[quote]harris447 wrote:
T S fucking B.
Headhunter is the most annoying troll on this board.[/quote]
Where’s your contribution to ANYTHING intelligent on this board? All you ever do is descend from on high to badmouth others.
Wait, isn’t that what a troll is, Harris?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We drive cars. We don’t like to ride in cattle cars. Live with it or hit the fucking road.
Elitist troll! Go figure…[/quote]
Well, I got Vroomed again. Guess I should have expected it.
Without the USA, Canada would be so poor, they couldn’t afford cars. No wonder we’re hated by many of these wonderful ARROGANT people.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
T S fucking B.
Headhunter is the most annoying troll on this board.
Agreed.[/quote]
I don’t remember ever reading anything by you. Then again, maybe you’ve never written anything memorable…
[quote]knewsom wrote:
The increased gas tax was simply a part of a bigger plan. I don’t think that anyone can argue against the fact that petrolium has many environmentally hazardous problems - when it burns, when it’s extracted, when it’s refined, etc. The other part of the plan was to invest in renewable energy sources so that when what’s happening now happened, there would ALREADY be some alternatives on the market whose prices would remain stable, or else drop periodically due to advances in technology.
Giving oil companies a huge friggin’ tax break and then talking about investigating price gouging and “looking into” alternative energy sources, all the while spending WAY more money than we have IS hypocrisy, and I think a much larger incidence of hypocrisy than the Democratic leadership is showing at the moment.
The Democrats are of course going to jump at the opportunity to use an issue to help them gain more power in this country - politics over the last 6 years have been REDICULOUS. The reason the Dem’s are talking a big talk about this issue is because there is OBVIOUSLY price gouging going on here, and because if we had taken proper measures earlier, this wouldn’t be such a big deal. At least we’re not going on the news, changing “Nyah-nyah, we told you so”.
The “green” agenda as you call it, is an inteligent one in the long run, and I think nearly anyone can agree with the basic tennets of protecting the resources we have so that future generations can enjoy them. Pollution doesn’t really benefit anyone in the long run, nor does leveling our forests. Since there are many environmentally friendly solutions to the energy and material needs of our country, I think we should impliment them, and I think we should do our best to implement them in a way that doesn’t cripple our economy (for example, if we legalized Hemp, we’d have an EXCELLENT product to export, and an incredible source of paper, high quality oil, etc. all from a plant that is nitrogen-sparing and can be grown again and again on the same plot of land). Kennedy obviously opposes the windmill bill because he doesn’t want to have to see them outside his back door. Or, who knows, maybe he’s a bird-watcher. Fact is, most people don’t like the way wind farms look, but it’s a GREAT source of energy.
It is simply foolish and shortsighted to believe that petrolium is always going to be there in great enough quantities to remain inexpensive enough to fuel the entire world. Us “wacko environmentalists” have been saying this for quite some time, and only now that gas is $3 a gallon (btw, it’ll be $5 with 2 years), is anyone noticing. …so, Zap, exactly WHO are the hypocrites here?[/quote]
Another Green Party member heard from!
Yawn…
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/lindemnn.htm
Republicrats.
[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/lindemnn.htm
Republicrats.[/quote]
…great, just what we need - another compsiracy theorist free energy article.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Another Green Party member heard from!
Yawn…
[/quote]
…Yet another pointless troll post from Headhunter!
Yawn…
(and consequentially, I’m not a green party member)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are you terrified that you may be psychotic? You keep bringing this up. [/quote]
I am terrified for the kids you have contact with everyday. They might actually believe you.
If you were stuck in a cube somewhere all day I wouldn’t care less. But knowing you’re in contact with kids is unsettling.
As I said before: get treated, for the kids’ sake.
An interesting compendium post on gas prices:
What is so special about gas prices?
Brad DeLong provides the most concise and correct analysis of the political economy of gas prices I’ve ever seen ( Covering the Economy: Gasoline Prices ):
Democrats are (because of the environmentalist wing of the party) generally in favor of higher gasoline taxes and higher gasoline prices–except when gasoline prices are high). Republicans are in favor of letting oil markets “work”–except when gasoline prices are high.
