Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

However, regarding 'improve our productivity and competitive position in international trade and manufacturing' - did Obama say that in his SOTU speech? Are you sure? I watched it and I don't recall him using that phrase.

I believe he did say something of the sort in relationship to the education of our children.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It was very clear in his speech that Obama was talking about investments that would have a lasting effect on economic activity and employment. Unfortunately more money into already failing public schools (still in the grip of self-serving teachers unions) and high speed rail projects won't do that.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It was very clear in his speech that Obama was talking about investments that would have a lasting effect on economic activity and employment. Unfortunately more money into already failing public schools (still in the grip of self-serving teachers unions) and high speed rail projects won't do that.

Oh, so it was clear to you, but the exact wording of his speech isn't relevant?

Here's what he actually said on the topic:

Quote:

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.

Our infrastructure used to be the best – but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation's infrastructure, they gave us a "D."

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn't just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town's new train station or the new off-ramp.

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts.

We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn't just about a faster internet and fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It's about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

All these investments – in innovation, education, and infrastructure – will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success.

You are simply incorrect. Obama discusses improving our infrastructure for its' own sake, because we NEED that infrastructure to function correctly in order to stay competitive.

Your account is a gross misrepresentation of his speech; but, I doubt anyone is really surprised by that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are simply incorrect. Obama discusses improving our infrastructure for its' own sake, because we NEED that infrastructure to function correctly in order to stay competitive.

Your account is a gross misrepresentation of his speech; but, I doubt anyone is really surprised by that.

Cycloptichorn

In your first paragraph you merely paraphrased my point. You are being evasive in a futile attempt to defend the indefensable.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are simply incorrect. Obama discusses improving our infrastructure for its' own sake, because we NEED that infrastructure to function correctly in order to stay competitive.

Your account is a gross misrepresentation of his speech; but, I doubt anyone is really surprised by that.

Cycloptichorn

In your first paragraph you merely paraphrased my point. You are being evasive in a futile attempt to defend the indefensable.

Bullshit, I'm being evasive about nothing at all. I merely refuse to engage your Straw Men.

Where is your evidence that money spent on education and infrastructure do not lead to greater economic activity in the future? I ask, because - as I said earlier - economists and the historical record disagree with you. I believe you are spouting off ideology with no real argument to back it up.

Not only that, you mis-represented what the prez said in his speech, and that's just bad form. If you took the time to research things or look them up before posting, you wouldn't make these errors. But you can't be bothered.

Next time you attack Obama for having a inflated vision of himself, or for preening, look to the mote in your own eye first. You engage in indefensible rhetoric constantly and refer to your own pronouncements as 'wise and insightful.' What makes you any different than those you criticize?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree with the thesis that a country's infrastucture is necessary for a growing economy - or to even remain competitive. I wrote a paper in college about this very subject on developing countries.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And you are hiding behind vague generalizations to evade your lack of an argument.

Many investments in infrastructure do offer the promise of improved future employment, competitiveness and profuctivity. However continued payoffs to teacher's unions interested only in tenure for grade school teachers and immunity for accountability for their performance in any form does not do that - indeed it merely perpetuates the current problem. Same goes for high speed passenger rail - it is a serious stretch to suppose that this will have a lasting effect on economic productivity and employment. Improvements in freight transport might do that, but cutting two hours off a six hour rail trip for passengers won't.

Government investment in added internet connectivity is both irrelevant and unnecessary. Private industry already is doing that and doing it very well.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

So you misrepresent because it your duty to do so.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So you misrepresent because it your duty to do so.

Nobody mis-represented anything you wrote.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

And you are hiding behind vague generalizations to evade your lack of an argument.

Many investments in infrastructure do offer the promise of improved future employment, competitiveness and profuctivity. However continued payoffs to teacher's unions interested only in tenure for grade school teachers and immunity for accountability for their performance in any form does not do that - indeed it merely perpetuates the current problem. Same goes for high speed passenger rail - it is a serious stretch to suppose that this will have a lasting effect on economic productivity and employment. Improvements in freight transport might do that, but cutting two hours off a six hour rail trip for passengers won't.

