|
|
| Re: NYC Rail networks—bursting at seams? (1352848) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NYC Rail networks—bursting at seams? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed May 20 03:34:27 2015, in response to Re: NYC Rail networks—bursting at seams?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 19 23:23:35 2015. The city created that money? LOL, no they didn't.No, the city did create that money. The city created the conditions for the free market to thrive within its borders and in exchange it receives tax revenue to ensure the maintenance of the conditions which create the superior market. The money wasn't created in Scranton, it wasn't created in Belfast, it was created in New York City because of the infrastructure which supported the economy, and that infrastructure was built with tax revenue. That's how it's worked since the Romans, that's the most frequently glossed over part of Adam Smith's treatise, and it's something you'd have to be a libertarian moron totally disconnected from reality to deny. But then we already knew that about you. DBOM implies that (for example) the IRT designed the subway Really? Surely you're not THAT ill-informed, right? Sorry, I forgot, you're detached from reality, so in that case I suppose some explanation is in order. The only instance of a DBOM being operated by the firm that did the engineering is HBLRT, and then Washington Group went out and created their own operating arm to do that. Usually it's Fluor, Parsons, or some other company which does the design, then another member of the consortium, Balfour, Bombardier, Herzog, or some other group which handles the operation. I know Parsons-Brinkerhoff claims to have designed some parts of the early NYC Subway and they certainly weren't part of either the IRT or BMT. But like DBOM, the government forced artificially low fares And the BMT and IRT agreed to run the service with that fare, so they had terrible business models. Clearly they were incapable of providing the service at the rate the market would bear, so they deserved to go under. Why didn't the invisible hand of the market apply to their demise? Or does that only apply to things you don't have an emotional attachment to? |
|
|
|