The interesting question is why this is true. As Nick Shultz points out in Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/2006/04/20/energy-costs-gasoline_cx_ns_0420schulz.html ), energy is an increasingly less important component to the American consumer (link via Glenn Reynolds: Instapundit ):
[i] According to the Bureau of Economic Affairs (see chart here: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=65&FirstYear=2003&LastYear=2005&Freq=Qtr ), American consumer spending on energy as a fraction of total personal consumption has declined considerably since 1980. Whereas 25 years ago, one in every ten consumer dollars was spent on energy, today it’s one in every 16. In other words, what it takes to heat and cool our homes and drive to and from our jobs and vacation destinations is relatively less costly than it was then.
This goes a long way toward explaining why even when gas prices rise this summer--higher than they were throughout the 1990s--people will still be driving more; it's much more of a value than it was a generation ago.
What's more, so-called energy intensity is declining rapidly. That means we produce more with less energy. According to Economy.com, "The U.S. economy has undergone major structural changes over the last two decades, becoming more energy efficient, thus reducing its overall dependence on energy. ? The energy intensity of the U.S. economy has declined by roughly 40% since the first oil crisis (as of 2001)."[/i]
Furthermore, as Virginia Postrel pointed out ten years ago ( Virginia Postrel ), when the price of other commodities spike up, no one talks about it being a crisis:
[i] The government interventions that distorted energy markets in the 1970s, and put drivers through hell, have disappeared.
This crisis isn't a crisis. It's just a price increase, the sort of signal consumers adjust to every day. No hysteria is called for. [/i]
So, here’s my question to readers… why is a spike in gas prices considered such a political crisis?
[You’re the political scientist… why don’t you have an explanation?–ed.] I have one, but it’s a bit loopy: gasoline is a unique commodity in three ways. First, it’s tied into the politics of the Middle East, which allows media coverage to always give it that extra political twist… though during the Cold War, the only sources for platinum were the Soviet Union and South Africa, but no one fretted about the political implications.
Second, oil is one of the few commodities that’s subjected to a supplier cartel… though I don’t hear anyone besides myself ( danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Crush monopoly power ) complain about, say, the diamond cartel.
Third (and by far the loopiest), gasoline is the one commodity in which Americans of both genders possess close to full information. It’s therefore the one commodity that might mobilize the mass public into seeking a political solution.
I place very little confidence in my explanation, however: readers are welcomed to chime in.
UPDATE: Megan McArdle weighs in with her thoughts ( Asymmetrical Information ), which match the commentators’ point about the short-term price inelasticity of demand. While true, it avoids the point Schultz makes, which is that as a percentage of income, the current price spike is less traumatic than what happened thirty years ago.
So why the immediate political response? The best answer might be that whatever is being proposed now ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/25/AR2006042501900.html ) is still less intervenionist than what happened in the seventies (even/odd days, anyone).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Without the USA, Canada would be so poor, they couldn’t afford cars. No wonder we’re hated by many of these wonderful ARROGANT people.
[/quote]
Ahahahahahahaha.
Just when I think you’ve said the stupidest thing you will ever say, you come up with something else equally idiotic and pointless!
Keep it up H2, you are priceless.
Just adding to the discussion some things I read on the news today.
Congress, Bush Scramble for Gas Price Fix
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
4 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Lawmakers are walking a tightrope. With gasoline prices soaring they want to appear tough on oil companies.
But apparently not too tough.
While congressional Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate promised to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for major oil companies, the House in a largely symbolic vote Thursday seemed to move in the other direction.
House Republicans refused to go along with a proposal that called on House members to accept a Senate-passed repeal of $5 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks. They are the subject of intense negotiations between the House and Senate on a broad tax bill.
A resolution urging House negotiators to accept the Senate tax proposals failed 232-190, with only two Republicans voting for it.
At the White House Friday, President Bush rejected calls for a tax on oil company profits.
