A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another reason economists are dorks!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 29th 03, 06:37 PM
Hunrobe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

According to his SBSC website bio, Mr. Keating holds an MA in economics from
New York University, an MBA in banking and finance from Hofstra University, and
a BS in business administration and economics from St. Joseph`s College.
He seems to be living proof of two of my own personal theories- first, that
idealogues of *any* political persuasion are fools and second, that the almost
universal access to higher education here in the US has ruined a lot of
potentially good manual laborers.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
Ads
  #2  
Old July 29th 03, 10:45 PM
one of the six billion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message
...
The Car vs. the Bicycle
by Raymond J. Keating



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------

July 9, 2003

Living in a prosperous, market economy offers countless benefits. In the

U.S.,
that most certainly includes widespread ownership of automobiles.

Indeed, one of the striking differences I've noticed over the years

between our
nation and many undeveloped, non-market economies is that our roads have

lots of
cars and trucks, while many of these other countries have lots of

bicycles.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against bicycles for competitive,
recreational and exercise purposes. However, as a primary mode of
transportation, they most certainly leave a lot to be desired. The fact

that
people in this country can afford to buy cars or SUVs, and don't have to

peddle
bicycles to work and the store is a good thing.

However, for more than a quarter century, some in the environmental

movement
haven't seen things this way. They hold that the automobile is an evil

polluter
and consumer of natural resources. These greenies would like to see many

more
of us riding bicycles around town and to work.

Unfortunately, even when Republicans are in charge of Congress such goof

ball
ideas receive attention. Consider the energy bill that passed the U.S.

House of
Representatives in April. The legislation includes some positive items,

such as
opening part of ANWR to exploration, reducing some regulatory obstacles

to
drilling on certain federal lands, and repealing the Public Utility

Holding
Company Act of 1935, which had disassembled economical energy operations

and
hampered future integration. There also are many counterproductive

measures,
including a boatload of subsidies and mandated expansion of the use of

ethanol.

The bill also would establish the "Conserve by Bicycling Program" under

the
Department of Transportation. This program would set up "10 pilot

projects .
dispersed geographically throughout the United States" and "designed to

conserve
energy resources by encouraging the use of bicycles in place of motor

vehicles."

The program would "use education and marketing to convert motor vehicle

trips to
bicycle trips," "maximize bicycle facility investments," and the National
Academy of Sciences would conduct "a study on the feasibility of

converting
motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips."

The study would evaluate the pilot projects, and "determine the type and
duration of motor vehicle trips that people in the United States may

feasibly
make by bicycle," of course factoring in issues like weather, land use

and
traffic patterns, "the carrying capacity of bicycles" and "bicycle
infrastructure." In addition, the report would "determine any energy

savings
that would result from the conversion of motor vehicle trips to bicycle

trips"
and perform "a cost-benefit analysis of bicycle infrastructure

investments."

All of this for a mere $6.2 million, at least to start. Who knows how

much more
will be spent down the road. After all, bicycle infrastructure costs

money.

The next time a politician proclaims that government has been cut to the

bone,
just think of this federal bicycle program, which also would require that

state
or local governments pick up at least 20% of the cost for each pilot

project. I
can hear politicians in the states declaring what a bargain this would be

as
local taxpayers would only have to foot a mere one-fifth of the total

cost.

If some people want to peddle a bicycle to their jobs or to go shopping,

that's
their business. But no sound reason exists for the government to be

using
taxpayer dollars to promote bicycles over motor vehicles. Government
conservation efforts certainly don't make any sense, as the market is far

better
equipped to gauge the proper level of conservation through prices. The
environment is not an issue, as automobiles run cleaner than ever before.

A
program like this is just a wasteful sop to a small number of

environmental
extremists.

When it comes to modes of personal transportation, it's better to let

consumers
decide if they want to drive or peddle to work.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------


This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.



_______________
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business Survival

Committee,
and co-author of U.S. by the Numbers: Figuring What's Left, Right, and

Wrong
with America State by State (Capital Books, 2000).



http://www.sbsc.org/LatestNews_Actio...de=CyberColumn



  #3  
Old July 29th 03, 11:47 PM
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!


Garrison Hilliard wrote in message ...

by Raymond J. Keating
Now, donít get me wrong, I have nothing against bicycles for competitive,

recreational and exercise purposes. However, as a primary mode of
transportation, they most certainly leave a lot to be desired.


Garr, nobody I know can read that much, please try
to keep your posts to ten lines or less.

Anyway, I read as far as to the part where Ray says it's
cool to be a euro type out on a oversized tubed Al frame
road bike, but it is total FREDness to use some lamer
bike as a primary mode of transport.

I agree with Ray -- DON'T BE A DAMN FRED!!!

If you need to get to work or buy the grocerys(sp?) then use
the car, that's what it's for.


  #4  
Old July 29th 03, 11:59 PM
Zippy the Pinhead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

On 29 Jul 2003 17:37:25 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

... the almost
universal access to higher education here in the US has ruined a lot of
potentially good manual laborers.


That's great. Consider it stolen.
  #5  
Old July 30th 03, 02:23 AM
Thomas Reynolds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

"one of the six billion" wrote in message ...
He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


I couldn't have said it better myself.
  #6  
Old July 30th 03, 04:14 AM
Chris Neary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


Bingo.

One of the first things you learn in Econ 101 is about "Negative
Externalities".

Either Mr. Keating is too stupid to remember them, or too intellectually
dishonest to address them.


Chris Neary


"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University
  #7  
Old July 30th 03, 04:37 AM
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

In article ,
Chris Neary writes:

Bingo.

One of the first things you learn in Econ 101 is about "Negative
Externalities".

Either Mr. Keating is too stupid to remember them, or too intellectually
dishonest to address them.


I think he's just trying to propaganda-ly run interference for
that other bill -- the one about cutting US federal funding
for alternative transportation measures. I'm just speculating.
But the timing arouses my suspicions.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
  #8  
Old July 30th 03, 05:15 AM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

"one of the six billion" wrote:

He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and remove
a destabilizing influence from the near east? $2 million an hour?
$12.50?

Just curious.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
  #9  
Old July 30th 03, 06:10 AM
Zoot Katz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:15:46 GMT,
, Mark Hickey
wrote:

"one of the six billion" wrote:

He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and remove
a destabilizing influence from the near east? $2 million an hour?
$12.50?

Just curious.

163 and counting.
When there's 3000 dead Americans in Iraq, will that equal 911?
--
zk
  #10  
Old July 30th 03, 06:10 AM
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another reason economists are dorks!

In article ,
Mark Hickey writes:

OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis


How much do you get for it?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.