NY Dems choose Socialist for mayoral candidate

[Confluence]

As part of the basic curriculum in high school and even college, a fundamental course in economics should be required.
It would solve a lot of the issues this country is facing today, of course that's assuming the instructor has a clue.

lol.

In 1987, my second year economics prof taught a whole course section on rent controls, and how they were "good". I openly disagreed with him, but he was the way lefty prof. Same guy, to this day, is the chief Economissed for Canada's 4th largest bank.

Here he is:

https://www.cibc.com/en/about-cibc/media-centre/spokespeople/avery-shenfeld.html

A year later, in a Development Economics course, another prof, with experience in advising Brazil, conclusively and vehemently described how train transportation was so much better for efficiency. He excorciated the US interstate highway system (which was wonderful for me getting to and from da Burgh this past weekend) as flawed, expensive and environmentally disastrous. So now you know why the Amazon jungle is being inundated with railways.

My point is that most who teach Economics are far left and/or not close to the middle where the population is, especially at the so-called "better schools".

On the other hand......
(for Burgundy)

 

[Ron Burgundy]

My point is that most who teach Economics are far left and/or not close to the middle where the population is, especially at the so-called "better schools".

On the other hand......
(for Burgundy)

Thank you. I was taught by two Conservative economics professors.
As far as trains and mass transit, you have to strike a balance between efficiency and frequency.
Theoretically, you have say two trains a day so that they are pretty full. Problem is that the train schedule (or bus or subway or whatever) may not be ideal for everyone so not everyone takes the train. So you fix that by having a train run every hour except now each train is only 15% full and that's not efficient either.
Real-world example: I have a state Pubbie meeting in June out by Philly. I can take a train from Pittsburgh for about $60 each way, about equal to the PA Turnpike toll.
I can live with being two hours late getting there assuming the train is on time, however coming back there is only one train and it leaves too soon so I would have to spend an extra night in the hotel at $169 a night. Therefore I will drive.
Liberals would fix this problem by having one train and outlawing cars so you have to take the train whether you want to or not.

 

[Confluence]

Thank you. I was taught by two Conservative economics professors.
As far as trains and mass transit, you have to strike a balance between efficiency and frequency.
Theoretically, you have say two trains a day so that they are pretty full. Problem is that the train schedule (or bus or subway or whatever) may not be ideal for everyone so not everyone takes the train. So you fix that by having a train run every hour except now each train is only 15% full and that's not efficient either.
Real-world example: I have a state Pubbie meeting in June out by Philly. I can take a train from Pittsburgh for about $60 each way, about equal to the PA Turnpike toll.
I can live with being two hours late getting there assuming the train is on time, however coming back there is only one train and it leaves too soon so I would have to spend an extra night in the hotel at $169 a night. Therefore I will drive.
Liberals would fix this problem by having one train and outlawing cars so you have to take the train whether you want to or not.

That's the 'Murican splanation. And the correct one, even if the road system was planned for a military response that has never happened.

His hypothesis was that road damage was proportional to relative axel weight raised to 10 to the 4th power (don't know how to do exponents), and since Brazil was building out and much traffic would be by truck/train, and their were few cars in the Amazon (I **** you not), that therefore trains were far better than roads. Regardless of the comments from students, including the wry observation that you'd need roads to have cars in the jungle, he proudly shouted of his successes in convincing the foreign funders to build rail over roads.

Ever since then, right on the heels of my learning that Reagan's Star Wars missile D was fake, I have had little trust in governments or their spending or their words about stuff.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

His hypothesis was that road damage was proportional to relative axel weight raised to 10 to the 4th power (don't know how to do exponents), and since Brazil was building out and much traffic would be by truck/train, and their were few cars in the Amazon (I **** you not), that therefore trains were far better than roads. Regardless of the comments from students, including the wry observation that you'd need roads to have cars in the jungle, he proudly shouted of his successes in convincing the foreign funders to build rail over roads.

It is true that railroads are by far the most efficient way to move freight.
The problem now is that railroads are having a hard time keeping employees. The work pays well but it sucks.
In the year between my funeral director internship and finding a full-time funeral director job I spent 6 months as a cab driver for a railroad subcontractor, picking up and dropping off train crews. Paid well but easily the worst job I ever had in my life and the rail crews had it worse than I did. On call 24/7 and the second their rest time is up the phone rings calling them back for work for another 12 hours. Never met anyone who worked on a train who liked their job. It sucks.

 

[Djfan]

I always thought rapid transit was stupid. Never mind the losers on board, just the practicality of it is not there.

Come deer season, I would get on the early am bus, in camos, and a 30-.06 strapped to my back, and a side arm.

Returning home, I would be in the same situation, but have a field dressed (gutted deer for you city folk) deer over the other shoulder.

It all makes sense.

 

[JMM]

It is true that railroads are by far the most efficient way to move freight.
The problem now is that railroads are having a hard time keeping employees. The work pays well but it sucks.
In the year between my funeral director internship and finding a full-time funeral director job I spent 6 months as a cab driver for a railroad subcontractor, picking up and dropping off train crews. Paid well but easily the worst job I ever had in my life and the rail crews had it worse than I did. On call 24/7 and the second their rest time is up the phone rings calling them back for work for another 12 hours. Never met anyone who worked on a train who liked their job. It sucks.

It probably won't get any better after Union Pacific merges with Norfolk Southern and we essentially have 1 railroad for freight and 1 for passengers.. I hope they don't allow that to happen.

 

[Badcat]

It probably won't get any better after Union Pacific merges with Norfolk Southern and we essentially have 1 railroad for freight and 1 for passengers.. I hope they don't allow that to happen.

Do you remember when corporations weren't allowed to have monopolies?