“The temptation in Washington is to tax everything,” Bush said in an exchange with reporters in the White House Rose Garden. Rather than for the government to reap the benefit from oil company profits driven by the recent surge in global oil prices, he said, “The answer is for there to be strong re-investment.”
“These oil prices are a wakeup call,” Bush said. “We’re dependent on oil. We need to get off oil.”
Meanwhile, in the Senate, GOP leaders unveiled a 10-point plan aimed at soothing the growing election-year public anger over high gasoline prices.
It included a $100 fuel-cost rebate for millions of taxpayers and proposals to rescind oil industry tax breaks enacted only eight months ago, and other measures.
But the plan also called for opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling _ a longtime goal of several large oil companies operating on the Alaska North Slope _ to the consternation of many Democrats and moderate GOP senators, who long have opposed such a move. The drilling provision all but assured the package would have a tough time getting approved.
Democrats, meanwhile, talked of suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax for two months to ease Americans’ pain at the pump.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the proposals for $100 rebates and suspending the gas tax each have merit and the Bush administration is analyzing them. “There’s always the question of unintended consequences,” Bodman told CBS’ “Early Show” on Friday.
“The situation we have has been decades in the making,” Bodman said, “and everything that can be done, that we know that works, this president is doing.”
Despite the jockeying for political advantage on the volatile issue of gasoline prices, there was little that emerged that would force down prices in the short run.
“Unfortunately there’s nothing, really, that can be done that’s going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a congressional hearing.
Still, lawmakers scrambled to put together legislative packages they hoped would _ if at times only symbolically _ demonstrate their sympathy for the nation’s motorists and their willingness to stand up to the big oil companies.
Despite the House vote, the oil industry tax breaks that were being negotiated between the House and Senate were “still on the table,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the lead Senate negotiator.
The provisions have been an issue of contention in talks
The Senate-passed measures would require oil companies to pay more taxes on their inventories, rescind favorable tax treatment for exploration in difficult areas of the world and remove tax credits for taxes paid overseas.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the tax breaks “unnecessary and unwarranted” when oil companies are reaping billions of dollars in profits. The oil industry has strongly opposed the inventory tax change, arguing it amounts to a windfall profits tax.
Congressional anxiety in this election year only grew this week as major oil companies began announcing huge first-quarter profits. Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday said it made more than $8 billion during the January-March period, the fifth largest quarterly profit for any public company ever.
“While Exxon Mobil executives are popping champagne and celebrating their record profits, American families are popping antacids under the strain of searing gas prices,” Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said.
Exxon Mobil spokesman Kenneth Cohen said the company was bracing for more trips to Washington to explain its earnings. “I just hope for the opportunity to communicate the fundamentals of our business,” he said.
Menendez proposed a 60-day suspension of the 18.4-cent federal tax on gasoline and 24-cent-a-gallon diesel tax. Revenue lost to the government, as much as $6 billion, would be made up by removing some oil-company tax breaks, he said.
The GOP-proposed rebate checks would be sent at the end of August to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of no more than $145,950 for single filers and $218,950 for married couples, according to the Senate Finance Committee.
The measure also calls for a federal law on price gouging by oil retailers and would repeal some recently enacted tax breaks for oil companies, ease permits for refinery expansion, provide tax breaks for development of gas-electric hybrid cars and give authority for the Transportation Department to increase auto fuel economy, which President Bush has sought.
And furthermore…
Bush Rejects Windfall Tax on Oil Profits
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
54 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Friday rejected calls by some lawmakers for a tax on oil company windfall profits, saying the industry should reinvest its recent gains into finding and producing more energy.
“The temptation in Washington is to tax everything,” Bush said in an exchange with reporters in the White House Rose Garden. “The answer is for there to be strong reinvestment to make this country more secure from an energy perspective.”
With gasoline at over $3 a gallon in some areas, Bush said there was “no evidence” of price-gouging of consumers.
