Future of US auto industry manufacturing? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 138
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    964
    Likes (Received)
    5318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    To clarify on railroad land the government gave the right to land to build the railroads and that does not mean that the land was always given free. Free land was not given away entirely. Just think about it government usually does not give things away free as they consider the ends justify the means.
    Spinit, you are just making this stuff up. Please, link to a historical record that corroborates your claims.
    The government did not "give the right to the land". They GAVE AWAY THE LAND. Free and clear. For pretty much all the major railroads west of the Mississippi, and a bunch of em east of it, too. Which land was not "given free"? How is "free land" not given away?
    I know you may not like history, but that doesnt mean you get to make up your own.

    The government has a long long history of giving away land, money, and more- just not to everybody.

    Since you are in Texas, I would recommend you read the Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson, particularly the first parts, where Brown and Root financed and put the fix in for Johnson to get elected, and then Johnson, in Congress, the Senate, and as President, rained down federal projects on Brown and Root (Halliburton) and Texas, in huge abundance. The history of your state is just full of huge government giveaways, subsidies, and freebies. And, of course, incredible corruption. Johnson made his bones, in Congress, on the committee that uncovered $10 to 15 Billion worth of corruption in WW2 contracts, and, ironically, some of that he was personally responsible for getting approved.
    The Candidate from Brown and Root - The Texas Observer

    the point being, yes, the government DOES usually give things away free.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    To clarify on railroad land the government gave the right to land to build the railroads and that does not mean that the land was always given free. Free land was not given away entirely. Just think about it government usually does not give things away free as they consider the ends justify the means.
    So...
    Then a subsidy makes sense.
    And yes...it was “free”.
    They got the title, then used the land for loans to build rail...that then made them money.
    They didn’t “pay for it”.
    They were given it for personal gain.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Spinit, you are just making this stuff up. Please, link to a historical record that corroborates your claims.
    The government did not "give the right to the land". They GAVE AWAY THE LAND. Free and clear. For pretty much all the major railroads west of the Mississippi, and a bunch of em east of it, too. Which land was not "given free"? How is "free land" not given away?
    I know you may not like history, but that doesnt mean you get to make up your own.

    The government has a long long history of giving away land, money, and more- just not to everybody.

    Since you are in Texas, I would recommend you read the Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson, particularly the first parts, where Brown and Root financed and put the fix in for Johnson to get elected, and then Johnson, in Congress, the Senate, and as President, rained down federal projects on Brown and Root (Halliburton) and Texas, in huge abundance. The history of your state is just full of huge government giveaways, subsidies, and freebies. And, of course, incredible corruption. Johnson made his bones, in Congress, on the committee that uncovered $10 to 15 Billion worth of corruption in WW2 contracts, and, ironically, some of that he was personally responsible for getting approved.
    The Candidate from Brown and Root - The Texas Observer

    the point being, yes, the government DOES usually give things away free.
    If you check it out then you will find that there were those who paid for the land themselves. The government allowed the land to be given up and yet the government wanted to be paid for the land. Maybe you could read up on it also because there were deals made and then there were other arrangements made. Not all builders wanted to take government money. It may have been less than those that would yet the fact is not everyone danced to the same toon.

    You mentioned the west coast Pacific who ran up the cost of land and building almost to the point that everyone would go broke and so if everyone got the same deal as you imply (Or if everyone accepted the same deal which they did not) then surely the government would likely be strapped to provide money.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Spinit, you are just making this stuff up. Please, link to a historical record that corroborates your claims.
    The government did not "give the right to the land". They GAVE AWAY THE LAND. Free and clear. For pretty much all the major railroads west of the Mississippi, and a bunch of em east of it, too. Which land was not "given free"? How is "free land" not given away?
    I know you may not like history, but that doesnt mean you get to make up your own.

    The government has a long long history of giving away land, money, and more- just not to everybody.

