The Observation Deck

I have heard rumors George Washington was once the president, the Rockefellers used to run an oil company here, The Wright Brothers made the first powered air flight, and Benjamin Franklin published an almanac. Don't ask me to back it up though!

Stephen Calhoun wrote:It's "moot" but you brought it up. Wow! I still have no idea why you jumped without a parachute.

You originally wrote:

In America we were sparsely populated when the railroads hit the seen. So the Feds granted the right lobbyists lots of Acres to build rail roads. We had millions of Acres for pennies an Acre, and could sell it for 2 dollars an acre or give it to the right people. Its the foundation of our cult of no-taxes.

How did Europe ever build railroads? it was much more densely populated. And all of the land was already owned by the patriarchs of a few families who had owned it for hundreds of years.

Fetid kernals amidst poppycock.

I cannot vouch for authenticity.

(We've established this already.) Now you've begun to inform yourself. Good. I salute you, Ryan.

So really, other than being an insulting weenie (I use that in the summer, roasted hot dog sort of sense) looking down your nose, are you going to actually "discuss" anything in this "global discussion" thread (in the "global discussion" section, of course!)?

I found ryan's questions and ideas interesting. I find that his research, though limited to wikipedia, still has the whiff of authenticity barring any information to the contrary. I mean, beyond calling it "poppycock" (you failed to use "fiddle faddle" and "tomfoolery" which would have been keen). Which, on a scale of 1 to Actual Discussion falls clearly in the...er...1 category.

I want the crazy cool Libertarian bedtime story about how this country got its rail lines! Throw down, man! Bring it!

Phil, for my part, I had to recover a bit of the day in 10th grade when the subject of the birth of the railroads was addressed.

My interest is focused elsewhere vis a vis my response. Why does a person post nonsense?

This noted, Ryan originally offered a hypothesis.

Its [the providing of land to the railroad 'interests'] the foundation of our cult of no-taxes.

I would expect any credible argument to meet, at a minimum, simple criteria with respect to its account (and recounting of) historical fact. So, for this hypothesis I would expect the argument to delve into the ACTUALITIES behind the development of that group that has promoted for some ACTUAL period of time in the US the idea (etc.) "no-taxes."

Of course, anybody can introduce any ol' hypothesis and cloth it any ol' bunch of argumentative rags that they wish. It's a free darn country.

My advice is, nevertheless, that said argument be an informed one; precisely tuned to the evidence gained from understanding what ACTUALLY happened.

Railroads don't interest me that much. Why people post glib hooey, does.

I'm completely serious. And witnesses can confirm I talk and think too slowly to be "glib".

(part of the cult of no taxes is having infinite public land to sell into the private sector to raise government funds. other parts are pre-steam engine isolation of two oceans. the remainder is nearly non-existent government services, simple laws, low standards of education, a very small and poorly paid military, etc, a BAR exam that didn't require a high school diploma or college degree to take or pass. I'm not against low taxes, I merely require better justifications for them).

I'm trying to confront the nonsense of the world with basic reality. This is the only way to head off future resource wars and catastrophes. Our present resource wars are relatively small, and the catastrophe portion of it has largely been outsourced for the civilian population of Iraq.

We could consider the ghetto-ization of nearly every american city since WWII a catastrophe, but most of the people who matter don't live in them.

It is important to realize the lessons of the 1800s to head off future resource wars and catastrophes until some point after we all die of old age. You are pretty old, so you don't have to try as hard. You are going to die of old age much sooner than me. Unless you are carjacked by unemployed teenagers who want everything they see on tv ten years from now.

Our infrastructure for transporting goods and services requires some type of government oomph. This can be applied intelligently, or less intelligently: The main John McCain commercial promises both "Conservation" and "lowering the gas tax". John McCain is officially less intelligent. It takes a lot of gas taxes to keep the highways paved. The cost of the Iraq war represents the dollar value oil had been undervalued on the hypothetical free market. John McCain is intelligent at getting elected. He is sincere and committed to a specific ideology when he promises that manufacturing jobs are "not coming back", and he is intelligent at getting elected when he campaigns to lower the gas tax.

Railroads on existing right of ways require less subsidizing than suburban-scaled interstate highways. Big box retail and shopping malls are a black hole of oil committed to future resource wars. De-industrialization is a commitment to future resource wars. Outsourcing and comparative advantage on an intercontinental scale are a commitment to future resource wars.

Ryan, glib would be in the eye of the reader. You and me share much aptitude-wise I would guess. I know you're serious and I also appreciate at times your intuitive speculations, and, (in my terms,) droll poetics.

