Rain or cool weather means lower Democratic turnout. Does this mean those without cars don’t show if the weather is not good.
"These findings significantly illuminate the theory in regards to voter turnout. In
particular, these results show that the primary exogenous mechanism through which
turnout affects elections is the composition effect. In other words, when turnout is
increased, newly mobilized voters are disproportionately Democratic. Furthermore, these results illuminate a question that has been claimed to be unanswerable: If one could increase voter turnout, would it help Democrats? We find that the answer to this question is, resoundingly, yes.”
"The Joke Isn’t on the Democrats? The Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout"
Alexander Kendall, Political Science, Stanford University
http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci353/2004spring/reading/kendall_final.pdf
Showing posts with label transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transportation. Show all posts
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
A rebuttal of the Star Tribune misuse of the term “free market”
I submitted the following commentary to the Star Tribune a day or two after D.J. Tice’s column which I considered another misuse of the term “free market”. I have not seen it published yet. Could it be that “free marketers” don’t like reminders of true free markets?
D.J. Tice’s column “ A foolish system and your money …” leads me to believe he is one of those who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I wonder if he has considered the number of times in a day that he has benefitted from public goods.
Did he drive on a freeway to work? Did he pay the full cost of his share of the road, the full cost of the pollution from his car, and the cost of the loss of tax revenues from the houses that once were above the trenches that divide up our cities?
Did he take a bus to work? His fare would have only paid part of the cost. But the bus is a public good in that it reduces the number of cars on the road. If he had to pay the full cost of his bus ride, he probably wouldn’t take the bus.
Did he walk to work? Did he pay a toll for the sidewalk he used? Did he put a coin in the traffic lights so that he could cross the street?
Let’s hope that his house never catches fire. He would not be happy paying the full cost of the fire department response. If his neighbor had the misfortune of a fire, would he help pay the cost of the fire department whose response kept the fire from spreading to his house?
I am a graduate of the Cleveland Public School System. I doubt that my mother could have afforded the full cost of the schooling that qualified me to attend college. Many other people, some childless, helped pay the cost of my education.
I could not have afforded the tuition at Case Institute of Technology. A foundation paid full tuition the first year. I flunked out of Case but the foundation kept paying a fraction of my tuition at Ohio Wesleyan University. At both schools, many donors provided money to keep the tuition down somewhat. Three-percent federal loans also helped. I managed to get back to Case for graduate school with a graduate assistant position. I doubt any of the work we did paid in full for our jobs and tuition.
Companies are demanding more and more highly specialized “skills”, but they are not willing to train people. They expect the public schools and the colleges and universities to train these employees. But they don’t want to pay the taxes for the public schools and colleges, institutions that would help those who can’t afford the elite institutions. The smaller the pool of potential employees, the harder it is to find “qualified” employees.
Could he pay out of pocket for each and every medical visit he needed: office or hospital? For those of us with well-paying jobs, health insurance pays for a chunk of the care, if not all. But what about people who have jobs with no health insurance? Has he considered that their lack of health insurance benefits him with lower prices? (Or the owners with much higher profits.)
What if there were a deadly epidemic that had no respect for wealth? How might such an epidemic start? Maybe those who first became ill could not afford the health care, health care that would have reduced their chances of spreading their disease.
Modern economies run a large array of public goods: roads, schools, police, fire, and regulatory inspections. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly said, “I like taxes; they buy me civilization.”
D.J. Tice’s column “ A foolish system and your money …” leads me to believe he is one of those who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I wonder if he has considered the number of times in a day that he has benefitted from public goods.
Did he drive on a freeway to work? Did he pay the full cost of his share of the road, the full cost of the pollution from his car, and the cost of the loss of tax revenues from the houses that once were above the trenches that divide up our cities?
Did he take a bus to work? His fare would have only paid part of the cost. But the bus is a public good in that it reduces the number of cars on the road. If he had to pay the full cost of his bus ride, he probably wouldn’t take the bus.
Did he walk to work? Did he pay a toll for the sidewalk he used? Did he put a coin in the traffic lights so that he could cross the street?
Let’s hope that his house never catches fire. He would not be happy paying the full cost of the fire department response. If his neighbor had the misfortune of a fire, would he help pay the cost of the fire department whose response kept the fire from spreading to his house?
I am a graduate of the Cleveland Public School System. I doubt that my mother could have afforded the full cost of the schooling that qualified me to attend college. Many other people, some childless, helped pay the cost of my education.
