O/T: Welcome To Big Time Politics

[Doug Miller]

Ad hominem noted.

Why are you asking me what *my* game plan is? I'm not the one advocating building it. Direct that question to your governor and legislature. *They* are the ones you should be asking where the money is going to come from to maintain it.

Assuming that the revenue projections haven't been overstated to sell the project, sure. That's a pretty big assumption, though. And that's another question you should be directing to your legislators. Not to me.

One *more* reason that it's not going to be cost-effective.

Yet another reason it's not going to be cost-effective.

Yeah, now *there's* a good idea: an insolvent state going *deeper* into debt to build a project that, on its face, is not commercially viable -- if it were viable, some corporation would have built it already.

Taken a look at California's bond ratings lately? Compare them to Indiana's: S&P triple-A.

[Ed Pawlowski]

From what a lot of people seem to think. Like in our state, many town wanted to build new schools. They were promoted as being a bargain because "the state pays 85% and we only have to pay 15% of the cost. Like FREE money from the state.

[Steve]

Governor Mitch will sell the public asset to private industry, preferably one with foreign ownership.

Hoosiers voted this *&^(&* into office -- twice! Now he's being touted for Presidential candidacy, because he's so "well-connected and best-funded" of the potential candidates. Small wonder.

Some of us weren't fooled the first time, let alone the second.

[Steve]

In part, sure. Now, throw in good highway systems (think Interstate, et al), Levittown(s), the GI bill, and pent-up consumer demand unleashed after WWII. Result: the cities emptied, and work, school, and shopping all became more remote from the home. The car became a necessity because public ransportation either did not expand to meet new realities, or was actively dismantled (a la Los Angeles).

Indiana at one time had an Interurban system that spanned the state, meaning that a salesman could live in Columbus (an hour southest of Indianapolis) and still easily call on customers in Lafayette (an hour norhtwest of Indy). Or you could work in Indianapolis and live in Terre Haute. (God knows why you'd want to do that!) Try either today without a car...

Some predict a "new urbanism" with suburbanites fleeing back to the city -- you can see it in Indianapolis, with luxury apartments and condos being built along Indiana Avenue* in what was until not terribly long ago a stable and historic Black community.

*Immortalized as Leroy Carr's "Shady Avenue," and home to music halls featuring such luminaries as Wes Montgomery, Lionel Hampton, and yes, James Hendrix as a backing musician -- his only Indianapolis appearance.

[Steve]

True, Doug, but we fund the military because those vendors "own" the pols, who in turn buy votes with jobs propped up by military spending.

As long as we can't afford bombs, wouldn't it make more sense to instead build high-speed rail we can't afford, but which would become an infrastructure asset remaining in our country, and which would benefit us not only from the jobs provided, but from enhanced transportation capability?

Further, we've managed to piss off an awful lot of the world's population by trying to blow 'em up or shoot 'em. Doubt high-speed rail would anger many outside the US.

[Steve]

We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business has forgotten its intitial impetus. Used to be that a company was started to provide a needed good or service. Not so today -- a company's main purpose, at least for publicly-held companies, is the "enhancement of shareholder value."

The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony

-- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated "value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts, before you even consider the added air.)

The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or, ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.

[Dave In Texas]

privatization (pri-vah-ti-za-shun) (n): meaning to profiteer at the expense of the public.

Dave in Houston

[Swingman]

During WWII there was a secret government project to develop methods to train "managers" to facilitate the ramping up of manufacturing for the (still thriving) "war industry". Prior to that, company "management" generally came up through the ranks, gaining a thorough knowledge and understanding of the product, and the business, in the process.

Subsequently, and with the resultant advent of MBA programs (the basis of which is that you really don't need to know much about a product to "manage" the company that produces it), successful "management" has now been subverted to little more than wielding tools like 'price point engineering', "acquisition', and 'marketing strategy' to foist an inferior product onto an increasingly stupid, easily manipulated consumer (hint: does the picture of that hamburger really need to look anything like what the consumer ultimately pays for/consumes, or even has to contain the expected ingredients? ... not in the least!)

A true "manager" has the power to make an exception to policy to solve a problem. Just try to find one with that power on the floor of a corporate chain grocery store or retail outlet these days ... or even on the phone for that matter.

Today's corporate management culture, focusing on bottom line first and foremost (and ultimately, 'executive compensation'), has also arguably (and successfully) insulated themselves from both the product and the consumer, _by design_.

A neat trick, especially since you can get away with it ... but only for a while.

[HeyBub]

I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a "trouble-maker" for their tastes.