But, this impression noted, had you started started off with the speculations and left off the musing about historical events, you'd not left the rails, as I see it.

Still, sometimes you make an assertion and on my end I simply wonder whether it is true or not. And for any assertion, its--usually-either credibly supported or not.

***

For example:

Railroads on existing right of ways require less subsidizing than suburban-scaled interstate highways.

If I asked you to support this assertion with data, what will you bring to bear in support?

And, again just from my harsh perspective, I always wonder whether a person obtains the data first and then infers their assertion, (so-to-speak,) or, alternately, makes the assertion and then, when challenged, runs to cover their butt...if they can.

So, intuition is workable but eventually one may be called to back up and present the letter of sensibility. And, really, why not set the bar high? Then, in a slew of paragraphs, you introduce a slew of hypotheses, and I'm compelled to wonder if you'll even bother to support them.

For goodness sakes, just pick one. Such as:

The cost of the Iraq war represents the dollar value oil had been undervalued on the hypothetical free market.

This is coupled, presumably, to a quantifiable argument. Is this in (your) hand already? Or not? Show your cards.

Stephen Calhoun wrote: intuitive speculations, and, (in my terms,) droll poetics.

I am reasonably proficient in judging the validity or accuracy of sources I come across. I'm not going to write them down for future reference or copy their own citations for something as trivial as an internet messageboard. I'm not intuitive, I reason in qualitative terms. It worked for Adam Smith!


***

Stephen Calhoun wrote:

Railroads on existing right of ways require less subsidizing than suburban-scaled interstate highways.

If I asked you to support this assertion with data, what will you bring to bear in support?

.

Much of previously existing rail road right of ways still exist or are vacant or turned into Tow Paths or Bicycle Trails.

I learned in high school science class about coefficients of friction, and how that is one of the reason rail requires less energy to transfer freight. I vaguely recall reading actual percentages of energy savings in a Wall Street Journal article in the last few years, but I am not willing to dig that up. Obviously there are also limits to savings based on existing capacity and the cost of loading and unloading the freight vs distance traveled.

The books "Asphalt Nation" Jane Holtz Kay and "Oil on the Brain" by Lisa Margonelli contained many citations and statistics that were cited or sourced. Many of them seemed trustworthy. I'm not going to re-request the books and copy down the sources. I've never seen a source listed in a newspaper or magazine article either.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:

The cost of the Iraq war represents the dollar value oil had been undervalued on the hypothetical free market.

This is coupled, presumably, to a quantifiable argument. Is this in (your) hand already? Or not? Show your cards.

heh heh heh. It may not represent the exact dollar value. It represents an enormous increase in dollar value. See...invading and occupying Iraq cost a lot of money or something like money. This is money that comes from TAXEs or TAXEs from the Future. When people pay taxes, it is less money they have to spend directly on oil.

We invaded Iraq because of some psychological need to exert dominance in the entire Middle East Oil region. For some reason this didn't make the region more secure or less tense. When I watch the news or read the paper, they often have stories about "tension" in the "middle East" or "Iran" or "anywhere" resulting in an increase in the price of oil. So far I have not seen a news report about "Tension" causing the price of oil to fall. Has anyone seen a news report about tension or sectarian violence or war causing the price of oil to fall? "Tension" anywhere in the middle east has never caused the people who bid for barrels of oil to bid LESS for oil. I cannot quantitatively prove any causative relationship between "tension", "Sectarian Violence", and higher oil prices. It might even be backwards or in both directions at once or not at all. Maybe higher oil prices inspire "tension" or "sectarian violence" or "invading Iraq" or "invading Iran".

Ryan one raises the bar to where one is willing to deploy support for one's assertions.

The appeal to your own authority is a well known fallacy.

It may not represent the exact dollar value.

Begging the question...why did you make the original assertion.

I reason in qualitative terms.

A reflexive rationale; credibility rests on the operational relationship among the logic implicit in your reasoning, the quality of the 'terms,' and whether the evidence either implicit or explicit (and offered,) is actually qualified as being true.

And all of the land was already owned by the patriarchs of a few families who had owned it for hundreds of years.

Patently ridiculous, but you wrote it. I'm aware your reasoning is pleasing to you irrespective of its being otherwise credible.

But if you're unwilling to support your arguments qualitatively or quantitatively, you should expect that some of your readers will find them at times to be incredible, or worse.

Kicker:

I'm not going to write them down for future reference or copy their own citations for something as trivial as an internet messageboard.

I will then anticipate that your future arguments will lower themselves to the level of your characterization of their venue.