    Since you are in Texas, I would recommend you read the Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson, particularly the first parts, where Brown and Root financed and put the fix in for Johnson to get elected, and then Johnson, in Congress, the Senate, and as President, rained down federal projects on Brown and Root (Halliburton) and Texas, in huge abundance. The history of your state is just full of huge government giveaways, subsidies, and freebies. And, of course, incredible corruption. Johnson made his bones, in Congress, on the committee that uncovered $10 to 15 Billion worth of corruption in WW2 contracts, and, ironically, some of that he was personally responsible for getting approved.
    The Candidate from Brown and Root - The Texas Observer

    the point being, yes, the government DOES usually give things away free.
    You prove your statements are weak because Johnson was not building railroads. Red Herring.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    FYI

    Not everyone accepted a free ride. I know it is inconceivable to you yet it is not the whole story.

    "Most business historians have assumed that the transcontinental railroads would never have been built without government subsidies. The free market would have failed to provide the adequate capital, or so the theory asserts. The evidence for this theory is that the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, which were completed in the years after the War Between the States, received per-mile subsidies from the federal government in the form of low-interest loans as well as massive land grants. But there need not be cause and effect here: the subsidies were not needed to cause the transcontinental railroads to be built. We know this because, just as many roads and canals were privately financed in the early nineteenth century, a market entrepreneur built his own transcontinental railroad. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash," as Hill himself stated.2"
    Link;
    https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Not exactly how it happened- the US government GAVE the railroads the right of way, and then the US government loaned the railroads construction funds, thru issuing bonds to them.
    I am sure there were a few small lines that were entirely privately funded, but the majority of US railroad right of way, especially in the West, was a socialist giveaway to rich guys.
    The interstate system of course was entirely government funded as well. And urban light rail these days is all government funded too.

    The only way that railroads could be significantly expanded today, or high speed rail will be built in the US, is if the Feds do it- just like in every other country which has high speed rail.

    Currently several companies are very close to selling electric semi-tractors, which will first be used for shorter haul, urban routes, where they can charge every night, but it is most likely that long haul electric trucks, especially on the main interstates, will not be that far away. There are very few parts of the USA where truck stops are more than 200 miles apart- that is, total lack of civilisation for 200 miles. And 200 mile range on an electric truck is do-able right now.
    Nikola also claims to be close to a viable hydrogen powered semi.
    Nikola Motors announces all-electric version of the semi truck as Tesla Semi changes the game - Electrek
    I admit that "many"was not the case as many took government money as a rule though the minority did not.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    964
    Likes (Received)
    5318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    You prove your statements are weak because Johnson was not building railroads. Red Herring.
    Johnson didnt "build" anything- he got government money for Brown and Root to build dams, army bases, roads, stadiums, refineries, ships, oil rigs, and big swathes of texas, especially Houston.
    NO politicians built the railroads- they just gave away the land and money- which is what Johnson did to Brown and Root in Texas.
    Its the same thing.

    The point is not that Lyndon Johnson was exactly like Abraham Lincoln in every way- (Lincoln signed the bill giving the railroads 1/10th of the land of the United States- 175 million acres, in 1862)
    The point is that, since the beginning of the USA, the government has given away a lot of free stuff, if you are the right people.

    Again- ONE TENTH OF THE USA (at that time) was given free of charge to the railroads.
    And thats how they got built.

    If we want electric charging stations for semi trucks, or better high speed rail today, it would still be worth FAR less than one tenth of the land in the USA.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    So...
    Then a subsidy makes sense.
    And yes...it was “free”.
    They got the title, then used the land for loans to build rail...that then made them money.
    They didn’t “pay for it”.
    They were given it for personal gain.
    In the end everyone pays something. The Pacific railroad received a lot of money per mile to complete the railroad. That one project took a lot of money while it was found that mismanagement was there in that effort. Of course the trump card is that this was critical for the U,S, and I agree yet the money and deals given to some was extravagant. The Pacific line supported the scenic route for the railroad and thus raised the costs. After the rail way started to run the price for passengers was so high that complaints came steady. The reason they were so high is because of mismanagement of money building this railroad.

