Posted on 10/05/2009 9:20:14 AM PDT by crescen7
There may be nothing so dangerous as a policy fantasy. A good one is like the H1N1 virus. It spreads on contact and threatens to infect everyone in its path.
. . . Right now, one of the most dangerous policy fantasies is the distracting notion that government can create so-called green jobs and should strive to do so enthusiastically. While the principal proponent of the green jobs hokum, Van Jones, is now out of government, . . . President Barack Obama, of course, has been a veritable Typhoid Mary of the green job virus, . . . The analysis to back that up, and spread by green job enthusiasts . . ., is that transferring society’s resources to the green sector leads to a net creation of jobs. And it provides a tasty free lunch by cleaning the environment.
Economics teaches, of course, that there are no free lunches. A key force driving such calculations is that alternative-energy production or energy conservation are fairly labor intensive . . .. But if the alternative-energy sector were really economically more efficient than other forms of energy, it would create all the wonderful jobs all by itself, without . . . Uncle Sam.
If, even after all the subsidies that government already provides to green technologies, we have to also subsidize training for workers in that industry, that suggests we are throwing money at an industry that can’t pass the market test.
The notion is that we make ourselves better off by transferring resources from one sector, . . . with regard to job creation, the argument is nonsense.
Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster recently wrote that the same logic would recommend an even better and greener plan: , . . we all move about in rickshaws. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
A key force driving such calculations is that alternative-energy production or energy conservation are fairly labor intensive relative to, say, the oil industry. But if the alternative-energy sector were really economically more efficient than other forms of energy, it would create all the wonderful jobs all by itself, without the assistance of Uncle Sam....
The notion is that we make ourselves better off by transferring resources from one sector, which is fairly efficient, to another, which isn’t. Such an assertion might be correct if we account for the damage done by greenhouse gases. But with regard to job creation, the argument is nonsense.
Rickshaw Express
Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster recently wrote that the same logic would recommend an even better and greener plan: the federal government could require that we all move about in rickshaws.
IMHO, Hasset is blowing smoke with this ludicrous example.
"Rickshaws" my butt. There is absolutely no doubt that modern, electrically powered mass-transit systems (light rail, high-speed rail and Maglev) are more energy efficient and evironmentally friendly than most of our petroleum fueled transportation infrastructure. And yes, construction of this infrastructure WOULD create many skilled jobs and long term benefits for our domestic economy.
Granted, I think the "Green" plans to supply power to the grid from "sustainable" sources like windmills and solar are half-cocked junk science. The truth is, we should be building Nukes to supply power to the grid to reduce our dependence on petroleum fueled transportation.
But "rickshaws"???
Cripes, cut me a break...
Sounds to me like Hasset is a Big Oil partisan flunky, just as bad as the "Green" whacknuts whom he criticizes.
“IMHO, Hasset is blowing smoke with this ludicrous example.
“Rickshaws” my butt”
This is a “heritage foundation” purposely absurd example, which makes a simple point. That is, creating jobs - if done by mandate - isn’t terribly difficult, nor is it terribly desirable. Any “jobs” created need to pass some level of market feasability.
“There is absolutely no doubt that modern, electrically powered mass-transit systems (light rail, high-speed rail and Maglev) are more energy efficient and evironmentally friendly”
Sorry, but there’s lots of doubt.
1. The electricity has to be generated from somewhere.
2. People need to ride them to be efficient.
- Sure, it’s easy to say a train load of people moves more efficiently per mile than a comparable number of people in cars.
but. . .
- What about inverting the analysis to reflect real ridership? In my city, if you took the 4 or 5 people off of mass transit and put them in cars, it would easily be more efficient to travel by car.
Again, if we create a bunch of jobs to build a system that goes widely unused . . .
We might as well be using rickshaws !
1. The electricity has to be generated from somewhere.Build nuclear power plants.
2. People need to ride them to be efficient.Over 12 million Americans ride passenger rail daily.
Many more would ride if more such systems were available.
In my city, if you took the 4 or 5 people off of mass transit and put them in cars, it would easily be more efficient to travel by car.I don't know where your city is.
