Reply to: Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Scoobos]

According to this pdf rail freight in the US is half the cost of Germany's and is the most cost effective in the world

http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Backg...f-Freight.ashx

No Brillo, it'll live on till 2013!


Rob, I'll bite, me old china

For the love of god.. this just makes us all look stupid.

We all know better than to use 1 single document as "proof" of anything, anyone can post anything on the web.

Don't you think it a little unwise to use a document published by the "Association of American Railroads" saying that US railroads are the best ?

[BrilloPad]

Thank goodness this thread is finally dead.

[Robinho]

So volume is better? Or is efficiency?

According to this pdf rail freight in the US is half the cost of Germany's and is the most cost effective in the world

http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Backg...f-Freight.ashx

[cykophysh39]

Not sure which infrastructure you had in mind but it's not looking like Germany has better infrastructure.

So volume is better? Or is efficiency?

[Robinho]

That's not really true, people have disputed, particularly on these points:

Germany is a failing economy (its propping up Europe and looking strong)

It's still running a deficit though. Let's see how these countries look when they're paying off the debt and their currencies go to the toilet. Granted it is looking stronger than the US, but that failing in the US has largely been because of government intervention.

German public transport and trains are not good quality or worth the money, based on US rail.. You totally missed the obvious geographic differences between the US and your average European country - namely everywhere in the US is much further apart.

Actually i pointed out that rail freight has a considerably higher market share in the US than vs Germany. A figure which factors distances. I also showed that the number of airports per capita is far higher in America. A figure which is blind to distances, it may be affected by population density, even still though the disparity is too large. So your assertion is simply wrong.

[Scoobos]

some philosophers .

As if these boys care about philosphers. They dont contribute to economies, like all the other skills that don't contribute economically (mostly). They like art though, because they can play a market with that.

[Scoobos]

What is interesting is that none of you are able to dispute any of the concept i raise, you can only resort to nitpicking or insulting me. And ultimately that is very telling.

That's not really true, people have disputed, particularly on these points:

Germany is a failing economy (its propping up Europe and looking strong)

German public transport and trains are not good quality or worth the money, based on US rail.. You totally missed the obvious geographic differences between the US and your average European country - namely everywhere in the US is much further apart.

Profit covers all the terms used in economics. Normal profit == every profit.

I could go on.. just re-read the thread with the emotion taken out.

[Mich the Tester]

How the ignoring working out for you?

It'll start working now.

[Robinho]

This is so completely wrong it's difficult to know where to start. I can try though. Seeing as it's actually impossible to judge what is a 'rational' course of action without the benefit of hindsight, you can't possibly know whether 'most actors act rationally most of the time' and the position that 'each actor has the same propensity' can not be measured or defended. As well actors' rational behaviour is bounded by, among other things, the availability and ability to process information. Missing just one tiny piece of information can make any decision in a market completely wrong, even though all the visible signs pointed in one direction. This is to do with 'bounded rationality', which is a more recent philosophical concept than laissez-faire economics, so it's quite understandable that Adam Smith didn't know about it.

Again if you follow that line of thought then your original point all those pages back is completely irrelevant.

[Spacecadet]

Or just ignore it.

How the ignoring working out for you?

[Mich the Tester]

Or you can just accept that most actors act rationally most of the time and that each actor has the same propensity to act rationally or not than the other, and thus the theories hold true.

This is so completely wrong it's difficult to know where to start. I can try though. Seeing as it's actually impossible to judge what is a 'rational' course of action without the benefit of hindsight, you can't possibly know whether 'most actors act rationally most of the time' and the position that 'each actor has the same propensity' can not be measured or defended. As well actors' rational behaviour is bounded by, among other things, the availability and ability to process information. Missing just one tiny piece of information can make any decision in a market completely wrong, even though all the visible signs pointed in one direction. This is to do with 'bounded rationality', which is a more recent philosophical concept than laissez-faire economics, so it's quite understandable that Adam Smith didn't know about it.

[Robinho]

You're arguing against yourself now. I simply pointed out that your condition 'if all actors are acting rationally' will never be met, thereby invalidating your proposition that a monopoly won't affect prices'. You now suggest that a monopolist might decide to make all the rent free; if that isn't 'affecting prices', I don't know what is.

I am pointing out that you shouldn't have a problem with monopolies if you seem to think that there's a completely random chance that actors they will act rationally or not, and that your whole original point about the gov (who we also have no idea about whether they will act rationally or not) getting involved with monopolists is now redundant.

Or you can just accept that most actors act rationally most of the time and that each actor has the same propensity to act rationally or not than the other, and thus the theories hold true.

[Mich the Tester]

How do you know the monopolist is acting rationally? He might make all the rent free, so how have you come to the conclusion that a monopoly a bad thing?

You're arguing against yourself now. I simply pointed out that your condition 'if all actors are acting rationally' will never be met, thereby invalidating your proposition that a monopoly won't affect prices'. You now suggest that a monopolist might decide to make all the rent free; if that isn't 'affecting prices', I don't know what is.

[Robinho]

You said 'A monopoly is possible, but it won't effect the prices if all the actors are acting rationally.'

The sole fact that humans don't act rationally makes it impossible for a monopoly to not affect prices.

How do you know the monopolist is acting rationally? He might make all the rent free, so how have you come to the conclusion that a monopoly a bad thing?

[Mich the Tester]

Which is exactly why the market should decide things, and not the government.

You said 'A monopoly is possible, but it won't effect the prices if all the actors are acting rationally.'

The sole fact that humans don't act rationally makes it impossible for a monopoly to not affect prices.