to take from that the idea that private rideshare should be considered a viable substitute for public transit?
The fallacy here in your argument is you're so quick to make it one or the other.OK.. so a few points here.
1. The ridership of metro or uber/lyft is irrelevant to me. The government is deciding to tax one in order to pay for theirs. That's government in a nutshell - tax sucess and subsidize failure
2. I can't find data of ride-sharing in DC either, but I feel comfortable we can use national trends to understand that at a minimum, growth in ride-sharing is soaring. Of course the metro would suffer from this
3. The metro is a city embarrassment... and their ridership is declining rapidly.
That second sentence - specifically about weekend ridership, is heavily due to ride sharing. Also - I can't find any data posted but they are already acknowledging that 2019 is worse than last year
From WTOP last year
Metro has additionally raised prices on fares as well as parking, which I'll project is adding to declining ridership
But after reading your post and looking at more data, I'm not sure what you're quibbling about. Nobody is saying that ride share can outright replace metro, but it is eating into the business, according to metro itself. So, what does the government do? It penalizes the successful service that customers love, in favor of subsidizing the service that customers hate. That is bad economics, in my opinion.
Your argument is Ridesharing is increasing because people hate Metro. Metro has needed help for a long time and it's no secret to anyone that uses it. That's not necessarily that people hate it, it's just it's been neglected too many times by those in charge. It gets refurbished but it needs upgrades. You're taking lower ridership as a sign that people are against it. On the contrary, I think people are using it less because they know the people responsible for watching it's decay continue to neglect it.
I would argue that the lack of investment in public transit is why ridesharing has increased. More cars on the road, more traffic. Naturally people don't wanna be stuck in traffic, so they'd rather pay the convenience of sitting in the backseat of an Uber than deal with congested roads due to poor planning by cities who haven't prepared for the future with public transit options.
Why can't we live in a world where strong public transit is a thing, complimenting or complimented by ridesharing?
Speaking of ridesharing, we all know the end game for Uber and Lyft. They're losing money, just stalling as long as they can until self-driving becomes a thing and they no longer need to pay drivers. They go through drivers left and right.
Forever Fredi
No I'm not. I think people like ride sharing because they like it more than metro. I know I do. You don't?The fallacy here in your argument is you're so quick to make it one or the other.
Your argument is Ridesharing is increasing because people hate Metro.
Well that's generally what declining sales mean... but there could be other factors, such as:You're taking lower ridership as a sign that people are against it.
1. Reduction in services - not applicable, as they recently opened a silver line and are working on a purple line now
2. Declining population - not applicable as population is soaring in the area
3. Reduction in quality/value - ding ding ding
4. Better alternatives - ding ding ding
Uh, okOn the contrary, I think people are using it less because they know the people responsible for watching it's decay continue to neglect it.
You could make that argument. But I'd need to see data to believe it. If that were the case we wouldn't be seeing a decline in taxi services, right?I would argue that the lack of investment in public transit is why ridesharing has increased.
Generally because the public can't provide strong public transit. I do support a great mass transit systemWhy can't we live in a world where strong public transit is a thing, complimenting or complimented by ridesharing?
Fine by me.Speaking of ridesharing, we all know the end game for Uber and Lyft. They're losing money, just stalling as long as they can until self-driving becomes a thing and they no longer need to pay drivers.
Well, my original objection, was to the statement that a service that people used was being favored over a service that people didn't use. And that's just utterly wrong, which was the point I was hoping you'd address.
I'm fine with the idea that Metro ridership is declining, though like SAV I have thoughts about the reasons underpinning the decline.
It was a dumb statement that is contradicted by observable fact, and your response was a personal anecdote.
I get what you're saying about the economics of the tax scheme, although I am fine with incentivizing public transit, if for no other reason than because moving individuals around in small fossil-burning boxes is ultimately a dumb, inefficient, and unsustainable idea. The externalities and costs ultimately paid by the polity, go way beyond the baseline economics of rideshare.
The minimum wage is a job killer.
acesfull86 (07-06-2018)
I'm not really going to engage the big picture, i.e. the third paragraph that's quoted, but the reasoning overall leaves a lot to be desired.
The author's only real argument against capitalism being coercive is that workers have a right to quit. That's hardly compelling. Further, they cite a majority of workers being satisfied with "most" aspects of their jobs...job security, flexibility, immediate superior. Notice anything missing there?
"Over the last few decades, infant and child mortality have been drastically reduced, lifespans are at an all-time high, fewer people are undernourished, educational attainment is growing, gender inequality is decreasing, and access to technology is expanding."
Lifespans and infant mortality in the US got significantly better from the '60s to the early '90s and have essentially leveled off. We lag behind peer nations here by a considerable margin. Shouldn't our less-fettered capitalism and wealth generation have us leading the pack here?
Finally, the author throws in this gem, beloved of libertarians everywhere: "In many ways, today’s poor live better than the kings of yesteryear." This is just plain silly.
Why?The author's only real argument against capitalism being coercive is that workers have a right to quit. That's hardly compelling.
I assume you mean income? The US ranks 2nd in the world in PPP, trailing only Luxembourg. It may surprise you that the US is substantially larger than Luxembourg. The US destroys similarly sized countries in average income earningsFurther, they cite a majority of workers being satisfied with "most" aspects of their jobs...job security, flexibility, immediate superior. Notice anything missing there?
I don't think we have a capitalistic economy... and certainly, have gotten less so over the last few decades. But I will say that freer economies likes ours allow for unhealthy habits, and free markets allow for an enormous abundance of food and access to things that other countries don't enjoy.Lifespans and infant mortality in the US got significantly better from the '60s to the early '90s and have essentially leveled off. We lag behind peer nations here by a considerable margin. Shouldn't our less-fettered capitalism and wealth generation have us leading the pack here?
Maybe a bit of a hyperbole... but it's certainly not silly and really a testament to how far we have come. There's been lots of research on this topic, if you're open to reading about itFinally, the author throws in this gem, beloved of libertarians everywhere: "In many ways, today’s poor live better than the kings of yesteryear." This is just plain silly.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...-united-states
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