This whole paragraph is full of assertions for which there are no evidence. What more, Obama didn't propose anything about Teachers' unions at all, so I don't know why you even bring it up.

High-speed rail creates jobs not only in the construction phase but also of operation and maintenance of them. It boosts citizens' mobility from one city to another, which is a big boost to both tourism and economic productivity for those who travel for work. It is far more efficient to move people and goods over high-speed rail than it is on the highway, which saves energy and time.

I go to Los Angeles as part of my job several times a year. Jumping on the train would certainly save me time and money and I would use it often. My wife and I would use it to take trips. I think that Conservatives often have a hard time getting behind things like this because they can't see themselves doing it, or b/c of a lack of imagination. Either way, your claims are specious and you certainly don't intend to back them up with either fact or logic, so why should anyone take them seriously?

Quote:

Government investment in added internet connectivity is both irrelevant and unnecessary. Private industry already is doing that and doing it very well.

A totally ignorant statement. I think you have no clue what you are talking about in this area whatsoever. The truth is that we are not competitive with other countries when it comes to internet connectivity, availability, speed or pricing. Those aren't my opinions; they are facts. And if you really want to reveal your ignorance in this area - press the point. I dare ya.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@revelette,

No, that's the Kool-Aid talking.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

WAKE UP, AMERICA!

Yes, wake up and do something about the huge ass mistake known as Obama

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[High-speed rail creates jobs not only in the construction phase but also of operation and maintenance of them. It boosts citizens' mobility from one city to another, which is a big boost to both tourism and economic productivity for those who travel for work. It is far more efficient to move people and goods over high-speed rail than it is on the highway, which saves energy and time.

You speak about it as though it were a fact. The truth is that high speed passenger rail transport, over the greater distances that prevail here as compared to Europe, is neither competitive nor economically adventageous. The projects Obama is talking about have been on the drawing (and dreaming) boards for several decades now, but none are realities. The one reality we have in the east coast AMTRAC Acella line is a failure - it loses money, requiring extensive Federal subsidies and has chronically low ridership - and on the link (Manhattan to Washington) that offers far better prospects for ridership than any of the projects the Feds are funding now. These projects are merely boondoggles to benefit Construction comnpanies and labor unions that will offer little in the way of lasting benefit.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that we are not competitive with other countries when it comes to internet connectivity, availability, speed or pricing. Those aren't my opinions; they are facts. And if you really want to reveal your ignorance in this area - press the point. I dare ya.

Cycloptichorn

OK consider it pressed. Please be sure when you cite any comparative cost data that you have removed government subsidies. These are neither economically efficient nor condusive to economic development.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[High-speed rail creates jobs not only in the construction phase but also of operation and maintenance of them. It boosts citizens' mobility from one city to another, which is a big boost to both tourism and economic productivity for those who travel for work. It is far more efficient to move people and goods over high-speed rail than it is on the highway, which saves energy and time.

You speak about it as though it were a fact. The truth is that high speed passenger rail transport, over the greater distances that prevail here as compared to Europe, is neither competitive nor economically adventageous. The projects Obama is talking about have been on the drawing (and dreaming) boards for several decades now, but none are realities. The one reality we have in the east coast AMTRAC Acella line is a failure - it loses money, requiring extensive Federal subsidies and has chronically low ridership - and on the link (Manhattan to Washington) that offers far better prospects for ridership than any of the projects the Feds are funding now. These projects are merely boondoggles to benefit Construction comnpanies and labor unions that will offer little in the way of lasting benefit.

I think you go wrong here, because you don't seem to understand the price disparity between electric rail lines and increasing fuel costs for automobiles. The cost of running a rail line is relatively fixed, while the costs for gasoline vary wildly and are up at least 3x over what they were 15 years ago. Over time it will become more and more efficient to use electricity and rail lines to ship goods and people, and less so to use gasoline-burning engines.

Not only that, but you completely ignore the costs to all of us from auto accidents, the upkeep that every car must have, the environmental costs of so much pollution being put out. You ignore every detail that doesn't fit your narrative.