[busbus]

I could go on and on and on about a number of factors OTHER than corporate executive pay. That is not the only reason our goods cost more. Far, far from it. The average American worker gets paid a hell of a lot more than the average Chinese worker. But that still doesn't cover everything. Corporations get taxed out the wahzoo here and you know what? They pass that cost along to the consumers in terms of how much a product costs. Corporations also need to make sure everything is so freaking environmentally clean and such and it plain costs more to produce a widget with environmental and other governmental restrictions that do not exist on other countries.

Don't get me wrong, it is not like I want the fish to all die or the birds to fall out of the sky or forcing seven-year-olds to work The fact of the matter is that we are competing against societies that allow this and the final result is that the products are just plain cheaper coming out of those countries than they are coming out of ours.

And there is more: we sort of need to have higher salaries because we have more to maintain here in terms of existing infrastructure likes roads and schools and utilities and whatnot.

I think we are veering off-topic of the original off-topic subject: implementing high-speed rail through government subsidies. There have been arguments, and good ones at that, saying we don't really need it and, if we did, it would have been done already by some private firm because there would be money to be made. There obviously is not the wanton need nor desire for such a thing. The bottom line is that there is no money in the till to do this thru government. If a State is billions of dollars in the hole, how is throwing more money at something that will produce lukewarm results (at best) help the State? It will be even further in debt. It will be forced to maintain another piece of infrastructure. And, in the long run, certainly be worse off.

Swingman makes a number of good points about how accountants and the MBA program has all but crippled American corporations because they are being run by people who look at the bottom line and only as far out as the next quarter. The people who really understand the business aren't running them. As a result, you get what you got.

Before we invest in more things that aren't really going to help us but are, rather, a luxury in this day and age, we need to get us out of the hole we are in. We need to understand that 8-, 10-, 12-percent and more returns are not everlasting. I firmly believe we have gotten to this point because of this mentality that set in whenever we had years of such returns throughout the 90s. T'ain't that way no more, McGee. Both the private and public sectors will be better off once we realize that.

[Larry Jaques]

Sickening, isn't it? There was always a profit motive, but now it's the ONLY motive.

Don't forget union wages and added perks, such as health insurance, which quintuple paid-wage figures.

-- Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed. -- Storm Jameson

[CW]

From time to time I hear someone say this. It is total BS. I've been in manufacturing for 25 years. Working for businesses with employee counts from 2 to thousands. Never a union shop though. I have worked it from the shop floor to the engineering department. I think I'm qualified to say what it would take to compete with China. If everyone in a manufacturing facility were to work for free, the Chinese would still under cut our prices. Operating costs alone, without adding in labor, is higher in the US than the entire process, including labor, is in China. BTW, anytime someone brings up the subject of manufacturing, people always point to the auto or aircraft industries. Fact is, 90% of all manufacturing done in the US is done in shops with 25 or less employees. No mufti million dollar CEOs in these places. I have worked for shops where I made more than the owner and I'm damn sure a long way from being rich.

[Ed Pawlowski]

I figure the break even point is five hours driving time. In some cases, even 8 hours driving can be faster than flying.

[Lew Hodgett]

------------------------------ Is that based on driving St Route 3 (Triple "C"), US 42 or I-71?

Rt 3 and US 42 are no winners.

Lew

[Lew Hodgett]

----------------------------- Pays for all that Middle East oil we burn up driving ourselves around.

Lew

[Michael Kenefick]

[Lew Hodgett]

------------------------------ "Doug Miller" responds:

---------------------------- Since you are indicating there is not money available to the states to maintain the system, thought you might know where that income was spent?

------------------------------- Doesn't make any difference what Indiana's bond rating is, the state is too damn cheap to spend any bond money in the first place.

As my mother and father, both native Hoosiers, would say when driving back to Indiana for a family visit from Ohio, "You know when you hit the Ohio/Indiana line, the roads in Indiana are sub standard.

During the thirties when CCC projects were being built, Ohio built roadside rest areas which had well water, a privy, at least one picnic table and refuse containers.

Indiana's roadside rest area consisted of a table, period end of report.

The above references the post WWII era up to about 1955.

By the mid 80's, which is the next time back, nothing had changed if you don't include the interstate construction.

The state highway system still sucked.

That seems to make you happy, so more power to you.

As for me, I expect a little more out of this one way trip called life.

Lew

[CW]

Even you are smarter than that.

[Leon]

It seems that the California government officials have sold the citizens al lot of goods that they cannot pay for. It seems that the citizens are likely to buy into anything.

[Leon]

Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the decimel point.