One Brow
Well-Known Member
So, does the opposite of following the vision of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, all of whom thought that the people needed to led?
Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
So, does the opposite of following the vision of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, all of whom thought that the people needed to led?
One Brow
Well-Known Member
I'm not aware of any public transportation system that is not tax-payer subsidized. In NYC, something like less than half the expenses are covered by fares.
Would a concerted effort to prosecute the offenders cost more or less than just ignoring them? I honestly don't know.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
True, but does it need to be? Why can't the government franchise public transportation systems (when possible) to a private business? The reason the costs are so high is because it's a government run operation. From my understanding, the UK franchises out it's transportation systems. Also, with this, the Gov could still offer vouchers or discounted rides for poor users of public transportation.
I agree that we don't want the legal system bogged down with a bunch of fare evaders. However, at least the threat of getting into trouble would have to encourage some to just pay the fee to ride.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Because a truly usable pubic transportation system doesn't make money.
I've worked for 2 different Fortune 500s, and they were not any more efficient than the government.
About 47% of the financing for the London Underground comes from fares.
I agree here, too. I don't where the curve hits the minimum expense value. Maybe it's at no enforcement, or sporadic enforcement, or complete crackdown.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
The problem with figuring that out would be ignoring the value of having a police presence. Here, UTA police check tickets way more than necessary IMO, but I get the feeling it's more about having their presence felt than anything. I'm guessing we are in a different situation than most metros, though. UTA gets a fraction of their revenue from rider fees, around 35 million out of 750-800 million total annual budget. The fares are pretty meaningless as far as revenue goes but we keep them for certain other reasons.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Why is that? Uber and Lyft are completely disrupting the public transportation system and are extremely "usable". They also make money. I don't understand your hatred of capitalism.
I work for a private CPA firm and my area of expertise is auditing government entities. I audit local municipalities, departments of transportation, etc. This is all I do. I realize everyone's perspective is different, but there is zero question in my mind that privately run and profit seeking entities, on average, are extremely more efficient than government entities. There is so much waste that I see it's frightening. It's a variety of factors, but the biggest is purely incentive. When the entity has incentive to make a profit, it's forced to try and be more efficient. When a private business is unable to be efficient, it closes it's doors (or gets bailed out by the government, lol). When the Federal Government fails to be efficient, it just raises taxes. If you need proof that the federal government is inefficient, just look at the Nation Debt. Each person's share of the Federal debt is about $67,000. No private business in history could do this much damage through inefficiency.
Uber lost more than $800 million in Q4 of last year alone and has never turned a profit.
Lyft projects losses of $1.2 billion for 2019.
This disruption has not yet proved lucrative.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Since when is being supportive of a public benefit = anti-capitalism? If I'm against a publicly provided benefit for reasons x,y, z am I some favorite leftist pejorative?
Also, aside from the money losing side that Kick pointed out, as someone who has chosen to commute on public transit for over 10 years (thank you, taxpayers ), no, Uber and Lyft are not alternatives. Nowhere close.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
They are also too expensive for most people to use on a daily basis to travel back and forth to work. Capitalism is great, where it works.
Like spending tens of thousands of dollars on training in a new software design paradigm every few months? High-level executive compensation? There's plenty of waste all around.
Instead, private business do this damage by increasing prices, and they can do this because every large business is inefficient.
Getting Traded
Banned
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to pay for govt expenses, we borrow from the Fed at the prime interest rate, and that loan adds to the national debt. The Fed is composed of the nation's leading banks and some foreign banks who are creating the money out of nothing and loaning the worthless money to the government which increases the banks' assets. So overspending and waste is a good thing for the banks that comprise the Fed. And now we are so much in debt, we can never repay it. What then would happen if that debt was forgiven. If we didn't borrow could the govt continue to operate? So, help me out here and tell what I have wrong with this picture.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Actually, we borrow money by issuing bonds, called Treasury bonds.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
I've read just about every conspiracy theory about the Fed and this is the most common, and simplest myth.
I doubt you actually care to know, all interest collected by assets held as the Fed's balance sheet is paid to the US Treasury. The massive balance sheet expansion under QEs doubled revenue from the Fed to UST. Fed operations are funded by their check clearing services. Trump was absolutely correct that we can extinguish the portion of US debt held by the Fed at any time we want with the stroke of a computer key. Federal debt actually went down during Obama thanks to QE.
Dont tell the Ron Paul crowd, they're fun to have around.
Getting Traded
Banned
Why wouldn't I care to know? I'm no expert on this subject, which is why I framed my response like I did. The idea I summarized comes from a film that I saw, The Secret of Oz, and some other things I have read. So far as QE, or quantitative easing, I will need to watch a YouTube video to get an understanding of how that works. So, the banks in the Fed don't benefit from our debt, then?
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Member banks are required to put in seed capital which pays 6% interest. They estimated an amount initially and only required 1/2 of it at first to see if it was enough. The second 1/2 was never necessary or asked for. New banks that want membership have to pay in under the same terms. In low rate borrowing years they gain a return, in high rate years they lose money relative to what they could otherwise loan it out at.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Yes, YouTube shapeshifters while you're at it. Bernanke, Obama, all of them. Clear, indisputable video evidence.
As another person who uses public transport, yes they are alternatives. Just far more expensive ones. Cost wise the bus is exceedingly more attractive.
Getting Traded
Banned
Very smart, said Giannis
One Brow
Well-Known Member
My current employer (Washington University) actually provides an annual pass for free. They probably make it back just on not having to build more parking garages.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
If you're going to be a stickler then so is renting a limo, or sleeping under an overpass so I can walk to work.
Lol. Big difference In price between a limo and a Lyft. I can get a lyft ride for a few $ more than a one way bus ticket
Like $2.5 as compared to $8
Not $8 compared to 40$