    Granted the railroad was still critical and needed even if govt. money was given. It had a payback which was far greater than the money given for grants and expenses per miles of train track.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    FYI

    Not everyone accepted a free ride. I know it is inconceivable to you yet it is not the whole story.

    "Most business historians have assumed that the transcontinental railroads would never have been built without government subsidies. The free market would have failed to provide the adequate capital, or so the theory asserts. The evidence for this theory is that the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, which were completed in the years after the War Between the States, received per-mile subsidies from the federal government in the form of low-interest loans as well as massive land grants. But there need not be cause and effect here: the subsidies were not needed to cause the transcontinental railroads to be built. We know this because, just as many roads and canals were privately financed in the early nineteenth century, a market entrepreneur built his own transcontinental railroad. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash," as Hill himself stated.2"
    Link;
    https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons
    “There need not be cause and effect...piss poor version of reasoning there.
    More accurately...
    The Effect of government action fostered and paid for the rail roads.

    Please don’t try to pull that kind of crap ideological “reasoning”.
    The FACT is the us federal government paid railroads in land.
    Because of that FACT those rails were built.


    And Hill...
    Hill was a monopolist, funded by JP Morgan.
    Like Rockefeller.

    More on Hill...
    Again, he didn’t make it alone.
    Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Government Intervention, James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railway


    Noblesse Oblige.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    In the end everyone pays something. The Pacific railroad received a lot of money per mile to complete the railroad. That one project took a lot of money while it was found that mismanagement was there in that effort. Of course the trump card is that this was critical for the U,S, and I agree yet the money and deals given to some was extravagant. The Pacific line supported the scenic route for the railroad and thus raised the costs. After the rail way started to run the price for passengers was so high that complaints came steady. The reason they were so high is because of mismanagement of money building this railroad.

    Granted the railroad was still critical and needed even if govt. money was given. It had a payback which was far greater than the money given for grants and expenses per miles of train track.
    So...
    Let’s give the same level of support moving off fossil fuels and building the infrastructure for EV.

    Oh...but then Exxon and the Koch family wouldn’t be sucking of the teat they have now.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    964
    Likes (Received)
    5318

    Default

    I am unable to find a single major US railroad that was not granted free right of way by the states or federal government.
    Please, tell us who these capitalists were who refused the free right of way and built railroads by paying for the land?
    I have heard of some tiny short run railroads, for timber or minerals, or maybe cotton in the south- but every major railroad I am aware of was given government land- the B&O, the Erie, everything west of the Missouri, and on and on.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    I am unable to find a single major US railroad that was not granted free right of way by the states or federal government.
    Please, tell us who these capitalists were who refused the free right of way and built railroads by paying for the land?
    I have heard of some tiny short run railroads, for timber or minerals, or maybe cotton in the south- but every major railroad I am aware of was given government land- the B&O, the Erie, everything west of the Missouri, and on and on.
    Right of way and free land are different things.
    More on this; http://lawreview.colorado.edu/wp-con...-Roberts_s.pdf

    Saying free land was just given is not the whole story because at the very least the government expected work to be done when given or even sold land. These lands became cities and towns and were not to be owned by the railroads per sea.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    ight of way and free land are different things.
    R
    Not if the right of way is free...

  14. #54
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    A little more on "Hill".

    James J Hill and the Building of His Railroad Empire - RailServe.com

    So this guy does not want to take government money and succeeds and now he is discounted in favor of Government having control over the whole project. If one believes government does no wrong over the private sector then it is a dark day.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    “There need not be cause and effect...piss poor version of reasoning there.
    More accurately...
    The Effect of government action fostered and paid for the rail roads.

    Please don’t try to pull that kind of crap ideological “reasoning”.
    The FACT is the us federal government paid railroads in land.
    Because of that FACT those rails were built.


    And Hill...
    Hill was a monopolist, funded by JP Morgan.
    Like Rockefeller.

    More on Hill...
    Again, he didn’t make it alone.
    Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Government Intervention, James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railway


    Noblesse Oblige.
    Right he did at a point need help yet he did not go to government for a handout. Instead he had private supporters. That is a good thing.