I would also point out that without massive subsidy by the Federal government, you wouldn't be able to take the highway between cities. States couldn't afford to maintain their own roads without Federal funds to do so. For you to claim that it's appropriate to subsidize one, but inappropriate to subsidize the other is the sign of ideology trumping common sense.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that we are not competitive with other countries when it comes to internet connectivity, availability, speed or pricing. Those aren't my opinions; they are facts. And if you really want to reveal your ignorance in this area - press the point. I dare ya.

Cycloptichorn

OK consider it pressed. Please be sure when you cite any comparative cost data that you have removed government subsidies. These are neither economically efficient nor condusive to economic development.

I don't give a **** about your 'government subsidy' line, because we subsidize things on a regular basis in this country. See above. We subsidize oil and cotton and tobacco and corn and oranges. These subsidies are conducive to economic development, it's ridiculous for you to claim that they aren't. Farcical.

And it doesn't relate to the question anyway.

On to the facts:

http://www.physorg.com/news170447728.html

The United States ranks 28th in the world in average overall Internet connection speed and is not making significant progress in building a faster network.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm

The US is 16th in internet penetration rates - the ability to get access to the internet.

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

We're 14th when it comes to actual rates of our population who subscribe to the internet.

We're 23rd in average broadband speed.

---

We aren't keeping up. We are falling further behind on all of these lists. Private industry is NOT doing 'a fine job of it.' Yes, we are geographically much larger than these countries. But we're also FAR richer and could afford to match these rates if we wanted to. But we'd rather spend money on other stuff, and your bunch never sees any need for investment in anything that benefits anyone other then yourselves.

The truth is that you don't even know what Obama was referring to. Do you? I mean, surely before raising criticism of his statement, you looked up or were previously aware of the recent Wireless spectrum auction, which has opened up a lot of new possibilities for very high-speed wireless connections? And that a major boom in the industry is expected in just a few short years?

Somehow I doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well you are pretty quick at posting links, but I suspect either don't read them or assess their credibility or the data they contain.

From your sources, here is a partial list of the economically significant countries that enjoy greater internet connectivity & penetration (% of population) that the USA;
1. Faulkland islands
2. Iceland
3. Greenland
4. St Kitts & Nevis
5. Faroe Islands
6. Luxembourg
7. Korea
5. Scandanavian countries (Norweay, Sweeden, Denmark, Finland)
6. UK, Australia & New Zeeland (by slight margins)

Behind us are;
All the rest of Europe, Asia, Africa and North & South America

In short we enjoy better connectivity than about 95% of the world's population. Moreover the service here is cheap, largely unsubsidized, and available to anyone who really wants it.

Your internet spped cite was a propaganda piece produced by the Communications workers of America union.

In short this stuff doesn't pass the laugh test.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The one reality we have in the east coast AMTRAC Acella line is a failure - it loses money, requiring extensive Federal subsidies and has chronically low ridership - and on the link (Manhattan to Washington) that offers far better prospects for ridership than any of the projects the Feds are funding now. These projects are merely boondoggles to benefit Construction comnpanies and labor unions that will offer little in the way of lasting benefit.

You are factually incorrect...the NEC in total and to include Acela does in fact make a small profit in operations. The total Amtrak system loses money as all global rail systems do. The only other segment of Amtrak that comes close to breaking even is AutoTrain. You are also wrong about ridership...between Amtrak and the commuter rail services rail along the NEC rail takes over 50% of the passengers that move between city pairs, which in on par with Europe or other transportation advanced nations. Overall in America rail takes less than 1% of the market, but you need to understand that the NEC is a special case.

What I would like to see you bitching about is that because of Government regulation Amtrak was forced to purchase a specialty product, one that is about double the weight of high speed rail trainsets. This means that we paid more than we should, we got something that costs much more to operate than it should, and because it was not a proven product we got something that has been more prone to failure than we should have. The Feds demand that rail vehicles crash test much higher than the rest of the world does, because the rest of the world understands that where there is no grade crossings impacts are rare. They also put their money and energy into systems to make sure that trains do not impact with each other or go off the rails, so that they can keep the trainsets light thus fast and cheap to operate.