If it is a small city, odds are that a car is more "efficient" in terms of travel time.
In larger, more densely populated areas, you've incrementally added cars to existing traffic congestion. So compared to passenger rail, car travel could be even less efficient timewise than it already is.In terms of energy efficiency, passenger rail is always more efficient than individual automobiles. (Unless, of course, you concoct some partisan scenario where passenger rail is constucted so far out in the boonies it's going to have zero ridership no matter what.) (On second thought, if you're that far out, rail might be your only option anyway since it's not worth building a paved road out there. LOL!)
Again, if we create a bunch of jobs to build a system that goes widely unused . . .Then build it in a densely populated region or urban area where it WILL be used.
Doh!
Cripes Almighty... no wonder the GOP got its collective butt whooped during the last election.
They don't call it "The Stupid Party" for nothing....
“Build nuclear power plants.”
- Good idea. 10 year approval process, 5 year funding, 5 year construction - So, we start considering this idea becoming “ecological” in 20 years.
“In terms of energy efficiency, passenger rail is always more efficient than individual automobiles.”
Your “absolutes” are simply not valid. If a passenger rail system is moving only a handful of people, the handful of people could be moved much more efficiently by auto.
“Then build it in a densely populated region or urban area where it WILL be used.”
There’s no guarantee it WILL be used. The fact that you believe it will be used is not significant. The concept of “consumer acceptance” is possibly the most difficult thing in all business enterprises to predict.
It’s likely that large densely populated areas are the only place that success is possible for “light rail.” However, the acquisition cost of right of way and construction easements are astronomical. This generally pushes such projects to existing (usually abandoned) railway easements that tend to push the rail and boarding locations at less than optimal points, which of course discourages ridership.
I’m all for a “better mouse trap”, but so far - the commuter rail, as well as most of the proposed “green energy” sector have proven to be miserable failures. (apologies to Dick Gephart)
Statists desire mass transit.
It helps control movements of the masses.
agreed.
you get an A on your “Liberty and Tyranny” test !
I’m all for a “better mouse trap”, but so far - the commuter rail, as well as most of the proposed “green energy” sector have proven to be miserable failures. (apologies to Dick Gephart)
That's OK, you can remain in denial all you want.
I'm just an old geezer with no reason to expect that GOP polidiots will abandon traditional partisan position for a commonsense approach to addressing our nation's future energy and transportation requirements.
So as I see it, that means posterity is doomed to be driving dinky little solar Obamamobiles, building windmills, Cap & Trade carbon, and maybe the Messiah might even nationalize our Oil Reserves.
C'est la vie...
At least ya can't say I didn't try to warn ya.
It does little for ones argument to simply categorize the opposing argument as “partisan.” Likewise, the connection between advocating for light rail and the success of the GOP seems strained at best.
If every Republican were to begin chanting in unison “Light Rail, Light Rail” and continue to do so until 2012 I can’t believe that it would have a significant effect on elections. Somehow you believe that such action would be the salvation of the Republican party . . . and you call me “in denial”
Funny, in the several “tea party” and Health Care events I attended - I don’t recall any of the masses yearning for “Light Rail”.
I’m also confused about how advocating for light rail will have any impact on the push for windmills and carbon taxes?
“At least ya can’t say I didn’t try to warn ya.”
I will consider myself warned.
Folks, Willie has long been a mass transit cheerleader.
Unfortunately, the facts are that mass transit trains are losers. And have been losers nearly everywhere compared to automobiles.
There was an excellent series of articles on the issue in Machine Design. Analysis by engineers (not politicians or fans) exposed the dirty underwear of the “rail” crowd’s arguments - they take massive tax subsidies to avoid prohibitive ticket costs.
They’re also marginal on “green” as well.
It does little for ones argument to simply categorize the opposing argument as “partisan.”
Simply calling a spade a spade, (regardless of whether that phrase upsets the PC crowd.)
When the 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, I was entering my senior year of college, majoring in engineering. I had already worked the two previous summers on an engineering internship with the nuclear power division of Westinghouse Electric.
The price of Oil quadrupled, from $3 a barrel to $12.