    "When he encountered competition from E.H. Harriman's Union Pacific Railway, Hill allied with financier J.P. Morgan, adding the Northern Pacific and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroads to his empire. The rivalry ultimately caused a stock market panic in 1901, and the two joined forces, but the alliance was dissolved a few years later, prompted by President Theodore Roosevelt and the Sherman Antitrust Act."

    James J. Hill - - Biography

    This only shows that when considering what he did to build in the best way that he wasted little and so the other builders could have built much more wisely saving money which they got from the government. What is wrong with that? Nothing. My point is that not every one who built railroads were beholding to the government completely is all.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    A little more on "Hill".

    James J Hill and the Building of His Railroad Empire - RailServe.com

    So this guy does not want to take government money and succeeds and now he is discounted in favor of Government having control over the whole project. If one believes government does no wrong over the private sector then it is a dark day.
    He still used and profited from government interference and funding.
    Without the original grants he would not have had the foot hold.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Right he did at a point need help yet he did not go to government for a handout. Instead he had private supporters. That is a good thing.

    "When he encountered competition from E.H. Harriman's Union Pacific Railway, Hill allied with financier J.P. Morgan, adding the Northern Pacific and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroads to his empire. The rivalry ultimately caused a stock market panic in 1901, and the two joined forces, but the alliance was dissolved a few years later, prompted by President Theodore Roosevelt and the Sherman Antitrust Act."

    James J. Hill - - Biography

    This only shows that when considering what he did to build in the best way that he wasted little and so the other builders could have built much more wisely saving money which they got from the government. What is wrong with that? Nothing. My point is that not every one who built railroads were beholding to the government completely is all.
    He got his start buying something built with handouts.
    Then accepted public lands...including public iron and timber.


    The phrase “not everyone” is a poor piece of reasoning.
    If 100000 miles of track was laid with assistance and 2000 weren’t entirely reliant...although partly reliant on aid...what’s your point?
    The exception proves the rule.

    Hell, the fact there was a known lo grade pass was the result of government “interference”.

    Don’t buy the Mises ideology without looking at the facts.
    He was just a more stubborn monopolist, and used what he could get.
    It just turns out he was late to the party.

    The facts are simple.
    Huge giveaways built huge amounts of our industry...including giant parts of hills empire.
    There’s no reason that can’t still apply, if we decide to do it.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Quality of things like the body may still be crap, ...
    Visually, you an't tell the difference between a Shanghai Jiading VW and a Germany VW. Interior fit and finish maybe and the drive train I'd go with Germany but the quality of the body is the same.

    Even the low-status Chinese cars look fine nowadays.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12665

    Default

    With the USA at present as an exception most countries are for various reason becoming more "green" as it is very much in at the moment. In many countries (certainly in Europe) governments are getting more and more involved with CO2 emission as it gets the "popular" vote - especially from those in cities that don't have the same need for a car.

    It's all very simple to me. I want something that will, in reasonble comfort, get me from A to B and back to A as cheaply and fast as possible. I don't give a damn whether it's run by hamsters in a wheel or nuclear waste. Those that do care can buy what they want.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    375
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    With the USA at present as an exception most countries are for various reason becoming more "green" as it is very much in at the moment.

    It's all very simple to me. I want something that will, in reasonble comfort, get me from A to B and back to A as cheaply and fast as possible. I don't give a damn whether it's run by hamsters in a wheel or nuclear waste. Those that do care can buy what they want.
    Why do you consider the USA an exception? The USA has been "going green" for a very long time. My parents bought a new VW beetle in 1961 because it was small, fuel efficient, cheap and reliable. It wasn't the only VW on the road. So we've been "going green" for 60 some years that I know of. You seem to have a unique view of the world. As far as getting from A to B as cheaply and fast as possible well it seems your governments have removed some of the best choices. The most reliable and efficient cars might come from Honda or Toyota. They are consistently ranked very high but I sure don't see them in Europe, at least not in France or Germany. What I did see was Renault and Citroen. Hardly beacons of cheap reliable transportation.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •