@danielday36 True, however the same bus can run multiple routes depending on whether people are riding it or not. If noone wants to use the bus during a certain time then the bus will go elsewhere. A bus company can change routes a lot easier than a train company can.
Complaint pop-up at 2:11 about the bus stops on average are 2 blocks apart compared to the Light Rail. So how does that make the bus faster and the train slower?
And Energy efficiency. I love how you people say personal vehicles are more efficient than a Light rail vehicle. If that's the case, then why are the Freight Railroads Of North America making huge profits? Are they lying about how fuel efficient their transportation is?
If we went back to being a free capitalist country we could have more efficient cars. natural gas, veggie oil, even hydrogen cars, and everyone would be able to afford them because the money would be in the economy instead of the fed/state bureaucracy.
@halloranedward That doesn't solve the core issue of the mass use of the automobile. Sure they would be more efficient and cleaner fuel wise, but if everyone had cars, traffic would be at a complete standstill everywhere no matter how many highways are built (which are also funded by government at great expense). The issue is not having an ample amount of other transportation options that are separate from street/freeway traffic. In Los Angeles, we are woefully behind in that manner.
@Konman91316 incorrect. If streets and highways get too crowded people will take another route. Stop funding the roads and highways with the fed/state bureaucracy (which has stated as it's goal to make driving as expensive and inconvenient as possible, and which is spending huge amounts of your street money on light rail.) only going back to being a free country will solve this problem if people want to take a choo choo train they can privately fund one.
@halloranedward You obviously have never driven in West LA traffic at rush hour. Taking a separate route makes no difference. I live in LA so I know. We NEED other options in LA whether that's privately funded or not is another issue (which of course should apply to highways as well). And as far as the "street money" is concerned, we will simply disagree on what constitutes a better use of funds. You prefer driving whereas I prefer rapid transit.
@Konman91316 You may buy a bus, and charge money for transport to pay for the bus,(which has the advantage of being able to change routes with a pencil. You may purchase a piece of land and put choo choo train tracks on it, and charge people to ride on your choo choo train like it was the 1940's if you want to. America is not going to be a communist slave state. make that the very beginning of every single thought you have for the rest of your life.
@halloranedward Communist slave state? Really? You are completely twisting what I'm saying. I'm advocating for transit options and to you that translates to communism. So basically, if the government funds any transportation other than auto infrastructure, its communism... And I never said anything against the free market. I actually agree that it would be a better solution, so don't accuse me of being some anti-free market zealot or tell me what to think about. Good day to you.
@cspj12 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
The problem is that you guys built your city around cars. If you had built it in a transit focused way, and had the transit been better utilized it is way more effective at moving people than cars.
@vectoor91 Originally Los Angeles had a great light rail system, back in the 40s and 50s. But that was when there was less people. The oil and car companies bought out those light rail companies and paved their tracks over with the freeways.
LA is way too big to implement a efficient transit system.
Bus Rapid Transit could be an alternative to Light Rail. Bus Rapid Transit uses buses to provide faster, more efficient service than an ordinary bus line. The goal of Bus Rapid Transit is to approach the service quality of rail transit while still enjoying the cost savings and flexibility of bus transit.
Reason is a right wing think tank that pushes a No-government policy. They are endorsed and supported by the major transportation corporations. They push a policy that is very pro-rich owner and very anti-poor worker. They don't like trains because it is cheap and efficient for people to get around and they don't need to waste thousands of dollars on; cars, insurance, oil, gas, etc... Why do you think someone would make a video like this unless they were trying hard to push their agenda.
the bus and rail in los angeles is a joke they charge too much far bad service.
I had to take a taxi from union station downtown to glendale because the bus that i was waiting for at 1145pm did not arrive to take me straight to glendale and no metro rail after 10pm . never taking public tranport in LA always will drive myself its faster and SAFER.
I have included the linked video AGAIN- so i emphasize, either show some logical & intellectual decency and watch the video and don't commit the broken window fallacy again, or STFU.
its sad how you think ANYTHING positive can ever come from using guns & coercion & fancy bullshit inked on paper. You would have a much much easier time trying to justify the mafia's actions than those of a government cuz they are essentially the same breed of criminals
ALL govt actions occur at the expense of lost opportunity costs. It is as economics & logic says, a bad- all government actions are never a good, but rather they are a harm on society, a cost, a load, a BAD.
cuz the gun & initiation of force is the basis for all government actions. (note that initiation of force can never be comparable to defensive force which government often claims to use).
IF the government really did provide GOOD SERVICES, then there would be no necessity of force & coercion. it would not beat up competition nor prohibit it
Go check out what exactly is the broken window fallacy and what is it that defines a good vs a bad
Build all the trains and buses you want and use them all you want. Just pay the twenty plus bucks for the ride instead of five dollars. It's not like car drivers pay ten bucks to fill their tank and stiff the taxpayer with the other forty.
sorry guys..the reality is that LA is already developed in a fashion that makes widespread rail use a near impossibility except by those that're without any alternative & those who revel in their "greenness". rail just doesn't go where people need to go. a bus can be redirected to serve any route...a rail car goes only where the rail goes. right now honolulu is considering a rail...THAT WILL BE A STEAMING PILE OF SHIT that serves very few.
rail is FLINTSTONES technology for a jetsons world
The expressways that string all the suburbs together to shopping centers are certainly not the "free market"- it's the government of that urban area that make decisions about what they think the locals want, and then building that car centric infrastructure.
Anybody ever taken the train from Brooklyn to JFK? Takes a couple hours. No different here. LA is improving our transit system for trains and bus. We'll get better. I take the train when I go downtown.
Back in the 1920s and 1930s many big time journalists from the New York Times and other progressive newspapers went on propaganda tours around the Soviet Union where they were impressed by the massive investement in infrastructure all the new dams, the moscow metro and the shiny trains all made possible by the steady and enlightened rule of the great revolutionary comradeStalin and the determination of the people to "create a new society". Modern day progressives are not that different.
Have you seen the Los Angeles highway system? There's a parallel to the Moscow metro in terms of what it costs, and the benefits for that urban area. the difference is that with the expressways you must pay to drive your own car- wherein the mass transport only requires your own two legs.
Heres a good joke he could have made: that the air in LA is palpable because its so fucking filthy from all the exhaust. Clearly theres no externalized costs of completely stifling public transportation. none whatsoever. Atmosphere fixes itself, i heard it on limbaugh!
@omegaslast And what would limit congestion and thus pollution from cars? If drivers had to pay to use the road system - hmmm, seems like the government's road monopoly might be at fault?
Thanks for this vid. Now I know what to say to you "comedians" at Treason.tv, should you stick a mic in my face to ridicule and twist a legitimate concern that I express sincerely: "No comment douchebags."
Rail's efficiency is pretty well documented. Warren Buffet (i.e. not a "disgusting nasty progressives-statist"), cited rail's time- and fuel-efficiency in his recent purchase of BNSF and many other rail properties. Fuel efficiency alone "...allows a train to haul one ton 423 miles on one gallon of diesel."
I use Metro and Metrolink I visit LA. Provided you study the schedule it works great.
Note to Watt Smith, you negate both points when you say "I am a comedian so obviously I'm hilarious...".
@planbikecom Freight railroads like BNSF are not an accurate comparison when discussing the efficiency of light rail. Freight trains move concentrated volumes of cargo long distances. Trains are not used to move freight within a city, making multiple stops, because efficiency compared to trucks would go out the window. Any form of passenger transport requires a lot more "dead weight" in equipment with enough room to accommodate them, and utilization of capacity is another problem.
@MilwaukeeF40C Your point is well taken: commuter trains are less efficient than freight. Nevertheless, many commuter trains systems use full-size locomotives, e.g. MetroLink (in LA) and CalTrain (in SF). LA's Metro is light but MetroLink is full-size. And even these compare favorably to cars at peak ridership: i.e. during rush hour when they are most needed.
@planbikecom Conventional railroad commuter, and heavy rail rapid transit like in NY and CHI, can be highly efficient. They move large amounts of people throughout day on well defined routes, and the most successful systems had travel patterns develop around them before road travel. A lot of modern light rail and streetcar systems serve low volumes of people traveling to more dispersed locations. The infrastructure cost isnt worth it when buses can do the same job on existing roads.
@MilwaukeeF40C comparing trains and buses requires comparison of road and rail construction and maintenance. Rail is produced/maintained more cheaply than roads for the simple fact that each rail lane created requires a fraction of the surface area that an asphalt lane does and rail lanes are constructed with pre-fabricated parts (rails).
Every inch of asphalt must be custom-made.This makes road construction needlessly costly and slow. Just ask users of Hwy 60 in Montebello, CA this morning.
Yeah but the disgusting nasty progressives-statists love the trains because it involves a huge expansion of state power and the confiscation of private wealth and property. They are just like Stalin and the Soviets who liked grand ambitious projects no matter how wasteful they were ir how much value they added to the consumers. just look how excited these useful idiots are about the high speed rail system of china.
I don't see what this video was made for, besides falsely smearing public transportation (specifically rail over bus), and making this guy look like an asshole...
There were some cool statistics in the video -- but some things are misguided. You should have shown what the alternatives look like (going 20 mph average in traffic). I just recently moved to the LA area, and haven't tried the light rail -- but in Dallas I used to take it and it was great. Of course, it also just happened to go exactly where I needed to be. If I had to walk or transfer very much, I probably wouldn't have taken it.
And yes, I love light rail, and I do rely on it for actual transportation. It's stress free, cheaper than driving, and gets you out of your isolated metal box. Los Angeles has the second busiest light rail line in the United States, so they must be doing something right. (Blue line, about 80,000 riders a day). Metrorail overall has about the fifth largest ridership of any rail system in the USA. People obviously need the service and can afford to ride it.
Where to begin with the fallacies in this video? There are TONS of them. The same anti-rail canards constantly trotted out. A train car costs $3 million and a bus costs $300 K? Okay...but a train car lasts three times longer, AND carries more people. To carry the same amount of people as one train, you need TEN BUSES, and TEN BUS DRIVERS, which costs you $700,000 per year MORE in taxpayer money. EVERY YEAR. The Green Line, seen here, COULD use ZERO drivers if they automated it.)
@themoviedealers Anti-Rail canards dragged out? We asked people RIDING THE TRAIN their opinions, then compared the train SUPPORTERS' opinions with actual numbers.
Relax- we're not trying to say trains suck and buses rule.
Be it buses, trains, or tubes, the point is that government can't deliver the service without a great expense to the people.
@wattsmith Must suck to live in libertarian la-la land where you view everything in a vacuum. Do you even begin to try to research things like how much oil is subsidized in this country? Ill give you a hint.. its in the hundreds of billions every year
I prefer the Metro for getting around DC, it's 237% better than trying to drive. It's less stressful, and cheaper when you factor in paying for parking. It is slow though. I think trains would work in limited areas if they were actually fast. 120mph fast.
Public transportation is just that... public. Please don't force me to share my commute with "the public". I don't like "the public". I and 99% of America would pay much more just to avoid "the public". We are the 99%.
@omegaslast Was government spending on highways a good thing? You seem to be arguing in favor of alternatives to driving. Government subsidized infrastructure- mainly highways and massive airports- is the reason why alternatives like intercity rail, city transit, and commercial airline service at small airports are not utilized by the public as much. These systems were developed by private companies, and government subsidized infrastructure made it impossible for them to compete.
Oh by the way in case anyones an idiot and didnt understand, 21mph average is the same average as your fucking car if you take into account highway speeds + stop and go city traffic. Why doesnt reason.tv try taking a camera onto the lightrail when the traffic is backed up and see how much "faster" it would be to take a car then? well, probably because it wouldnt serve their shitty libertarian agendas.
Haha this guy has to inform us hes a comedian because hes not actually funny and hes a fucking tool. Anyways, ive used light rail in conjunction with a car and in the morning it takes me 10 minutes on lightrail to get downtown while it would take me 15 minutes to travel the same distance ON THE HIGHWAY due to traffic congestion (thats not including the time it takes me to find parking). I live in san jose, id say come up here but youll just do some stupid conservative spin video anyways
This type of mass transit makes sense only to relieve extreme traffic congestion. This is because the more people use public transit, the more efficient it becomes, which is opposite of what happens with car traffic.
I love my new adoptive home of Austin, TX. But even here, bus fares have goone up. When I first started out, I used to brag that to get anywhere in the city, all you needed was a bus, a bike, and a buck. Now it's gone up to a $1.50 per trip
I ride the blue line to downtown LA every day and while it's pretty ghetto it gets the job done. Luckily I work a block from the 7th and Metro or it would not be worth it.
The Atlanta public trans system is much the same. Driving from Tucker, GA to Decatur GA is about 15-20 minutes tops. I once spent 3 1/2 hours trying to make the same trip on MARTA. No kidding.
Milwaukee is currently "debating" putting in a new streetcar system that is all of 2 miles long. When I say "debating", I mean a handful of people are fighting to keep it from becoming a referendum issue. Seeing people on the train saying that they wished the bus service was better is priceless.
That was absolute BS, Reason(which is funded by big oil & automakers) will even partner up with communists (Labor Strategy Center) to attack rail. Also you guys don't complain about the big government street in front of your house!
@Intransitman By what leap of "logic" did you come to that conclusion? Because presenting evidence of misallocation of transportation infrastructure funds, even as basic infrastructure i.e. roads crumble around is, doesn't in any way seem inherently crony capitalistic. If you even had the most superficial of knowledge of reason you would easily see a plethora of anti crony capitalistic articles and films. You sir make puddles look deep by comparison.
@Intransitman Of course everyone that disagrees with you must be paid off because no one could possibly be sincere in the disagreement with you. (Sarcasm off.) To accuse people that disagree with you of being duplicitous is intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible. Either form a cogent argument stating exactly what they misrepresented, or where they were in error, or be rightfully ridiculed.
@bullpcp Then what are the reasons for Reason's dishonesty? Watt could have gone by taxi from LAX to Burbank and even that could have been about an hour long drive.
@Intransitman You just proved Reason's point. Why spend billions of dollars on a train system when a taxi gets you there faster, cheaper and with less impact on the environment. Getting cars off the road is also addressed, as they mention that most of the riders are former bus riders displaced by cuts.
@Intransitman No, I said that YOU just proved their point by mentioning that "Watt could have gone by taxi from LAX to Burbank and even that could have been about an hour long drive" That's what they're saying. No one said that it's between rail and roads, they're saying that between the two, for now, roads are cheaper.
@Intransitman If roads cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and rail lines cost taxpayers billions of dollars, then the solution is to sell full title of roads and rail lines to private companies who can charge users whatever rate is necessary to build and properly maintain this infrastructure. I guarantee that in one generation, people will adjust their transportation and land use patterns, and the result will be far more efficient and logical than what government control caused.
@Intransitman Calling privatization a "police state" is cheap rhetoric and I shouldn't be responding. Most American infrastructure started out private, even roads. If toll roads can recover full costs, they may as well be privately operated. Government control over roads skews the market against private investment and subjects construction to political rather than economic considerations, and causes less efficient land use. Maintenance funds also get diverted to other things.
@Cyrus992 Thanks Cyrus992, you too! The crooks that fund Reason want a loaded policy deck and want to keep it that way. To control our lives and to line their pockets with our hard earned money!
Sounds preposterous getting around anywhere in LA by light rail. Theoretically it makes perfect sense to bring light rail to this town, but the execution was very flawed. The expense by government is unsustainable. Makes me really appreciate NYC Transit, or the London Underground.
@cavepilot It takes 45-50 minutes in the best traffic, so I'd say that's not bad at all. Public transit in most cities takes about twice as long as driving.
btw - i live in burbank, freelance as a location sound guy, and drive in the craptastic traffic of LA county all over for different jobs. public transpo here is a joke! but then...this city/county is HUGE!!! and pretty much every city planner who has ever come through has taken bribes and helped to over-develop and over-populate this place. this place will be ridiculous 'til it turns to ashes.
i went on a holiday to queensland australia, and only used my feet and public transport, it was brilliant i never had to wait more than a minute for a bus, tram or train, the reason why, it is privately owned and run, the govt would have fucked it up.
@KiwiTomCrawford The TransLink Transit Authority is governed by a non executive, seven-member board. The board reports directly to the Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs...translink....who we are..governance what company can afford to buy repair and maintain one line in Chicago public transport? i'm wondering.
@tmmy773 Private transit in Chicago is not impossible, though unlikely at this time in its political environment. All lines were built and run as private operations, and a few commuter rail lines were profitable on paper as late as the 1970s until the state took them over. Even most suburban bus lines were private until around the 1970s and the assets of at least one were forcibly taken over by the state. There are lines with characteristics favorable for private, profitable operation.
@MilwaukeeF40C Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) a municipal (city-owned) company began in 1947 after buying the old Chicago Rapid Transit Company (private) that was in 1947! oh sure any private company can line up and buy the public rails...they haven't since 1947...must have been an oversight. "CTA operates 24 hours each day on average weekday provides 1.7 million rides on buses and trains..1,190 train cars 222 miles 650,000 customer trips each day serve 144 stations in Chicago
@tmmy773 You havent any idea about the history of subsidized Chicago transit. The private Chicago Rapid Transit was a consolidation of the private elevated lines. CRT lost money because the city government set the fare cost. This was a disaster with the inflationary economy and workers striking every other year, and is exactly what happened in every city that bought out its transit. If CRT was allowed to operate as a business, maybe it would have been able to survive without subsidies.