Soaring gas prices have become a top political issue in Congress in this midterm congressional election year. Bush spoke a day after Exxon-Mobil, the nation’s biggest oil company, said its earnings climbed by 7 percent to $8.4 billion during the January-March period.
Bush said energy companies should use their increased cash flows to build more natural gas pipelines, expand refineries, explore “in environmentally friendly ways,” and invest in renewable sources of energy.
“That’s what the American people expect. They also expect to be treated fairly at the pump,” he said. “These oil prices are a wake-up call. We’re dependent on oil. We need to get off oil.”
In a hastily arranged news conference to tout strong economic growth figures, Bush also:
_Declared the national anthem should be sung in English _ not Spanish _ in response to the recent release of a Spanish language version. “And I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English,” he said.
_Endorsed yet again a temporary worker program as a way to enforce border security.
_Was cool to calls in Congress to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of the government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina, stressing that the next hurricane season starts in just five weeks. “We’re much more ready this time than last time. And we’re taking very seriously the lessons learned from Katrina,” Bush said. “I’ve looked at all suggestions, but my attitude is, let’s make it work.”
_Criticized the Sudanese government’s thwarting of efforts by the U.N. and other international organizations to take a firmer control of fighting atrocities in the Darfur region. “My message to them is we expect there to be full compliance with the international desire for there to be peace in the Darfur region,” he said.
_ Sidestepped a question on whether recent staff changes at the White House could help reverse his slump in the polls, saying, “We’ve got big challenges for this country, and I’ve got a strategy to deal with them,” he said.
_ Said “the world is united and concerned” about Iran’s suspected desire to build nuclear weapons and that he will work with other countries to achieve a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
On surging oil prices and energy-industry profits, Bush said it was “important for the people to understand that one of the reasons why the price of gasoline is up is, there’s tight gasoline supplies. And one reason there’s tight gasoline supplies is, we haven’t built any new refineries since the 1970s.”
Bush, a former Texas oilman, said Congress needs to provide regulatory relief so refineries can be expanded and new ones built.
“So it’s a combination of people investing the cash flows, as well as regulatory relief, to enhance the ability for people to achieve the objective, which is more gasoline on the market which will help our consumers,” he said.
The president announced a series of steps earlier this week designed to slightly ease upward pressure on gasoline prices, including temporarily halting the filling of the government’s emergency petroleum reserve and easing environmental standards on gasoline additives.
He also asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into whether price-gouging was going on.
“I have no evidence that there’s any rip off taking place, but it’s the role of the Federal Trade Commission to assure me that my inclination and instinct is right,” he told reporters.
It’s up to the FTC “to assure the American people that they’re being treated fairly at the pump,” he added.
Despite the high gas prices, the economy is doing great…I think?
Economy Posts Best Growth in 2 1/2 Years
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Popping out of a year-end rut, the economy zipped ahead at the fastest pace in 2 1/2 years during the first quarter of 2006 as consumers picked up spending and businesses regained their footing.
Inflation looked tame, too, though the latest figures didn’t include last week’s oil-price spike.
“The U.S. economy is cruising along now,” said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, after Friday’s latest report by the Commerce Department.
Gross domestic product advanced at a 4.8 percent pace in the January-to-March quarter. That marked a rebound from the feeble 1.7 percent rate in the final quarter of 2005, when fallout from the Gulf Coast hurricanes, including high energy prices, prompted people and companies to tighten their belts.
GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the best barometer of the economy’s fitness.
“This rapid growth is another sign that our economy is on the fast track,” said President Bush.
Recent growth hasn’t helped Bush’s standing with the public. He is shouldering his lowest-ever job approval rating, at 36 percent, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.
Democrats contend that economic expansion isn’t benefiting all. “This growth is showing up in the bottom lines of companies, but not in the paychecks of workers,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
The first quarter’s performance _ the best showing since the third quarter of 2003 _ was close to economists’ forecasts of a 4.9 percent growth rate.
Even with the economy motoring ahead, inflation moderated.