The Wiki says that gas pump price rose rose from a national average of 38.5 cents in May 1973 to 55.1 cents in June 1974. But I clearly recall paying 29¢ for cheap crap gas at a no-name discount chain before the Arab $hit hit the fan. And we lived through the long gas lines, and the even/odd rationing, etc, etc, etc,
And the politicians promised "Energy Independence".
So if you refuse to understand what I mean when I call it "partisan" B/S, then that's you're problem, not mine.
I've followed this issue too many years, and I'm not putting up with GOP idiocy anymore. If they can't come up with some commonsense approaches for our nation, then let the stupid 'Rats Cap & Trade and nationalize their oil. See if I give a hoot anymore. Believe me, it's no skin off my butt.
We need to start developing electrically powered transportation infrastructure that is independent of petroleum fuel supply. Period.
Folks, Willie has long been a mass transit cheerleader.
I've been pro-nuke and anti-OPEC since '73.
If you want to kowtow to the camel jockeys and their cronies, that's your problem.
Let me clarify one thing. I am completely in favor of more nuke plants. Heck, I’d just as soon we did all our electricity from nukes. However I am skeptical of mass transit because it has historically been a money pit by which politicians mask graft and throw money at unions.
If we had a private rail system for passenger transit, I’d be all for it, but we don’t have it. The government put an end to that a long time ago.
If we had a private rail system for passenger transit, I’d be all for it, but we don’t have it. The government put an end to that a long time ago.
Actually, there is substantial credible evidence that the automotive and oil industries conspired to kill private urban passenger rail systems (Great American streetcar scandal)
Of course, there are other factors involved that cloud the issue.
As for long distance passenger rail, yes, government essentially killed that back in the '50s~'60s (when oil was cheap and plentiful) by subsidizing construction of the Interstate Highway System and expansion of the modern Airline Industry. During that period, private RailRoads shed passenger service in favor of freight, leading to the creation of Amtrak. The freight lines now hold a monopoly on the existing rail rights-of-way, refusing to upgrade the rail to modern standards required for competitive passenger service.
So it is actually the currently dominant private sector special interests who are feverishly trying to maintain the status quo by preventing passenger rail competition in the market.
Their business is freight, and passenger service is a state owned monopoly (Amtrack).
Amtrak is not a monopoly.
Amtrak was formed merely as a means of continueing passenger rail service when 20 out of 26 eligible Railroads voluntarily opted to discontinue passenger service. In return, they actually became Amtrak shareholders or recieved tax breaks. Six railroads opted not to join and continued operation of their own, private passenger service. As far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting the freight lines from reintroducing passenger service if they want.
But the freight railroads are the real monopoly, since they own and control access to most of the track and rail right-of-way in our nation. Passenger service suffers at their whim.
Besides Amtrak, American Rail Excursions, Inc. (a private company), also offers national passenger rail travel, albeit in the high-end luxury niche. Unfortunately, their service is also restricted by the whims of the freight lines. Similarly, AAPRCO (American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners) provides information on other opportunities to enjoy travel by private rail car in the U.S.
Frankly, I think the freight line monopoly over the railroad track right-of-way in the United States should be abolished. It's as if the trucking companies owned the Interstates and wouldn't allow improvements to accomodate passenger cars. We'd be much better off if the Government owned the rail, and private companies only owned and operated the rolling stock, passenger or rail.
AMTRAK, the commies wet dream. Control how people can move, and you control the people.
Good Lord, Willie, and you post this tripe on a CONSERVATIVE website? What else should the feds own?
Pretty insensitive, doc.
Understand you're speaking to, as it were, possibly the board's only remaining union goon. An endangered species if ever there were.
Treat it with compassion, will ya. LOL!!!
Good Lord, Willie, and you post this tripe on a CONSERVATIVE website? What else should the feds own?
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."
~ Abraham Lincoln
I doubt if Honest Abe would approve of the Corporatocracy worshipped by many of today's pseudo-conservatives.
You want me to start posting what Teddy R. had to say about monopolies???
Good Lord, Willie, and you post this tripe on a CONSERVATIVE website? What else should the feds own?