@MilwaukeeF40C i used to live in Chicago...i saw thousand of people use the transit every day...it called the Chicago Transit Authority...its NOT a private company. Your talking about the "L" which is downtown. If a private company want to compete sop be it...go for it...good luck with that...they won't thats the point.
@tmmy773 Chicago Transit Authority is the public city operation that took over Chicago Rapid Transit, which is the private company that owned the elevated lines. CTA also took over the private Chicago Surface Lines, which was the private consolidation of all the private streetcar and bus routes. They all would have had a better chance of staying private and making money, if the city government had allowed them to set their own fares, and hadn't subsidized highway competition.
@MilwaukeeF40C CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) is a state/city gov't agency. It operates the L, rail lines to suburbs, city buses. I've lived right near Chicago never heard of any private company offering purchase, operate and/or maintain it ...sure maybe way back in 1947 private comp could make a go at it. They have to buy lines, land, machines, etc..maybe the city bought it for a reason? not for control but to help regular (poor) people afford to ride on it in a safe way.
@MilwaukeeF40C "The Chicago Transit Authority is an independent governmental agency created by state legislation. CTA began operating on Oct. 1, 1947, after it acquired the properties of the Chicago Rapid Transit Company and the Chicago Surface Lines" that's from the CTA website. I suppose they don't know about their history either.
@tmmy773 The political environment I mentioned is what makes private transit unlikely. Any aspiring company would need "blessing" from the corrupt "progressive" Illinois government and the unions. The company would be under insane taxes and regulation. These problems killed private transit in the first place. Deal with them, and privatize the competing toll roads too (like Chicago did with the Skyway, except totally private), and private transit would have a level playing field.
i'm so sorry if i offended anyone. i really am...we are all allowed our opinions...its just when you see and learn how the gov't can do some good things (read about FDR and New Deal) and having lived near a big city where i can see gov't programs on a daily basis...and all the people who are so poor..no work...its hard for me to sympathize with all free-market will solve everything.
@PrudenceWright You've got to be kidding...didn't you learn about the New Deal in school? How did FDR make the depression worse? Hey if some conservative right wingers don't like history they can always rewrite it. The truth is if FDR didn't make New Deal the US would not have recovered for a long time if ever..kinda like the the elites send jobs to China and then blame the poor. If enough people are hungry and homeless do think US is gong to remain the same? It won't...that is the truth.
@tmmy773 The author of the article isn't a conservative right winger. UCLA economists did a study that showed FDR's policies prolonged the depression. You think UCLA is a right wing University? lmao FDR had farmers burn crops and kill livestock while people were starving. He put people to work building Japanese internment camps. He was a horrendous president.
@PrudenceWright UCLA economists Cole Ohanian (1984) ..argued by anti FDR conservatives.since. Did you know GDP increased FDR's first term? Yes, he made some mistakes but overall the New Deal was successful. People had no money..how was the economy to improve? banks insolvent..many (most) closed. where were jobs to come from? the report you cite has been shown to be obviously flawed by now. ok the war...you know of Occupation of China? Bataan death march? what "total war" means?
@tmmy773 in 1941 how many US aircraft carriers in pacific fleet? = 3, how many jet aircraft? = 0, how many satelites? = 0, how many nuclear pow subs? = 0, how many humvees? = 0, how many M16s? = 0, how many battleships? = 9, we did have more smaller vessels. Pres during WWII? FDR...lent aid to UK, Russia to help defeat Nazi Germany? FDR if you were Jewish in 1933 would you like FDR? Yes, in retrospect interment of Japanese was wrong...but easy for us to forget what he was up against.
@tmmy773 “No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ...I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.” – U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. 1939....
Today we are doing the same thing, and it will fail.
@PrudenceWright i'm sorry Prudence..i didn't mean to make you feel bad or anything. My grandparents children during the great depression...my great uncle was in CCC. I've seen some public bldgs made New Deal. FDR was very popular..he was elected 3 times for 12 years as president. When he died everyone was sad. In 1930s the country was in bad shape...worse than now. In the 1920s people were borrowing way more they could afford..like now. The stock market was fixed..kinda like now
@tmmy773 con't..there was corruption like now, there was a housing bubble...and not enough jobs. factories were built...like Ford Motor...which most people borrowed to buy. Probs bc less quality and economic law of dim returns..like if every house has a toaster sales go down. so layoffs happened..no unions or labor laws so workers earned very little. so almost no savings. Many people bought stocks like it was free money...bc factory stocks keep rising..but we know that can't be true..
@tmmy773 The factories started more layoffs..lucky most people still lived on farms (Waltons) rents somewhat lower than now people started losing homes...banks started closing (bank runs) my great-grandfather cabinet maker (we used to have those) they little better off than most..my grandmother's father was a carpenter..made just enough to feed family. They ate lots of potatoes and pork pies....never threw away anything. When the stock market crashed it was like the roof caved in.
@tmmy773 really happened FDR had 35-40 per cent unemployment...almost no money in circulation many homeless some by railroads..men sold apples and pencils for 2-3 cents so they could eat. Al Capone opened a soup kitchen in Chicago (its true) (churches also) President Hoover (before FDR) was a conservative..he didn't believe in public charity or programs..bc so many poor and homeless he finally made a gov't agency (RFC _1932) loans to private business...too little too late.
@tmmy773 Hoover did conservatives now want to .let the poor suffer until the economy magically fix itself...of course they were the wealthy who had no care about the poor..believing doing nothing was somehow helping them. Hoover at the end of his term (1929-1933) could see that wasn't working so he tried to do the right things. FDR did 2 major things. 1. increased taxes and had public relief and gov't work programs. That part wasn't meant to provide permanent jobs but to help the nation
@tmmy773 FDR part 2 was to have Fed Laws so workers would be treated fairly, children not forced to work, Soc sec, Min Wage laws, unions would be legal, antitrust laws, FDIC laws, SEC, farm subsidies, in 1936 election (2nd term) FDR won every state except ME and VT. He wasn't perfect but he did a lot of good things. i hate to go on but these psuedo-historians who try to say their ideas would have worked in 1930s is nonsense. Their ideas were tried and they failed.
@tmmy773 It will always be amazing how some will defend dictators long after they are dead. You tout Social Security like its a good thing, despite it is unsustainable. The Minimum wage INCREASES unemployment, especially amongst the poor, young and black. You sound like a public school teacher. Few besides government employees simply accept the "official" story of FDR. But he was an economic disaster and a tyrant.
@kev3d Defend dictators? Elites as nobility? Social security is a good thing..lets say take your money away from you when your 65 so you can rent a room or live sec 8 housing. if your lucky...who cares right? you can live in cardboard box your poor so it doesn't matter. Soc sec is sustainable...since it began still is...republicans raid it to pay for all their wars to steal other people's oil. Against min wage? You complain about dictators? You're right modern-day slaves don't cost much.
@tmmy773 Australia has had private retirement funds for decades which work better than social security and cannot be raided. So get off your high horse about the ponzi scheme called social security the govt. has sold you. If you actually read a book on economics (which I doubt, since reading generally requires knowing the difference between "your" and "you're") you'd know how minimum wage laws drive up unemployment.
@tmmy773 Hoover was not a "hands off" president. In fact, like FDR, he was an economic interventionist.Coolidge and Harding were "hands off" presidents. In fact Hoover also raised taxes (another one of his terrible ideas which FDR followed). Read an ACTUAL book by an ACTUAL economist, not some pro government bullshit.
@tmmy773 FDR was instrumental in dragging out the depression for, by some estimations, over a decade. His policies were abysmal. That he was popular was no indication that his policies were good, only that his propaganda machine worked better than Hoovers. FDR repeatedly violated the constitution and the precedent of two terms. He instituted the ponzi scheme Social Security, He imprisoned US citizens without trial, destroyed produce during the dust bowl for starters.
@tmmy773 "The truth is if FDR didn't make New Deal the US would not have recovered for a long time if ever" Of cource evidence that other countries where the gov't did less to interfere recovered faster (pre-war) and after the war, when all the troops came home and there was predicted to be mass unemployment without gov't programs, the programs were cut and unemployment dropped.
@bsabruzzo Great Depression hit US (which is the focus) but also world economy in 1930s was a mess...we have to consider a lot of other things when talking about foreign countries obviously. ok what evidence from other countries? England was somewhat better gov't didn't do much but they still had high unemployment, etc, France a socialist gov't was elected in 1936 (sums it up) Spain civil war, Germany suffered since the 1920s..after the war we had factories and stability bc of FDR
@tmmy773 "Great Depression hit US (which is the focus) " Yes, and FDR's solution was the NRA, which required prices to have a set minimum, driving small businesses to close. Also many "make work" projects which did nothing more than dig ditches, then fill them up. Farmer were paid to leave land fallow or to destroy crops, dump milk, as so on, driving up prices.
If none of these were donw, prices would have been lower and jobs would have returned sooner. Read "New Deal or Raw Deal".
@bsabruzzo Yes, NRA set prices so poor people could feed their children..people thought it was important...if the people need food that comes first. "make work" projects you criticize improved our social structure provide a wage so poor men (millions) could send a small paycheck home to their families. Poor family farms were suffering bc food prices were too low at the time..paying them to not seed a field would let it recover and also help raise prices so they can keep their farms.
@tmmy773 con't If none of these were done how would that make the depression end sooner? What jobs? Why would factories open if no one had any money? the economy failed...that's the point. Its unfortunate it did and we had to have public programs...but it did and that was the only way out. Unless of course the capitalists were content to sit in their comfy houses and let millions suffer and die bc this broke some economic principal. The people have the vote.
@tmmy773 "If none of these were done how would that make the depression end sooner" well, food would decrease, making it affordable to eat. More people would be able to buy the food, so farmers could grow again. The excess in seed from people previously not eating makes seed cheaper, so there would be lot's of work on the farms.
Without the NRA, cost of other goods would be less, so people could afford them, creating a demand, creating jobs and not closing businesses.
@tmmy773 "the economy failed" Agreed, mostly from the Dust Bowl drought... a natural event that was because of improper land use... Don't want farmers who can't maintain their own livelihood because they kill the soil.
The land was already recovering in 1936/40, which meant it was growing again and stalled because of depressed markets... from the New Deal (see high seed and food prices/ more lucrative to destroy food then grow and sell it).
@tmmy773 "Unless of course the capitalists were content to sit in their comfy houses " Well, if the gov't makes it profitable to not sell things or not grow food (or not work, as welfare does today), then tes people will choose the easier money.
"millions suffer and die bc this broke some economic principal" So, you'd much rather millions suffer and die because of a provenly broke principle rather than a theoretical millions (not likely) from a sound principle you politically dislike?
@tmmy773 "The people have the vote. " Yes, but to allow the people to vote for less freedom or to take away other's liberty is against the very nature of the US Constitution. The gov't's only job is to maintain the framework of indivinual liberties. That are not to do this by taking other's liberties, no matter how popular it is. A person can, in some cases, choose to give up thier liberties (via crime or volunteering).
@tmmy773 "we had to have public programs... that was the only way out.... let millions suffer and die bc this broke some economic principal. The people have the vote. "
This is, of course the very argument for slavery, a sound economic system that they people voted for, but that violated the individual rights of others. But, if you insist on defending a popular for of economics at the expence of others, this is you goal.
@tmmy773 "NRA set prices so poor people could feed their children.." Not sure how raising prices on food, making it more expencive, helped poor feed the children, but go on...
"provide a wage so poor men (millions) could send a small paycheck home to their families" Wouldn't work that actually did something do the same thing? Yes, it did un the previous decade when the average wage (mode) increased 47 times.
"help raise prices so they can keep their farms." harming more people
@tmmy773 con't what depression in 1921? a downturn and econ recovered by 1923. To compare 1921 with 1929-1940 is just wrong. FDR fedl laws in place (obviously) incl Soc Sec he knew soc relief programs temp til society stabilize
..recover. When US cut relief after war factories were trans-devel to civilian use....the gov't GI bill service people got to college, interest deduction for homeowners, etc. The real full recovery didn't happen until the 1950s (the war was interruption).
i'm not against private comp but against exploitation of anyone. Slavery in US was a good example of capitalist exploitation by private companies (plantations)...private companies have a long history of exploitation, suffering and killings. If a private company can build a new railway great go for it...it won't happen though. That's the point. Its too expensive to build, operate and maintain. Sometimes we need public funds for projects like this...and this is a case of that all i'm saying.
It is important to remember that both the NYC subway system, and the LA trolley car system (remember that? like in Who Framed Roger Rabbit) were PRIVATELY BUILT and PROFITABLE prior to their expropriation by govt.
Now the LA trolley is long gone, and the NYC subways are run, at huge losses, by the city government.
Governments should not be subsidizing any transportation or regulating land use. I only have to reference all the failures and "unintended" foreseeable consequences since subsidized canal and railroad construction, and the chaotic mess that exists today to prove it. If the private sector was left alone to develop transportation and people were free to homestead the open land by their own patterns, the result would be transport and land use that resemble what "pro transit" people claim to prefer.
Guys - it's really just a video about how even when the choice is between two government programs, the idiots in government choose the worst one. They are genetically incapable of making good decisions - that's why they're in a government job instead of a private sector job.
Is the point of this to advocate buses?
nixthenamed 2 weeks ago
It costs us 3 bucks to use the Toronto bus system, and i'm positive it's tax subsidized. wonder what the actual cost is per person.
government needs to get out of transit.
piecharthosen 3 weeks ago
I love the pop up at 2:50. "While The Train appears fuler during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity"
Guess What, so Do buses.
danielday36 3 weeks ago
@danielday36 True, however the same bus can run multiple routes depending on whether people are riding it or not. If noone wants to use the bus during a certain time then the bus will go elsewhere. A bus company can change routes a lot easier than a train company can.
Uruz2012 5 hours ago
Complaint pop-up at 2:11 about the bus stops on average are 2 blocks apart compared to the Light Rail. So how does that make the bus faster and the train slower?
And Energy efficiency. I love how you people say personal vehicles are more efficient than a Light rail vehicle. If that's the case, then why are the Freight Railroads Of North America making huge profits? Are they lying about how fuel efficient their transportation is?
danielday36 3 weeks ago
If we went back to being a free capitalist country we could have more efficient cars. natural gas, veggie oil, even hydrogen cars, and everyone would be able to afford them because the money would be in the economy instead of the fed/state bureaucracy.
halloranedward 4 weeks ago
@halloranedward That doesn't solve the core issue of the mass use of the automobile. Sure they would be more efficient and cleaner fuel wise, but if everyone had cars, traffic would be at a complete standstill everywhere no matter how many highways are built (which are also funded by government at great expense). The issue is not having an ample amount of other transportation options that are separate from street/freeway traffic. In Los Angeles, we are woefully behind in that manner.
Konman91316 3 weeks ago
@Konman91316 incorrect. If streets and highways get too crowded people will take another route. Stop funding the roads and highways with the fed/state bureaucracy (which has stated as it's goal to make driving as expensive and inconvenient as possible, and which is spending huge amounts of your street money on light rail.) only going back to being a free country will solve this problem if people want to take a choo choo train they can privately fund one.
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Konman91316 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@halloranedward You obviously have never driven in West LA traffic at rush hour. Taking a separate route makes no difference. I live in LA so I know. We NEED other options in LA whether that's privately funded or not is another issue (which of course should apply to highways as well). And as far as the "street money" is concerned, we will simply disagree on what constitutes a better use of funds. You prefer driving whereas I prefer rapid transit.
Konman91316 2 days ago
@Konman91316 You may buy a bus, and charge money for transport to pay for the bus,(which has the advantage of being able to change routes with a pencil. You may purchase a piece of land and put choo choo train tracks on it, and charge people to ride on your choo choo train like it was the 1940's if you want to. America is not going to be a communist slave state. make that the very beginning of every single thought you have for the rest of your life.
halloranedward 2 days ago
@halloranedward Communist slave state? Really? You are completely twisting what I'm saying. I'm advocating for transit options and to you that translates to communism. So basically, if the government funds any transportation other than auto infrastructure, its communism... And I never said anything against the free market. I actually agree that it would be a better solution, so don't accuse me of being some anti-free market zealot or tell me what to think about. Good day to you.
Konman91316 2 days ago
@halloranedward HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
cspj12 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cspj12 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 3 days ago
Haha good video. Buses are a much better form of mass transit than trains and high spied rail.
WestSkier11 1 month ago
The problem is that you guys built your city around cars. If you had built it in a transit focused way, and had the transit been better utilized it is way more effective at moving people than cars.
vectoor91 1 month ago
@vectoor91 Originally Los Angeles had a great light rail system, back in the 40s and 50s. But that was when there was less people. The oil and car companies bought out those light rail companies and paved their tracks over with the freeways.
LA is way too big to implement a efficient transit system.
collegefootballrulez 1 week ago
@collegefootballrulez Yes, that is my point. It is too big for an efficient transit system because you built it wrong.
vectoor91 1 week ago
Bus Rapid Transit could be an alternative to Light Rail. Bus Rapid Transit uses buses to provide faster, more efficient service than an ordinary bus line. The goal of Bus Rapid Transit is to approach the service quality of rail transit while still enjoying the cost savings and flexibility of bus transit.
sexyloser1128 1 month ago
Reason is a right wing think tank that pushes a No-government policy. They are endorsed and supported by the major transportation corporations. They push a policy that is very pro-rich owner and very anti-poor worker. They don't like trains because it is cheap and efficient for people to get around and they don't need to waste thousands of dollars on; cars, insurance, oil, gas, etc... Why do you think someone would make a video like this unless they were trying hard to push their agenda.
elliotjackson1 2 months ago
@elliotjackson1 Reason also promotes an end to the War on Drugs, all of the other wars, is pro-choice and pro freedom. How is that right wing?
iamchillydogg 1 month ago
the bus and rail in los angeles is a joke they charge too much far bad service.
I had to take a taxi from union station downtown to glendale because the bus that i was waiting for at 1145pm did not arrive to take me straight to glendale and no metro rail after 10pm . never taking public tranport in LA always will drive myself its faster and SAFER.
billboard2000 2 months ago
I have included the linked video AGAIN- so i emphasize, either show some logical & intellectual decency and watch the video and don't commit the broken window fallacy again, or STFU.
/watch?v=vW5yvuyhVyI
swu880 2 months ago
its sad how you think ANYTHING positive can ever come from using guns & coercion & fancy bullshit inked on paper. You would have a much much easier time trying to justify the mafia's actions than those of a government cuz they are essentially the same breed of criminals
ALL govt actions occur at the expense of lost opportunity costs. It is as economics & logic says, a bad- all government actions are never a good, but rather they are a harm on society, a cost, a load, a BAD.
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
cuz the gun & initiation of force is the basis for all government actions. (note that initiation of force can never be comparable to defensive force which government often claims to use).
IF the government really did provide GOOD SERVICES, then there would be no necessity of force & coercion. it would not beat up competition nor prohibit it
Go check out what exactly is the broken window fallacy and what is it that defines a good vs a bad
swu880 2 months ago
Build all the trains and buses you want and use them all you want. Just pay the twenty plus bucks for the ride instead of five dollars. It's not like car drivers pay ten bucks to fill their tank and stiff the taxpayer with the other forty.
LokiScoutSniper 2 months ago
sorry guys..the reality is that LA is already developed in a fashion that makes widespread rail use a near impossibility except by those that're without any alternative & those who revel in their "greenness". rail just doesn't go where people need to go. a bus can be redirected to serve any route...a rail car goes only where the rail goes. right now honolulu is considering a rail...THAT WILL BE A STEAMING PILE OF SHIT that serves very few.
rail is FLINTSTONES technology for a jetsons world
ensinitas 2 months ago
A car might be faster than a rail, but a car has to wait in traffic.
inquisitive871 2 months ago
I wonder if all libertarians live in suburbia. Oh, wait. They don't. Suburbia is a product of government expansion.
inquisitive871 2 months ago
@inquisitive871
The expressways that string all the suburbs together to shopping centers are certainly not the "free market"- it's the government of that urban area that make decisions about what they think the locals want, and then building that car centric infrastructure.
RomanV101 2 months ago
@inquisitive871 nice call
wattsmith 2 months ago
@omegaslast the air is fine in LA, and you're right about the oil subsidies. It's messed up. I'd do a piece on it if I wanted to get shot
wattsmith 2 months ago
Mr. Watt Smith himself is the best part of this video
YaliSharon 2 months ago
Anybody ever taken the train from Brooklyn to JFK? Takes a couple hours. No different here. LA is improving our transit system for trains and bus. We'll get better. I take the train when I go downtown.
dgoshilla1 2 months ago
Back in the 1920s and 1930s many big time journalists from the New York Times and other progressive newspapers went on propaganda tours around the Soviet Union where they were impressed by the massive investement in infrastructure all the new dams, the moscow metro and the shiny trains all made possible by the steady and enlightened rule of the great revolutionary comradeStalin and the determination of the people to "create a new society". Modern day progressives are not that different.
txn4yt7mc5 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@txn4yt7mc5
Have you seen the Los Angeles highway system? There's a parallel to the Moscow metro in terms of what it costs, and the benefits for that urban area. the difference is that with the expressways you must pay to drive your own car- wherein the mass transport only requires your own two legs.
RomanV101 2 months ago
lol nice to know.
vonGleichenT 2 months ago
Heres a good joke he could have made: that the air in LA is palpable because its so fucking filthy from all the exhaust. Clearly theres no externalized costs of completely stifling public transportation. none whatsoever. Atmosphere fixes itself, i heard it on limbaugh!
omegaslast 2 months ago 2
@omegaslast And what would limit congestion and thus pollution from cars? If drivers had to pay to use the road system - hmmm, seems like the government's road monopoly might be at fault?
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
might be cheaper to rent everyone cars and build some more roads
6024691380 2 months ago
Thanks for this vid. Now I know what to say to you "comedians" at Treason.tv, should you stick a mic in my face to ridicule and twist a legitimate concern that I express sincerely: "No comment douchebags."
wildbell 2 months ago
Rail's efficiency is pretty well documented. Warren Buffet (i.e. not a "disgusting nasty progressives-statist"), cited rail's time- and fuel-efficiency in his recent purchase of BNSF and many other rail properties. Fuel efficiency alone "...allows a train to haul one ton 423 miles on one gallon of diesel."
I use Metro and Metrolink I visit LA. Provided you study the schedule it works great.
Note to Watt Smith, you negate both points when you say "I am a comedian so obviously I'm hilarious...".
planbikecom 2 months ago
@planbikecom Freight railroads like BNSF are not an accurate comparison when discussing the efficiency of light rail. Freight trains move concentrated volumes of cargo long distances. Trains are not used to move freight within a city, making multiple stops, because efficiency compared to trucks would go out the window. Any form of passenger transport requires a lot more "dead weight" in equipment with enough room to accommodate them, and utilization of capacity is another problem.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C Your point is well taken: commuter trains are less efficient than freight. Nevertheless, many commuter trains systems use full-size locomotives, e.g. MetroLink (in LA) and CalTrain (in SF). LA's Metro is light but MetroLink is full-size. And even these compare favorably to cars at peak ridership: i.e. during rush hour when they are most needed.
planbikecom 2 months ago
@planbikecom Conventional railroad commuter, and heavy rail rapid transit like in NY and CHI, can be highly efficient. They move large amounts of people throughout day on well defined routes, and the most successful systems had travel patterns develop around them before road travel. A lot of modern light rail and streetcar systems serve low volumes of people traveling to more dispersed locations. The infrastructure cost isnt worth it when buses can do the same job on existing roads.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C comparing trains and buses requires comparison of road and rail construction and maintenance. Rail is produced/maintained more cheaply than roads for the simple fact that each rail lane created requires a fraction of the surface area that an asphalt lane does and rail lanes are constructed with pre-fabricated parts (rails).
Every inch of asphalt must be custom-made.This makes road construction needlessly costly and slow. Just ask users of Hwy 60 in Montebello, CA this morning.
planbikecom 2 months ago
Yeah but the disgusting nasty progressives-statists love the trains because it involves a huge expansion of state power and the confiscation of private wealth and property. They are just like Stalin and the Soviets who liked grand ambitious projects no matter how wasteful they were ir how much value they added to the consumers. just look how excited these useful idiots are about the high speed rail system of china.
txn4yt7mc5 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@txn4yt7mc5
Look at the highway system, you imbecile!
RomanV101 2 months ago
wow. inaccurate and unfunny. what a dork!
wastebaskets 2 months ago
Thanks for coming to LA and making fun of our transit system!
junkman601 2 months ago
I don't see what this video was made for, besides falsely smearing public transportation (specifically rail over bus), and making this guy look like an asshole...
Th3UnionFor3v3r 2 months ago
metro responded to the video
thesource.metro.net/2011/12/13/reason-foundation-thumbs-its-nose-at-metro/
aneurysm36 2 months ago
you libertarians are so cute when you act concerned.
lacrossestar83 2 months ago
Lol why didn't he fly into Burbank?!
fadeawayinwestla 2 months ago 13
@fadeawayinwestla How do you know the city he was flying from had a flight into Burbank?
sbfpat 1 month ago
There were some cool statistics in the video -- but some things are misguided. You should have shown what the alternatives look like (going 20 mph average in traffic). I just recently moved to the LA area, and haven't tried the light rail -- but in Dallas I used to take it and it was great. Of course, it also just happened to go exactly where I needed to be. If I had to walk or transfer very much, I probably wouldn't have taken it.
crwells 2 months ago
And yes, I love light rail, and I do rely on it for actual transportation. It's stress free, cheaper than driving, and gets you out of your isolated metal box. Los Angeles has the second busiest light rail line in the United States, so they must be doing something right. (Blue line, about 80,000 riders a day). Metrorail overall has about the fifth largest ridership of any rail system in the USA. People obviously need the service and can afford to ride it.
themoviedealers 2 months ago 2
Where to begin with the fallacies in this video? There are TONS of them. The same anti-rail canards constantly trotted out. A train car costs $3 million and a bus costs $300 K? Okay...but a train car lasts three times longer, AND carries more people. To carry the same amount of people as one train, you need TEN BUSES, and TEN BUS DRIVERS, which costs you $700,000 per year MORE in taxpayer money. EVERY YEAR. The Green Line, seen here, COULD use ZERO drivers if they automated it.)
themoviedealers 2 months ago 19
@themoviedealers Anti-Rail canards dragged out? We asked people RIDING THE TRAIN their opinions, then compared the train SUPPORTERS' opinions with actual numbers.