An inflation gauge closely watched by the Federal Reserve showed that core prices _ excluding food and energy _ rose by 2 percent, down from 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter.
The inflation reading, however, was taken before oil prices zoomed to a record high of more than $75 a barrel last week. Although prices have retreated since then, they remain high.
A separate report from the Labor Department suggested that the strengthening job market isn’t fanning inflation. Employers’ cost to hire and retain workers _ wages and benefits _ rose by 0.6 percent in the first quarter, the slowest pace in seven years. That mostly reflected less generous benefits.
While the slower growth in compensation packages heartened economists, it isn’t necessarily welcome news for workers. “People’s wages are going up, but they are not keeping up with inflation,” said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group.
To keep inflation at bay, the Federal Reserve is expected to boost interest rates again at its May 10 meeting, which would mark the 16th increase since June 2004. But after that, the central bank could take a break _ perhaps temporarily _ in its 2-year-old rate raising campaign, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke suggested Thursday.
Bernanke and other Fed policymakers indicated they don’t want to hurt economic activity by pushing rates up too high.
In the first quarter, consumers _ critical players in the shape of the overall economy _ got their spending back in a more-normal groove. They boosted spending at a brisk rate of 5.5 percent, compared with paltry 0.9 percent pace in the fourth quarter. The first quarter’s increase, the biggest since the third quarter of 2003, was led by spending on big-ticket goods such as cars.
Another force helping the economy was business investment. Business spending on equipment and software grew at a whopping rate of 16.4 percent, the largest gain since the first quarter of 2000. “Spending on equipment was the strongest since the last irrational exuberance of the dot.com boom in early 200,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.
Businesses ramped up investment on buildings and plants, too.
Government spending also supported economic growth in the first quarter. This spending went up at a 3.9 percent pace, a turnaround from a 0.8 percent dip in the fourth quarter.
Looking ahead, Bernanke said he expects the economy’s growth to moderate in coming quarters but still be sufficiently strong to generate decent job growth. Risks to the mostly positive outlook, he said, could come from any prolonged run-up in energy prices and a sharp drop in housing activity. For now, neither scenario is envisioned.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Democrats are (because of the environmentalist wing of the party) generally in favor of higher gasoline taxes and higher gasoline prices–except when gasoline prices are high). Republicans are in favor of letting oil markets “work”–except when gasoline prices are high.
[/quote]
No, Democrats are/were in favor of a tax on gasoline to pull in revenue specifically earmarked for the development of effecient alternative fuels/energy. It’s not like gas prices go up and we cheer - quite the opposite. We’re pissed because now there’s NO CHANCE of a gas tax being passed to develop alternative fuels and energies because it would make the cost of fuel prohibitively high. We missed a golden opportunity, and now we’re paying/will soon be paying the price. Oill will only get more expensive, and now that there’s a need for efficient alternative fuels, everyone is griping that we don’t have any. Gee. Guess you shoulda voted for a Democrat.
know-nothing wrote:
“No, Democrats are/were in favor of a tax on gasoline”
As usual, democrats are ridiculous.
Let me solve part of the problem. No arguments.
Just accept this truth.
W. should revisit his opposition to taxation on oil revenues.
Looks like the market is failing us in this regard.
Time for a little old-school, T.R., monopoly busting.
Quit screwing around.
JeffR
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Another Green Party member heard from!
Yawn…
…Yet another pointless troll post from Headhunter!
Yawn…
(and consequentially, I’m not a green party member)[/quote]
Bullshit.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Without the USA, Canada would be so poor, they couldn’t afford cars. No wonder we’re hated by many of these wonderful ARROGANT people.
Ahahahahahahaha.
Just when I think you’ve said the stupidest thing you will ever say, you come up with something else equally idiotic and pointless!
Keep it up H2, you are priceless.[/quote]
The whole point of this, Vroom, is that you libs want to spend other peoples’ money building mass transit. What if I don’t live near a large population center? Why should I pay so someone else gets to ride on a subway? You and Hspder want to tax others for your pet projects. This sets a precedent.
