From: Les Cargill on
krw wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>>> <lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>>
>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>>
>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>
> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>

Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
those people off. Can private efforts replace public
transport? I don't know.

Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
to compete. That places the burden of care for them
somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
doesn't seem realistic.

>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>
>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>> carbon offsets are.
>
> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
> higher income tax isn't going to work.

It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.

> The states have maxed out
> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>

Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
altogether.

Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.

Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
and still claim the high moral ground.

>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>
>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>> makes money.
>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>
>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>> really sock in a good down payment.
>
> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>

No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.

> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>

Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.

This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.

Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
ownership.

>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>> sucker.
>
> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
> equity in my house isn't income either.
>

but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
the only way to win is not to play.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill
From: krw on
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:15 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>>>> <lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>>>
>>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>>> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>>
>> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
>> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>>
>
>Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
>enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
>those people off. Can private efforts replace public
>transport? I don't know.

So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even
force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.

>Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
>to compete. That places the burden of care for them
>somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
>creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
>doesn't seem realistic.

Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway
funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The
unproductive are already under control.

>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>>
>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>>> carbon offsets are.
>>
>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
>> higher income tax isn't going to work.
>
>It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.

By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no
mater what color you paint them. People know this, but what they
can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you
suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a
check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?


>> The states have maxed out
>> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
>> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
>> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
>> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>
>
>Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>altogether.

Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.

>Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
>last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
>even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
>ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
>writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>
>Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
>fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
>and still claim the high moral ground.

No, the problem with capitalism is government.

>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>>> makes money.
>>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>>
>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>>> really sock in a good down payment.
>>
>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
>> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
>> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>>
>
>No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
>cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.

How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please
elaborate.

>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
>> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
>> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>>
>
>Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.

If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying
if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't
necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house
with less than 1% down.

>This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.

Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial
winner.

>Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>ownership.

Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty
small, over the life of a house.

>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
>> equity in my house isn't income either.
>>
>
>but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
>the only way to win is not to play.

The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That
isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
From: krw on
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:22:24 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargill99(a)comcast.net>
>said:
>
>>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>be able to.
>
>Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before
>there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"

Nonsnese. Try streetcars in any major city now. Try affording them
in any small city.

>>What we see with public transport is that it never
>>makes money.
>
>OK, so show me a road that makes money.

Don't be an idiot. They all do. If you want one that makes a (huge)
profit, try the NYS Thruway.

>The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car
>users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a
>payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected
>to earn a profit at the farebox.

They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
From: h on

"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:kvkef51fhk4mio56krftteolo54m51r7qh(a)4ax.com...

>
> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
> transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
> issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.

Is little Scottie still whinging on about car owners? Does he REALLY not get
that roads are not just for cars? He'd starve to death without roads, since
without them trucks wouldn't be able to bring his food into the city. Also,
buses need roads, too, or does he really think people shouldn't travel AT
ALL?


From: h on

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:0nlef5hgh3pctftqnt91h6gqbusqpas8qg(a)4ax.com...
> That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost of driving, many will
> decide it isn't worth the cost.
> And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses.

Assuming they live where there are buses.