Relax- we're not trying to say trains suck and buses rule.
Be it buses, trains, or tubes, the point is that government can't deliver the service without a great expense to the people.
wattsmith 2 months ago 5
Comment removed
omegaslast 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wattsmith Must suck to live in libertarian la-la land where you view everything in a vacuum. Do you even begin to try to research things like how much oil is subsidized in this country? Ill give you a hint.. its in the hundreds of billions every year
omegaslast 2 months ago
@themoviedealers
Absolutely! This guys video and his B-S "facts" are the biggest joke!
mukluk7 2 months ago
I prefer the Metro for getting around DC, it's 237% better than trying to drive. It's less stressful, and cheaper when you factor in paying for parking. It is slow though. I think trains would work in limited areas if they were actually fast. 120mph fast.
Kilroytheknifesnob 2 months ago
Try this on the 6 train in New York.
nayls142 2 months ago
Public transportation is just that... public. Please don't force me to share my commute with "the public". I don't like "the public". I and 99% of America would pay much more just to avoid "the public". We are the 99%.
saper321 2 months ago
@saper321
Go live in a cave since you hate other people so much.
RomanV101 2 months ago
@RomanV101
Are you a fan of public transportation?
saper321 2 months ago
Government spending on infrastructure = bad. Oh... government spending developed our entire highway and road system? Shit.
omegaslast 2 months ago 5
@omegaslast Was government spending on highways a good thing? You seem to be arguing in favor of alternatives to driving. Government subsidized infrastructure- mainly highways and massive airports- is the reason why alternatives like intercity rail, city transit, and commercial airline service at small airports are not utilized by the public as much. These systems were developed by private companies, and government subsidized infrastructure made it impossible for them to compete.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago 6
Oh by the way in case anyones an idiot and didnt understand, 21mph average is the same average as your fucking car if you take into account highway speeds + stop and go city traffic. Why doesnt reason.tv try taking a camera onto the lightrail when the traffic is backed up and see how much "faster" it would be to take a car then? well, probably because it wouldnt serve their shitty libertarian agendas.
omegaslast 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha this guy has to inform us hes a comedian because hes not actually funny and hes a fucking tool. Anyways, ive used light rail in conjunction with a car and in the morning it takes me 10 minutes on lightrail to get downtown while it would take me 15 minutes to travel the same distance ON THE HIGHWAY due to traffic congestion (thats not including the time it takes me to find parking). I live in san jose, id say come up here but youll just do some stupid conservative spin video anyways
omegaslast 2 months ago
Comment removed
omegaslast 2 months ago
Good video and I like the popups!
PLooBzor 2 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Features
This type of mass transit makes sense only to relieve extreme traffic congestion. This is because the more people use public transit, the more efficient it becomes, which is opposite of what happens with car traffic.
Ape65 2 months ago 2
I love my new adoptive home of Austin, TX. But even here, bus fares have goone up. When I first started out, I used to brag that to get anywhere in the city, all you needed was a bus, a bike, and a buck. Now it's gone up to a $1.50 per trip
QuartuvLarry 2 months ago
That pricing is insane!!!
QuartuvLarry 2 months ago
I ride the blue line to downtown LA every day and while it's pretty ghetto it gets the job done. Luckily I work a block from the 7th and Metro or it would not be worth it.
radiohead2186 2 months ago
The Atlanta public trans system is much the same. Driving from Tucker, GA to Decatur GA is about 15-20 minutes tops. I once spent 3 1/2 hours trying to make the same trip on MARTA. No kidding.
jordanowen42 2 months ago in playlist Reason.tv Features
what the (bleep) is this (bleep)! Roads don't pay for themselves and I like you guys
rileymayhem20 2 months ago
Projects like these are regularly over-budget. See flyvbjerg(dot)plan(dot)aau(dot)dk/JAPAASPUBLISHED(dot)pdf for several good examples
UTubekookdetector 2 months ago
Milwaukee is currently "debating" putting in a new streetcar system that is all of 2 miles long. When I say "debating", I mean a handful of people are fighting to keep it from becoming a referendum issue. Seeing people on the train saying that they wished the bus service was better is priceless.
Thank you for spending some time here.
PovertyLabs 2 months ago
@PovertyLabs you ever been on LA Metro?
rileymayhem20 2 months ago
People are idiots fed dribble. Thanks for a bit of reason.
1620rx 2 months ago
If travel by car is cheaper they should subsidize people buying cars more than trains!
trollface.jpg
DackIsBack 2 months ago
That was absolute BS, Reason(which is funded by big oil & automakers) will even partner up with communists (Labor Strategy Center) to attack rail. Also you guys don't complain about the big government street in front of your house!
Intransitman 2 months ago 2
@Intransitman Oh yeah, roads, the bane of libertarian philosophy.
BudDickman 2 months ago
@BudDickman Reason isn't libertarian, Reason is crony capitalist.
Intransitman 2 months ago 2
@Intransitman By what leap of "logic" did you come to that conclusion? Because presenting evidence of misallocation of transportation infrastructure funds, even as basic infrastructure i.e. roads crumble around is, doesn't in any way seem inherently crony capitalistic. If you even had the most superficial of knowledge of reason you would easily see a plethora of anti crony capitalistic articles and films. You sir make puddles look deep by comparison.
bullpcp 2 months ago
@bullpcp Look at them closely, what people at Reason say & what people at Reason do are two very different things.
Intransitman 2 months ago
@Intransitman Of course everyone that disagrees with you must be paid off because no one could possibly be sincere in the disagreement with you. (Sarcasm off.) To accuse people that disagree with you of being duplicitous is intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible. Either form a cogent argument stating exactly what they misrepresented, or where they were in error, or be rightfully ridiculed.
bullpcp 2 months ago
@bullpcp Then what are the reasons for Reason's dishonesty? Watt could have gone by taxi from LAX to Burbank and even that could have been about an hour long drive.
Intransitman 2 months ago
Comment removed
BudDickman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Intransitman You just proved Reason's point. Why spend billions of dollars on a train system when a taxi gets you there faster, cheaper and with less impact on the environment. Getting cars off the road is also addressed, as they mention that most of the riders are former bus riders displaced by cuts.
BudDickman 2 months ago
@BudDickman Reason didn't prove any thing. Taxi's aren't cheap & roads can cost billions of dollars to build too!
Intransitman 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Intransitman No, I said that YOU just proved their point by mentioning that "Watt could have gone by taxi from LAX to Burbank and even that could have been about an hour long drive" That's what they're saying. No one said that it's between rail and roads, they're saying that between the two, for now, roads are cheaper.
BudDickman 2 months ago
@Intransitman If roads cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and rail lines cost taxpayers billions of dollars, then the solution is to sell full title of roads and rail lines to private companies who can charge users whatever rate is necessary to build and properly maintain this infrastructure. I guarantee that in one generation, people will adjust their transportation and land use patterns, and the result will be far more efficient and logical than what government control caused.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago 2
@MilwaukeeF40C That sounds like a private police state, it's easier just to have road tolling & congestion charging instead.
Intransitman 2 months ago
@Intransitman Calling privatization a "police state" is cheap rhetoric and I shouldn't be responding. Most American infrastructure started out private, even roads. If toll roads can recover full costs, they may as well be privately operated. Government control over roads skews the market against private investment and subjects construction to political rather than economic considerations, and causes less efficient land use. Maintenance funds also get diverted to other things.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C Limited access highways are different from city streets.
Intransitman 2 months ago
@Intransitman
Keep up the good work Intransitman!
Fight against this Koch-funded organization trying to enslave us by automobiles and limit our choices!
Have you ever noticed they attack government for the problems but FAIL to criticize corporations?
Did you know that ExxonMobil funded this organization! Shame on Reason!
Cyrus992 2 months ago
@Cyrus992 Thanks Cyrus992, you too! The crooks that fund Reason want a loaded policy deck and want to keep it that way. To control our lives and to line their pockets with our hard earned money!
