[PRCo] Re: Business

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

> ----- Original Message ----

> From: Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:40:29 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Business
> 
> Did it not occur to you that the cost of delivering the average  
> transit ride has risen to perhaps $6 to $8 per passenger (not  
> inconsistent with the inflation of a nickel fare over 120 years) but  
> politicians a reluctant to pass the true costs along to the riders  
> because many of them simply do not have the money to pay that,  
> therefore it becomes a much easier process to divide the fare over  
> 300 million Americans in their federal, state and local taxes.   If  
> urban politicans passed on the true costs, they would be less likely  
> to be reelected.   Don't expect it to happen.
> It is similar to dividing the cost of the fire department among all  
> the people in the nation.   Or would you rather we charge you the  
> cost of wetting down your house after it has burnt to the ground?


Mr.Schneider;

In like manner - did it not occur to you that the vast majority of
so-called public transit systems today were once private / stock
issuing companies that worked for a profit above and beyond all expenses?
Not saying a profit was always available, but that was the goal
wasn't it.  Do you want to socialize GM, Ford, Chrysler?

(Maybe I should reply:  No; it did not occur to me;
isn't that why you are on the list?  Please place a smiley here.)


> There are some tasks, Philip, that probably rightfully belong in the  
> provence of government whether or not we always appreciate them: 


Yes, Mr.Schneider, there is socialism to democracy isn't there  --  perfectly
obvious with the PUC, isn't it.  Fits into the concept of an imperfect world,
doesn't it - if that concept is true then neither democaracy or socialism is
the best answer, but a blend of the two.  But it is an imprefect world so who
can say what blend is best.  What would come under the PUC umbrella
might vary with the times  --  transit was once 'private' now 'social' and
there are those who want to 'privatize' transit again.  Good Golly Miss Molly
--  private transit didn't work so we socialize it.  Now social transit doesn't
work so we call for privatization don't we.  What's the problem Mr.Schneider?

Very Simple:  the human element is at fault.  A 'social' system can be highly
beneficial as can be a private system.  Systems are inert;  it's the humans
behind them that are at fault.  Don't exercise self-control;  'greed'  MAY  be
the root problem and that brings us back to the Love of Money.

Again I say:  cut the money.  Those with $$ for eyes will go elsewhere - hopefully.
Don't mean to torque your jaw Mr.Brashear - if you read my post carefully I
indicated that 'all' are hurt didn't I, not just the passenger without alternatives.

History repeats.  How many times have you heard that a Depression is
impossible today because we have this or that standard / rule / regulation?
People will deny depressions are possible every single time one is mentioned;
thus 'history repeats' is wrong isn't it.  Why do we have recessions / depressions?
Because of a lack of human self-control; it is not the inert system.

It has been said that the one who wins in a depression is the one who loses
the least.  'All'  lose in a depression.  Not unlike cutting the money to transit
-- that word 'all' again.

A good motto is to prepare for the worst or make a good attempt at such;
if it doesn't happen then there is every reason to rejoice.
If it does happen an attempt at preparation has been made.

I hope I am wrong but the current financial crisis is seems far from over.  People who
had foreclosure problems in early 2008 but were rescued are now again facing
foreclosure; problems not solved nor has the financial crisis been solved,
only delayed.  If one takes a very close look at history it will be discovered
that humans can only affect 'destiny' in the short haul - thus the current
bailout will only prolong the inevitable, it won't solve the problem.


> The only argument against public support of transportation is that "I  
> don't use it."   That is the same argument, Philip, that people  
> without children use when they complain about taxes for public  
> schools.  Is it a valid argument?   Is it any more valid to tell the  
> insurance company I shouldn't pay for my policy because my house  
> didn't burn?


To the contrary I know many who never use and never want to use transit as ardent
supporters for same - takes many off the roads they use and lessens their congestion.
Look at it like an investment - a person wants a return for his investment,
whether schools or transit.  If public funding of schools is so important, then
one wants and expects greatly reduced crime, 99&44/100% attendance,
'decent' grades, etc.  Similar arguments for transit - just for sake of discussion -
not saying this is 'the' answer.  


> Transit is a big businss ... thousands of jobs and millions of  
> dollars in reward money for a politician.   Don't expect it to change  
> drastically.

This introduces a whole new element doesn't it.  Graft.<<That is a period.
This speaks of human failure to the public or social system doesn't it.
It is true that this is most likely the reason it won't change, not because
of business decisions or whether the social or private system is good / bad.


Phil



> 
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
> 
> > Many say that proper communications would make for a better society.
> > It is probably far more insidious; our problems stem from a love of  
> > money.
> > Case in point:  current transit agencies need more and more money but
> > is the end product any better than it was in the 1930s, 40s, 50s?
> > I have often stated that funding for transit should be cut to bare  
> > bones;
> > those with $$ for eyes would leave the agencies and those with an  
> > interest in
> > transit 'might' remain.  Once all the hollering from the agencies  
> > completely
> > dies, then it might be time to reconsider funding.
> >
> > It would be very painful for 'all' for a while;  the end result  
> > might produce
> > much better service - even infinitely better.