zrm@mit-eddi.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (06/11/83)
How about taking the broader view that an enterprise like a railroad, a health service, a coal mine or whatever that cannot be run at a profit should not be run at all. Please don't bitch that the capitalists are hobbling the government with unprofitable enterprises. Why are railroads a priori good? Why should big cities be subsidized, when they breed so much crime and pollution? If we stopped backing these crippled horses we might be richer and have a cleaner envioronment as well. Cheers, Zig
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (06/15/83)
Zig has reminded me of another problem with our capitalist system in practice: ...an enterprise like a railroad, a health service, a coal mine or whatever that cannot be run at a profit should not be run at all... Why are railroads a priori good? Why should big cities be subsidized, when they breed so much crime and pollution? If we stopped backing these crippled horses we might be richer and have a cleaner envioronment (sic) as well. In other words, in the capitalist system, anything that cannot survive in the current market deserves to die. This principle might almost be reasonable, if it were only applied consistently across the board. To address Zig's example of the railroads -- the reason why railroads are "a priori good" is they are far and above the most efficient means of land transportation. A train uses one sixth the energy and produces one sixth the pollution that a truck does for the same freight haulage. Also, it requires about 3.6 times more energy to produce the materials necessary for a highway than for a railroad track accommodating comparable traffic. Finally, a highway takes up about a 400 feet right of way, while a railroad takes up only 100 feet. It should be obvious that trains are inherently more efficient and cause much less environmental impact, but for some reason trucks have steadily been displacing trains since WWII. Part of the reason must have something to do with the enormous costs of building and maintaining private railroad tracks. Trucks are able to use the public roads at little cost. Yes, I know that truckers pay road taxes, but the money is not even enough to pay for the road damage they cause. This amounts to nothing other than a public subsidy for truckers. If the public is going to subsidize one form of transportation over another, then we might as well put our money where it is going to do us the most good in the long run. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore P.S. Please, no flames about how a train will never be able to deliver frozen apple pie to your local Safeway -- I realize that trucks have their place.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (06/17/83)
On Jon White's comparison between highways and railroads: Why are railroads expected to return a profit while the Interstate highway system, the largest public works program in the history of the world (costing between $100 and $400 billion), has never been asked to show a return? Which airports have been closed because they weren't profitable? And yet the entire FAA exists to subsidize air transport. This is NOT an argument against government subsidy. I'm just pointing out that subsidies exist everywhere, so it's ridiculous to argue that railroads should die if they "can't survive in the marketplace."
zrm@mit-eddi.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (06/18/83)
Your defense of trains ignores a whole class of very complicated economic interplay: Trains are more mechanically efficient, and hence eat less fossil fuel. But trains are remarkably labor intensive. But with better management that might not be a problem. But the cost of refurbishing all that track might cost too much. But if we decontrolled the cost of jet fuel trains might be able to compete. And so on, back and forth. The point is that nobody can know how these interactions will balence out. One can make educated guesses: Medium size cities will make it, big ones won't, etc. But deregulation does cut both ways. For example, nuclear power might well be uneconomical with the government support it gets. How popular will that make me with "Big Energy"? The problem with mucking around with intervention when the odds against doing it right are so high is that it costs jobs, money, and the liberty to pursue our own happiness. My proposal is nothing more radical than to trim back the current level of intervention, not eliminate it. The local beat cop can't bust a steel mill or a power plant for polluting, that's the EPA's job. Nor can he bust some whoopty-do broker for trading on inside information, that's for the SEC. On the other hand, forcing people to build cars with un-aerodynamic headlights in no way protects anyone's rights. Deregulation, and non-intervention, will hit the huge, environmentally damaging enterprises hardest. It won't be economical to grind up mountain ranges for oily sludge, or cover scenic valleys with dammed up water so people can park their Winnebagoes and go water skiing. Specifically, your concerns about energy efficiency should be easy to allay: Today, more than ever, the cost of energy determines the cost of a project. If we let profitability govern our decisions, energy will be saved in ways we never imagined. Sort of like soft paths to hard cash. Gag me with a buzzword. Cheers, Zig
myers@uwvax.UUCP (06/19/83)
I thought MIT had rather enlightened people (e.g. Joseph Weizenbaum)... Zig tells us that "Deregulation, and non-intervention, will hit the huge, environmentally damaging enterprises hardest." Even if this were true (an assumption which belies corporate history), such an enterprise would only be "hit" after causing n-million dollars in damage (if one has a penchant for measuring only exchange value). The next thing we'll hear is the old song-and-dance about how any corporation truly worth its salt won't let things like this happen as it leads to expensive lawsuits, bad pr, etc. Who's paying for the huge majority of the cost of chemical waste cleanup? The companies who produced it? No, they covered their asses long ago. State non-intervention is tantamount to having a 12 month open season declared on the environment; of course, the current administration's policy is creating a de facto state of non-intervention. I'm casting my vote in '84 for Teddy (Roosevelt, that is). Jeff Myers ...seismo!uwvax!myers
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (06/21/83)
In regards to tty3b!mjk's comment on Jon White's comparison between highways
and railroads.
"This is NOT an argument against government subsidy. I'm just pointing
out that subsidies exist everywhere, so it's ridiculous to argue
that railroads should die if they `can't survive in the marketplace.'"
Jon White's comment may not have been a definitive argument against subsidy,
but that doesn't imply that there isn't one.
The fact that there are subsidies running throughout our transportation
system likewise doesn't make the argument ridiculous. It just makes the
problem of creating a market solution more difficult. In order to see if
the railroads will survive we'll have to deregulate and stop the subsidies
systematically throughout the transportation system. I would still claim
(like Jon White did) that the railroads (and all other forms of
transportation) should die if they can't survive in the marketplace. I will
just add the stipulation that that implies that I favor the creation of a
free market in transportation.jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (06/23/83)
Apparently our site has not been getting all the news lately, so I'm not sure
what to make of this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to tty3b!mjk's comment on Jon White's comparison between highways
and railroads.
"This is NOT an argument against government subsidy. I'm just pointing
out that subsidies exist everywhere, so it's ridiculous to argue
that railroads should die if they `can't survive in the marketplace.'"
Jon White's comment may not have been a definitive argument against subsidy,
but that doesn't imply that there isn't one.
...I would still claim (like Jon White did) that the railroads (and all
other forms of transportation) should die if they can't survive in the
marketplace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for the record, I was not claiming in my original article that all
government subsidy is wrong, or that the railroads should die if they can't
survive in the current marketplace. All I was saying is that there are
subsidies everywhere (hidden or otherwise), so we might as well support those
institutions that best accommodate society's long-range goals. (Of course, I
would like to see an end to those subsidies that do not benefit society.)
For example, commercial nuclear power has been subsidized to the hilt from the
very beginning. I think this has been a disaster because nuclear power does
not serve the public good for a variety of reasons. However, if we had spent
all that money developing and promoting solar technology and conservation, our
country would be much more energy-independent and have less pollution to deal
with.
Jon White
Tektronix
Aloha, Ore