Intransitman 2 months ago
Awesome video! The insanity of liberals.
theapollomoonlanding 2 months ago
Sounds preposterous getting around anywhere in LA by light rail. Theoretically it makes perfect sense to bring light rail to this town, but the execution was very flawed. The expense by government is unsustainable. Makes me really appreciate NYC Transit, or the London Underground.
JohhnyPump 2 months ago
78 minutes from LAX to Burbank, yikes
cavepilot 2 months ago
@cavepilot It takes 45-50 minutes in the best traffic, so I'd say that's not bad at all. Public transit in most cities takes about twice as long as driving.
EzraHorne 2 months ago
btw - i live in burbank, freelance as a location sound guy, and drive in the craptastic traffic of LA county all over for different jobs. public transpo here is a joke! but then...this city/county is HUGE!!! and pretty much every city planner who has ever come through has taken bribes and helped to over-develop and over-populate this place. this place will be ridiculous 'til it turns to ashes.
digging90650 2 months ago
this was a really well produced and executed spot! big thumbs up. i hope to see more of this style from you!
digging90650 2 months ago
i went on a holiday to queensland australia, and only used my feet and public transport, it was brilliant i never had to wait more than a minute for a bus, tram or train, the reason why, it is privately owned and run, the govt would have fucked it up.
KiwiTomCrawford 2 months ago
@KiwiTomCrawford The TransLink Transit Authority is governed by a non executive, seven-member board. The board reports directly to the Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs...translink....who we are..governance what company can afford to buy repair and maintain one line in Chicago public transport? i'm wondering.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 Private transit in Chicago is not impossible, though unlikely at this time in its political environment. All lines were built and run as private operations, and a few commuter rail lines were profitable on paper as late as the 1970s until the state took them over. Even most suburban bus lines were private until around the 1970s and the assets of at least one were forcibly taken over by the state. There are lines with characteristics favorable for private, profitable operation.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) a municipal (city-owned) company began in 1947 after buying the old Chicago Rapid Transit Company (private) that was in 1947! oh sure any private company can line up and buy the public rails...they haven't since 1947...must have been an oversight. "CTA operates 24 hours each day on average weekday provides 1.7 million rides on buses and trains..1,190 train cars 222 miles 650,000 customer trips each day serve 144 stations in Chicago
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 You havent any idea about the history of subsidized Chicago transit. The private Chicago Rapid Transit was a consolidation of the private elevated lines. CRT lost money because the city government set the fare cost. This was a disaster with the inflationary economy and workers striking every other year, and is exactly what happened in every city that bought out its transit. If CRT was allowed to operate as a business, maybe it would have been able to survive without subsidies.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C i used to live in Chicago...i saw thousand of people use the transit every day...it called the Chicago Transit Authority...its NOT a private company. Your talking about the "L" which is downtown. If a private company want to compete sop be it...go for it...good luck with that...they won't thats the point.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 Chicago Transit Authority is the public city operation that took over Chicago Rapid Transit, which is the private company that owned the elevated lines. CTA also took over the private Chicago Surface Lines, which was the private consolidation of all the private streetcar and bus routes. They all would have had a better chance of staying private and making money, if the city government had allowed them to set their own fares, and hadn't subsidized highway competition.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) is a state/city gov't agency. It operates the L, rail lines to suburbs, city buses. I've lived right near Chicago never heard of any private company offering purchase, operate and/or maintain it ...sure maybe way back in 1947 private comp could make a go at it. They have to buy lines, land, machines, etc..maybe the city bought it for a reason? not for control but to help regular (poor) people afford to ride on it in a safe way.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C "The Chicago Transit Authority is an independent governmental agency created by state legislation. CTA began operating on Oct. 1, 1947, after it acquired the properties of the Chicago Rapid Transit Company and the Chicago Surface Lines" that's from the CTA website. I suppose they don't know about their history either.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 The political environment I mentioned is what makes private transit unlikely. Any aspiring company would need "blessing" from the corrupt "progressive" Illinois government and the unions. The company would be under insane taxes and regulation. These problems killed private transit in the first place. Deal with them, and privatize the competing toll roads too (like Chicago did with the Skyway, except totally private), and private transit would have a level playing field.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
The president broadcasted on a monitor in a government operated train. Eerie.
Irockman1 2 months ago 2
i'm so sorry if i offended anyone. i really am...we are all allowed our opinions...its just when you see and learn how the gov't can do some good things (read about FDR and New Deal) and having lived near a big city where i can see gov't programs on a daily basis...and all the people who are so poor..no work...its hard for me to sympathize with all free-market will solve everything.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 please see 'How FDR Made the Depression Worse' by
Robert Higgs
PrudenceWright 2 months ago
@PrudenceWright You've got to be kidding...didn't you learn about the New Deal in school? How did FDR make the depression worse? Hey if some conservative right wingers don't like history they can always rewrite it. The truth is if FDR didn't make New Deal the US would not have recovered for a long time if ever..kinda like the the elites send jobs to China and then blame the poor. If enough people are hungry and homeless do think US is gong to remain the same? It won't...that is the truth.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 The author of the article isn't a conservative right winger. UCLA economists did a study that showed FDR's policies prolonged the depression. You think UCLA is a right wing University? lmao FDR had farmers burn crops and kill livestock while people were starving. He put people to work building Japanese internment camps. He was a horrendous president.
PrudenceWright 2 months ago
@PrudenceWright UCLA economists Cole Ohanian (1984) ..argued by anti FDR conservatives.since. Did you know GDP increased FDR's first term? Yes, he made some mistakes but overall the New Deal was successful. People had no money..how was the economy to improve? banks insolvent..many (most) closed. where were jobs to come from? the report you cite has been shown to be obviously flawed by now. ok the war...you know of Occupation of China? Bataan death march? what "total war" means?
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 in 1941 how many US aircraft carriers in pacific fleet? = 3, how many jet aircraft? = 0, how many satelites? = 0, how many nuclear pow subs? = 0, how many humvees? = 0, how many M16s? = 0, how many battleships? = 9, we did have more smaller vessels. Pres during WWII? FDR...lent aid to UK, Russia to help defeat Nazi Germany? FDR if you were Jewish in 1933 would you like FDR? Yes, in retrospect interment of Japanese was wrong...but easy for us to forget what he was up against.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 “No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ...I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.” – U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. 1939....
Today we are doing the same thing, and it will fail.
PrudenceWright 2 months ago
Comment removed
PrudenceWright 2 months ago
@tmmy773 Why haven't people heard of the depression of 1920?
PrudenceWright 2 months ago
@PrudenceWright i'm sorry Prudence..i didn't mean to make you feel bad or anything. My grandparents children during the great depression...my great uncle was in CCC. I've seen some public bldgs made New Deal. FDR was very popular..he was elected 3 times for 12 years as president. When he died everyone was sad. In 1930s the country was in bad shape...worse than now. In the 1920s people were borrowing way more they could afford..like now. The stock market was fixed..kinda like now
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 con't..there was corruption like now, there was a housing bubble...and not enough jobs. factories were built...like Ford Motor...which most people borrowed to buy. Probs bc less quality and economic law of dim returns..like if every house has a toaster sales go down. so layoffs happened..no unions or labor laws so workers earned very little. so almost no savings. Many people bought stocks like it was free money...bc factory stocks keep rising..but we know that can't be true..
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 The factories started more layoffs..lucky most people still lived on farms (Waltons) rents somewhat lower than now people started losing homes...banks started closing (bank runs) my great-grandfather cabinet maker (we used to have those) they little better off than most..my grandmother's father was a carpenter..made just enough to feed family. They ate lots of potatoes and pork pies....never threw away anything. When the stock market crashed it was like the roof caved in.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 really happened FDR had 35-40 per cent unemployment...almost no money in circulation many homeless some by railroads..men sold apples and pencils for 2-3 cents so they could eat. Al Capone opened a soup kitchen in Chicago (its true) (churches also) President Hoover (before FDR) was a conservative..he didn't believe in public charity or programs..bc so many poor and homeless he finally made a gov't agency (RFC _1932) loans to private business...too little too late.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 Hoover did conservatives now want to .let the poor suffer until the economy magically fix itself...of course they were the wealthy who had no care about the poor..believing doing nothing was somehow helping them. Hoover at the end of his term (1929-1933) could see that wasn't working so he tried to do the right things. FDR did 2 major things. 1. increased taxes and had public relief and gov't work programs. That part wasn't meant to provide permanent jobs but to help the nation
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 FDR part 2 was to have Fed Laws so workers would be treated fairly, children not forced to work, Soc sec, Min Wage laws, unions would be legal, antitrust laws, FDIC laws, SEC, farm subsidies, in 1936 election (2nd term) FDR won every state except ME and VT. He wasn't perfect but he did a lot of good things. i hate to go on but these psuedo-historians who try to say their ideas would have worked in 1930s is nonsense. Their ideas were tried and they failed.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 It will always be amazing how some will defend dictators long after they are dead. You tout Social Security like its a good thing, despite it is unsustainable. The Minimum wage INCREASES unemployment, especially amongst the poor, young and black. You sound like a public school teacher. Few besides government employees simply accept the "official" story of FDR. But he was an economic disaster and a tyrant.