You know, the GOP is pathetically incompetent at providing the leadership necessary to develop national infrastructure needed for 21st Century America.
Kowtowing to special interests, they're content to pursue obstructionist, do-nothing, sit with their thumbs up their butt, preservation of the status quo while our infrastructure becomes evermore obsolete and slips into decay.
Nothing but a bunch of paper-pushing bureaucratic luddites intent on steering taxdollars to parasites who are "too big to fail".
I'm not going to vote for any GOP Luddites.
Our domestic market needs to be opened up to REAL competition from the Nuclear Power and High-Speed Rail, Maglev and mass-transit industries.
And I don't care how much the Oil, Airline or Freight Industries squawk about it. They're going to have to learn how to actually compete instead of financing politicians to preserve their market dominance.
Methinks you ought to learn the definition of monopoly. It seems pretty clear that you have no clue as to what it is. There is no credible competitor to Amtrack in the business it does. As such it is by definition a monopoly.
Monopoly
- exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
- exclusive possession or control
- a commodity controlled by one party
- one that has a monopoly
Monopoly isn't defined by lack of competition.
It is defined by "exclusive possesion, ownership or control."
As this pertains to our discussion of Amtrak vs. Freight Lines, the Freight lines have exclusive ownership and control over the railroad tracks. They are the monopoly, not Amtrak.
The freight companies cannot be a monopoly since by definition monopoly indicates a single company.
Funny, I'm looking at a map on wikipedia and it shows plenty of overlap by freight line railroads: here
I don't see any overlap.
Some of the lines crossover each other, but they don't overlap.
Looks to me like many cities, and even whole states are served by only one freight line.
I'd call that a monopoly.
If you don’t see any overlap, you are blind. While there are areas where coverage is by a single rail line, those are sparsely populated as a rule. The East Coast, for example, looks like a pile of spaghetti. In any case, there is also truck shipping, which also belies your monopoly comment. Again, you don’t have the first clue of what a monopoly is.
It is also amusing to watch you keep shifting your ground. You’ve abandoned your weak definition attempt and accepted the proper definition.
Though considering how activist the Obama DOJ is on anti-trust, why don’t you just write them a letter. I’m sure if there were any ground to stand on vis a vis monopolistic practices by the freight lines, they’d be happy to go after them. I’m betting you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Also, just because I’m the only business in a town that offers a service, does not mean I’m doing anything wrong. In a given area a provider may be alone and in a sense monopolistic, but that does not constitute any monopolistic abuse which is what actually triggers government intervention. As long as the freight lines are not gouging customers on shipping, there will not be any idiotic interventions like you advocate.
In any case, there is also truck shipping, which also belies your monopoly comment.
Truck shipping travels on highways and Interstates which are Government owned.
All I'm saying is that Railroads should operate the same way.. on government owned tracks.
Besides, the Freight Railroads never paid for the land rights-of-way anyway.
Most of it was improperly given to them through corrupt government influence.
It rightfully belongs to We the People... the taxpayers!
All railroad tracks and rights-of-way in this nation are "post roads" as defined in the Constitution.
We the People have the right to take back control of our own property.
Even if we do assume you are correct that the railroads didn’t pay for any of their land (which is a pretty large allegation and I doubt it’s veracity), they were still given the land. This is just as much as farmers were given land grants. The government provided these grants facilitate certain ends, and those ends did come about in the evolution of a rail system which did a great deal towards developing commerce in this nation.
It would no more be just for the government to confiscate their land than to confiscate the land which originated in settler’s land grants.
The government should not have the ability to decide years after they’ve given something away to simply take it back because someone has a bright idea on how it might be used better.
The government provided these grants facilitate certain ends, and those ends did come about in the evolution of a rail system which did a great deal towards developing commerce in this nation.
And by failing to provide passenger service, the freight lines no longer fullfill their obligations. So ownership should revert back to the Government.
It would no more be just for the government to confiscate their land than to confiscate the land which originated in settler’s land grants.
It would be a lawful use of eminent domain to condemn the freight lines right-of-way for improved public use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