Acela is already about ready for the scrap yard, because as they age they are getting even more expensive to operate than they started out as, which was bad enough. It also was never HSR, as the purchase of a HSR trainset was supposed to be followed with the imporvement of the route into HSR. This never happened, so Acela was something that was intended for fast speeds but which in fact can only get near the intended speeds for 17 miles of its route. This improvement of the NEC would cost something line $10 billion, which Amtrak of course can not pay, and the local governments have no interest in paying since their communter trains would not benefit. The Feds would need to pay.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In short we enjoy better connectivity than about 95% of the world's population. Moreover the service here is cheap, largely unsubsidized, and available to anyone who really wants it.

Broadband in the US is neither comparatively cheap nor is it available to all. You didn't actually read anything in the links.

Quote:

Your internet spped cite was a propaganda piece produced by the Communications workers of America union.

This is a lame attempt at an Ad Hominem attack. You don't have any information that their study was propoganda; you just wish to dismiss it without thinking.

Check the OECD reports I linked to. They back up everything I wrote and you can't casually wave them away the way you have here.

---

You dropped every point made in the last post, other than the end. If this was a debate, you'd be losing.

You didn't respond to the fact that:

- we heavily subsidize auto transport in America and have been for decades
- there are large external costs associated with automobiles use
- States couldn't afford their own roads without subsidies
- you are a hypocrite for decrying subsidies to rail while saying nothing about the massively larger auto industry.

You didn't respond to the fact that we are falling behind in every internet connectivity measurement possible. Your weak attempt to say that we are faster than '95% of the world' doesn't address the fact that we are the richest by about 10 times over and have every ability to be the best - and we WERE tops in all these categories not long ago. You have no answer to why this is the case.

You also didn't respond to the fact that Obama was referencing a recent and exciting occurrence in the industry in his speech. You didn't even know about it. Yet you feel free to criticize him and say that he's wrong. All while having no knowledge on the subject.

It is not compelling in the slightest. It's becoming pretty clear that you are much more of an ideologue than you seem to think. There used to exist a time when you put more critical thought into posts than you do now. And I seriously miss those conversations.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, I enjoyed your "we highly subsidize auto transport in America..." because there's recent evidence for this: a) government bailout of our auto companies, and b) our cost for petro is probably one of the lowest in the world.

0 Replies

Hawkeye - What makes the "NEC" a special case ? The Acella must meet rail collision standards because unlike some other systems its railbed does NOT involve all grade-separated crossings. AMTRAC cannot sustain operations without large annual Federal subsidies. On what basis do you claim that one particular train makes a profit without them?

The European model for such subsidized operations and economies isn't looking very good right now.

Cyclo's argument appears to be that because we subsidize roads & highways we should also subsidise rail. Should we also subsidize bicycles and air transport?

In fact part of the Administration's high speed rail program involves the diversion of some Federal gasoline tax revenues to the rail programs.

The argument here is not whether high speed rail or better internet connectivity are desirable, but rather whether additional government programs, funded by added Federal borrowing to support, them will aid our economic productivity or competitiveness - at a time where the burden of government spending at all levels is already limiting economic activity.

I think the answer is pretty clear.

Moreover, I think Obama's proposals in the SOU speech were a dud, both in fact and in the public perception of them.

1 Reply

Good evening. I tried to find some data on Amtrak, the NEC and the Acella. The best sources I could find was some Pew Center research and from a columnist in the magazine Train. The author of the latter said right off the gitgo that the numbers could not necessarily be verified.
The govt subsidy for fiscal 2010 is listed as $1.2Bn. I saw in an article about a bill introduced in the House on Monday by a Repub that cutting funding for Amtrak would save $1.7Bn annually.
The Acella had an increase in ridership of 7.7% and revenue of 11.6% in 2010. Mention was made that the train has the ability to add an additional car. The marginal cost would, I assume, be low relative to revenue generated.
The taxpayer subsidy largely goes to the long-haul trips. It will be difficult politically to eliminate those trains.
The notion of how much we subsidize rail vs highways or air travel is interesting. I guess we would have to agree on a way to measure that: passengers, miles or?
By the way, Amtrak in 2010 had an on time arrival rate of 78% overall with the highest frequency of delays being on the long haul routes.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know