kev3d 2 months ago 3
@kev3d Defend dictators? Elites as nobility? Social security is a good thing..lets say take your money away from you when your 65 so you can rent a room or live sec 8 housing. if your lucky...who cares right? you can live in cardboard box your poor so it doesn't matter. Soc sec is sustainable...since it began still is...republicans raid it to pay for all their wars to steal other people's oil. Against min wage? You complain about dictators? You're right modern-day slaves don't cost much.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 Australia has had private retirement funds for decades which work better than social security and cannot be raided. So get off your high horse about the ponzi scheme called social security the govt. has sold you. If you actually read a book on economics (which I doubt, since reading generally requires knowing the difference between "your" and "you're") you'd know how minimum wage laws drive up unemployment.
kev3d 2 months ago
@tmmy773 Hoover was not a "hands off" president. In fact, like FDR, he was an economic interventionist.Coolidge and Harding were "hands off" presidents. In fact Hoover also raised taxes (another one of his terrible ideas which FDR followed). Read an ACTUAL book by an ACTUAL economist, not some pro government bullshit.
kev3d 2 months ago
@tmmy773 FDR was instrumental in dragging out the depression for, by some estimations, over a decade. His policies were abysmal. That he was popular was no indication that his policies were good, only that his propaganda machine worked better than Hoovers. FDR repeatedly violated the constitution and the precedent of two terms. He instituted the ponzi scheme Social Security, He imprisoned US citizens without trial, destroyed produce during the dust bowl for starters.
kev3d 2 months ago 2
@tmmy773 "The truth is if FDR didn't make New Deal the US would not have recovered for a long time if ever" Of cource evidence that other countries where the gov't did less to interfere recovered faster (pre-war) and after the war, when all the troops came home and there was predicted to be mass unemployment without gov't programs, the programs were cut and unemployment dropped.
Much as it did after the depression of 1919-1920.
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
@bsabruzzo Great Depression hit US (which is the focus) but also world economy in 1930s was a mess...we have to consider a lot of other things when talking about foreign countries obviously. ok what evidence from other countries? England was somewhat better gov't didn't do much but they still had high unemployment, etc, France a socialist gov't was elected in 1936 (sums it up) Spain civil war, Germany suffered since the 1920s..after the war we had factories and stability bc of FDR
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 "Great Depression hit US (which is the focus) " Yes, and FDR's solution was the NRA, which required prices to have a set minimum, driving small businesses to close. Also many "make work" projects which did nothing more than dig ditches, then fill them up. Farmer were paid to leave land fallow or to destroy crops, dump milk, as so on, driving up prices.
If none of these were donw, prices would have been lower and jobs would have returned sooner. Read "New Deal or Raw Deal".
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
@bsabruzzo Yes, NRA set prices so poor people could feed their children..people thought it was important...if the people need food that comes first. "make work" projects you criticize improved our social structure provide a wage so poor men (millions) could send a small paycheck home to their families. Poor family farms were suffering bc food prices were too low at the time..paying them to not seed a field would let it recover and also help raise prices so they can keep their farms.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 con't If none of these were done how would that make the depression end sooner? What jobs? Why would factories open if no one had any money? the economy failed...that's the point. Its unfortunate it did and we had to have public programs...but it did and that was the only way out. Unless of course the capitalists were content to sit in their comfy houses and let millions suffer and die bc this broke some economic principal. The people have the vote.
tmmy773 2 months ago
@tmmy773 "If none of these were done how would that make the depression end sooner" well, food would decrease, making it affordable to eat. More people would be able to buy the food, so farmers could grow again. The excess in seed from people previously not eating makes seed cheaper, so there would be lot's of work on the farms.
Without the NRA, cost of other goods would be less, so people could afford them, creating a demand, creating jobs and not closing businesses.
It's Econ 101.
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
@tmmy773 "the economy failed" Agreed, mostly from the Dust Bowl drought... a natural event that was because of improper land use... Don't want farmers who can't maintain their own livelihood because they kill the soil.
The land was already recovering in 1936/40, which meant it was growing again and stalled because of depressed markets... from the New Deal (see high seed and food prices/ more lucrative to destroy food then grow and sell it).
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tmmy773 "Unless of course the capitalists were content to sit in their comfy houses " Well, if the gov't makes it profitable to not sell things or not grow food (or not work, as welfare does today), then tes people will choose the easier money.
"millions suffer and die bc this broke some economic principal" So, you'd much rather millions suffer and die because of a provenly broke principle rather than a theoretical millions (not likely) from a sound principle you politically dislike?
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
@tmmy773 "The people have the vote. " Yes, but to allow the people to vote for less freedom or to take away other's liberty is against the very nature of the US Constitution. The gov't's only job is to maintain the framework of indivinual liberties. That are not to do this by taking other's liberties, no matter how popular it is. A person can, in some cases, choose to give up thier liberties (via crime or volunteering).
Not a theory, proven 200+ years, and eons
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tmmy773 "we had to have public programs... that was the only way out.... let millions suffer and die bc this broke some economic principal. The people have the vote. "
This is, of course the very argument for slavery, a sound economic system that they people voted for, but that violated the individual rights of others. But, if you insist on defending a popular for of economics at the expence of others, this is you goal.
Road to Serfdom
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
Comment removed
tmmy773 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tmmy773 "NRA set prices so poor people could feed their children.." Not sure how raising prices on food, making it more expencive, helped poor feed the children, but go on...
"provide a wage so poor men (millions) could send a small paycheck home to their families" Wouldn't work that actually did something do the same thing? Yes, it did un the previous decade when the average wage (mode) increased 47 times.
"help raise prices so they can keep their farms." harming more people
bsabruzzo 2 months ago
@tmmy773 con't what depression in 1921? a downturn and econ recovered by 1923. To compare 1921 with 1929-1940 is just wrong. FDR fedl laws in place (obviously) incl Soc Sec he knew soc relief programs temp til society stabilize
..recover. When US cut relief after war factories were trans-devel to civilian use....the gov't GI bill service people got to college, interest deduction for homeowners, etc. The real full recovery didn't happen until the 1950s (the war was interruption).
tmmy773 2 months ago
Trains are good for long range across state travel but inner city light rails are not that good right now.
GunsOfThePhoenix 2 months ago
Follow the money.
Corruption in government at all levels is staggering.
P.S. Civilization is a MOTHERFUCKING SCAM!!!
TheDeJureTour 2 months ago
i'm not against private comp but against exploitation of anyone. Slavery in US was a good example of capitalist exploitation by private companies (plantations)...private companies have a long history of exploitation, suffering and killings. If a private company can build a new railway great go for it...it won't happen though. That's the point. Its too expensive to build, operate and maintain. Sometimes we need public funds for projects like this...and this is a case of that all i'm saying.
tmmy773 2 months ago
How smart do you have to be when you are allowed to get what you want by pointing guns at people?
-"Everything government does is done at the point of a gun." - Harry Browne
furyofbongos 2 months ago
It is important to remember that both the NYC subway system, and the LA trolley car system (remember that? like in Who Framed Roger Rabbit) were PRIVATELY BUILT and PROFITABLE prior to their expropriation by govt.
Now the LA trolley is long gone, and the NYC subways are run, at huge losses, by the city government.
CurtHowland 2 months ago 2
Fuck the light rail
johammbass 2 months ago
17miles in 78min is almost 13mph. I doubt you can run that fast for that long. With a bike, it wouldn't be a problem though.
Cornampoo 2 months ago
Governments should not be subsidizing any transportation or regulating land use. I only have to reference all the failures and "unintended" foreseeable consequences since subsidized canal and railroad construction, and the chaotic mess that exists today to prove it. If the private sector was left alone to develop transportation and people were free to homestead the open land by their own patterns, the result would be transport and land use that resemble what "pro transit" people claim to prefer.
MilwaukeeF40C 2 months ago
Guys - it's really just a video about how even when the choice is between two government programs, the idiots in government choose the worst one. They are genetically incapable of making good decisions - that's why they're in a government job instead of a private sector job.
pmfith 2 months ago 28
@pmfith Exactly. The people he interviewed could make better decisions than the government has.
xander7ful 2 months ago
@pmfith Yes, yes, yes, yes, and YES!
wmhoad 2 months ago