 |
Re: Compared to what??? Things we can measure and count...not emotional sophistry....
Author: BOB2
Date: 05-10-2019 - 18:06
Now I increasingly understand why the US is purportedly somewhere between 35th and 43rd in adult math and science "numeracy" among so-called "advanced" nations.
Do you think that you defend the Amtrak long distance subsidy very well, by simply reducing the argument to those poor rural folks deserve a big subsidy, because those urban folks can't live without them...?
And, how does it takes a whole day to drive across Montana answer how much it benefits a Montana driver to buy a trip off of an uncongested I-90? It's like asking how much does that dog cost, and getting the answer back, he spends all day chasing his own tail...
Would I deny health care or internet access to that poor electrician making my electricity out at that rural dam? What does that have to do with the benefits of subsidizing Amtrak service to a handful of rural communities? Talk about emotional sophistry, used to make some kind of bizarre point (like maybe, I don't really value or somehow understand the important contributions of America's rural society, like food, or electricity...? Which I, in fact, do.), and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I've said, or the very easily quantifiable question that I asked.
So explain to me, because I'm obviously too stupid to understand this aspect of rural life, how exactly does the statement "it takes a day to drive across Montana", answer the question I asked about how much "benefit" that driver on I-90 receives from paying his tax dollars to buy someone else a ride on the Empire Builder?
Or, how does "bad planning" really answer the question about how much benefit a taxpayer on the congested I-5 gets, for his share of that "subsidy" he's being asked to pay for a train rider in Montana? This question is not really answered at all, by a bit of glib sophistry about bad urban planning, is it?
Although, you are right about one thing..."a complete analysis would be advised".. Which is why we do cost benefit analysis, which includes both direct and indirect costs, and direct and indirect benefits, and can quantify the benefits and trade offs involved quite well, when done properly.
I don't know which group is worse these days, the folks who think that whatever thing folks seem to want can and should be provided to them, without regard to the costs or benefits, by other taxpayers (just not them, of course), or somehow, by just "printing more money"? Or the nitwits, who belief that cost effective affordable rural rail services will somehow be magically provided, by an "invisible" hand...without specifying who will pay for it (maybe they'll just "print" some more "money" to pay for it, too?), or why?
Do you think that you defend the Amtrak long distance subsidy very well, by simply reducing the argument to those poor rural folks deserve a big subsidy, because those urban folks can't live without them...?
And, how does it takes a whole day to drive across Montana answer how much it benefits a Montana driver to buy a trip off of an uncongested I-90? It's like asking how much does that dog cost, and getting the answer back, he spends all day chasing his own tail...
Would I deny health care or internet access to that poor electrician making my electricity out at that rural dam? What does that have to do with the benefits of subsidizing Amtrak service to a handful of rural communities? Talk about emotional sophistry, used to make some kind of bizarre point (like maybe, I don't really value or somehow understand the important contributions of America's rural society, like food, or electricity...? Which I, in fact, do.), and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I've said, or the very easily quantifiable question that I asked.
So explain to me, because I'm obviously too stupid to understand this aspect of rural life, how exactly does the statement "it takes a day to drive across Montana", answer the question I asked about how much "benefit" that driver on I-90 receives from paying his tax dollars to buy someone else a ride on the Empire Builder?
Or, how does "bad planning" really answer the question about how much benefit a taxpayer on the congested I-5 gets, for his share of that "subsidy" he's being asked to pay for a train rider in Montana? This question is not really answered at all, by a bit of glib sophistry about bad urban planning, is it?
Although, you are right about one thing..."a complete analysis would be advised".. Which is why we do cost benefit analysis, which includes both direct and indirect costs, and direct and indirect benefits, and can quantify the benefits and trade offs involved quite well, when done properly.
I don't know which group is worse these days, the folks who think that whatever thing folks seem to want can and should be provided to them, without regard to the costs or benefits, by other taxpayers (just not them, of course), or somehow, by just "printing more money"? Or the nitwits, who belief that cost effective affordable rural rail services will somehow be magically provided, by an "invisible" hand...without specifying who will pay for it (maybe they'll just "print" some more "money" to pay for it, too?), or why?