I know that my freedom to drive will not go away because of your pet plans (if the crooks who run things ever implement this). I resent someone claiming the right to any of my earnings.
If Toronto want to upgrade their MT system, should the rest of Canada pay for that? Fuck no!!
And you and I know that Canada would be like some ratshit 3rd world country w/o the big ‘boy’ to your south. Live with it.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Democrats are (because of the environmentalist wing of the party) generally in favor of higher gasoline taxes and higher gasoline prices–except when gasoline prices are high). Republicans are in favor of letting oil markets “work”–except when gasoline prices are high.
No, Democrats are/were in favor of a tax on gasoline to pull in revenue specifically earmarked for the development of effecient alternative fuels/energy. It’s not like gas prices go up and we cheer - quite the opposite. We’re pissed because now there’s NO CHANCE of a gas tax being passed to develop alternative fuels and energies because it would make the cost of fuel prohibitively high. We missed a golden opportunity, and now we’re paying/will soon be paying the price. Oill will only get more expensive, and now that there’s a need for efficient alternative fuels, everyone is griping that we don’t have any. Gee. Guess you shoulda voted for a Democrat.[/quote]
What a laughable post! An INCREASE in taxes long ago would have been used to develop alternative fuels? Horseshit! The money would’ve been spent on some porkbarrel projects and we’d all be poorer.
You have a fantasyland view of government and how things work.
Expecting criminals to develop alternative fuels! LMAO!
[quote]knewsom wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Democrats are (because of the environmentalist wing of the party) generally in favor of higher gasoline taxes and higher gasoline prices–except when gasoline prices are high). Republicans are in favor of letting oil markets “work”–except when gasoline prices are high.
No, Democrats are/were in favor of a tax on gasoline to pull in revenue specifically earmarked for the development of effecient alternative fuels/energy. It’s not like gas prices go up and we cheer - quite the opposite. We’re pissed because now there’s NO CHANCE of a gas tax being passed to develop alternative fuels and energies because it would make the cost of fuel prohibitively high. We missed a golden opportunity, and now we’re paying/will soon be paying the price. Oill will only get more expensive, and now that there’s a need for efficient alternative fuels, everyone is griping that we don’t have any. Gee. Guess you shoulda voted for a Democrat.[/quote]
You are hopelessly naive if you think that “earmarked” money from gasoline taxes would actually be used by members of any party for alternative fuels. The federal govt. is as hooked on petroleom as anyone else.
Ask yourself how much the govt. took in w/r/t all of the gas taxes that are already in place. Then ask yourself how much in taxes the govt. took in w/r/t the taxes imposed on the oil companies profits.
Who’s gouging?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The whole point of this, Vroom, is that you libs want to spend other peoples’ money building mass transit. What if I don’t live near a large population center? Why should I pay so someone else gets to ride on a subway? You and Hspder want to tax others for your pet projects. This sets a precedent.[/quote]
You libs? Are you trying to decide what I’m for and against, and assuming that everyone who thinks you are a loon all wants the same thing? Hmmm?
Look, is every post you make going to be about taxation? Because, if that’s all you are going to gripe about, you aren’t going to like democrats or republicans in the foreseeable future. Grab a slice of reality and realize that most Americans are never going to agree completely with your viewpoints concerning taxation.
If you work hard enough to set up some dominos I am pretty sure you can knock them down. However, if Canadians decide they want to invest in mass transit across the nation and Toronto get’s a share of that investment, then hey, that’s what they wanted – isn’t that called democracy?
Who knows, maybe the fact that pollution levels were lowered would act as a preventative with respect to health costs (which are also spiralling) and actually pay dividends? Maybe the investment would be in the form of loan guarantees so that the taxpayers or actual mass transit users ended up footing the bill.
Whatever the case is, if you are going to make up really silly scenarios and claim they represent my viewpoint, why bother discussing anything at all?
Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to keep your ego inflated… it makes no difference to me what kind of silly claims you want to make. You’ve crossed the loon line too many times to be taken seriously.