I could not have afforded the tuition at Case Institute of Technology. A foundation paid full tuition the first year. I flunked out of Case but the foundation kept paying a fraction of my tuition at Ohio Wesleyan University. At both schools, many donors provided money to keep the tuition down somewhat. Three-percent federal loans also helped. I managed to get back to Case for graduate school with a graduate assistant position. I doubt any of the work we did paid in full for our jobs and tuition.
Companies are demanding more and more highly specialized “skills”, but they are not willing to train people. They expect the public schools and the colleges and universities to train these employees. But they don’t want to pay the taxes for the public schools and colleges, institutions that would help those who can’t afford the elite institutions. The smaller the pool of potential employees, the harder it is to find “qualified” employees.
Could he pay out of pocket for each and every medical visit he needed: office or hospital? For those of us with well-paying jobs, health insurance pays for a chunk of the care, if not all. But what about people who have jobs with no health insurance? Has he considered that their lack of health insurance benefits him with lower prices? (Or the owners with much higher profits.)
What if there were a deadly epidemic that had no respect for wealth? How might such an epidemic start? Maybe those who first became ill could not afford the health care, health care that would have reduced their chances of spreading their disease.
Modern economies run a large array of public goods: roads, schools, police, fire, and regulatory inspections. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly said, “I like taxes; they buy me civilization.”
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Republicans and reality; the only thing they have in common is starting with RE
As a former Republican party activist, I am so disappointed with the Republicans since Reagan (another name starting with RE). The latest disappointment was the attitude of Minnesota Republican legislatures towards light rail, specifically the Southwest line out of Minneapolis. See "Critics rail about state money for Southwest light rail line", Pat Dole, Star Tribune, 2012-03-09.
Despite many businesses saying that light rail aids development, the state Republicans are still opposed to the light rail line. Hey, I thought Republicans were pro-business. I think they are more pro-Koch and pro-oil than anything else.
The most egregious comment was by Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, "We like our independence and having our own car to drive where we want and when we want." He also said. " I think buses…are working very, very well." Excuse me, is anyone telling him that he can't drive? Oh, yes! The Republican Party is not "pro-choice".
He is so wrong on two counts.
Once I drove out of Chicago on I-90 towards O'Hare airport. It was on a Sunday(!) and stop-and-go. In the middle was a commuter train. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. Eventually the train pulled ahead and was gone. So much for "when we want".
As for the efficiency of buses, for two years I drove a suburban bus into the Twin Cities from Maple Grove!!!! Rare were the times it was a steady 55 mph from Maple Grove to downtown Minneapolis. Sometimes I had to drive on the shoulder. What was my supposed maximum speed? 35mph! What does light rail go? I don't know, but probably better than 35 mph between stations. And the light rail drivers generally have all the green lights in their favor. I had to slow down for merging traffic.
Despite many businesses saying that light rail aids development, the state Republicans are still opposed to the light rail line. Hey, I thought Republicans were pro-business. I think they are more pro-Koch and pro-oil than anything else.
The most egregious comment was by Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, "We like our independence and having our own car to drive where we want and when we want." He also said. " I think buses…are working very, very well." Excuse me, is anyone telling him that he can't drive? Oh, yes! The Republican Party is not "pro-choice".
He is so wrong on two counts.
Once I drove out of Chicago on I-90 towards O'Hare airport. It was on a Sunday(!) and stop-and-go. In the middle was a commuter train. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. Eventually the train pulled ahead and was gone. So much for "when we want".
As for the efficiency of buses, for two years I drove a suburban bus into the Twin Cities from Maple Grove!!!! Rare were the times it was a steady 55 mph from Maple Grove to downtown Minneapolis. Sometimes I had to drive on the shoulder. What was my supposed maximum speed? 35mph! What does light rail go? I don't know, but probably better than 35 mph between stations. And the light rail drivers generally have all the green lights in their favor. I had to slow down for merging traffic.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Businesses don't live within their means; why should government?
"Minn. Power granted 11% rate increase" is a headline on the front page of today's Duluth News Tribune.
Hm! If government is supposed to "live within its means", shouldn't businesses? If taxpayers are paying too much taxes, then aren't ratepayers paying too much?
Minnesota Power justified the rate increase "to pay for investments in reducing emissions,…" and to pay for a transmission line for wind-generated electricity.
On the other hand, government isn't supposed to raise taxes for investments in education and transportation infra-structure. Is business going to step in and make these investments? It certainly needs an educated work force and transportation to move goods and services.
Hm! If government is supposed to "live within its means", shouldn't businesses? If taxpayers are paying too much taxes, then aren't ratepayers paying too much?
Minnesota Power justified the rate increase "to pay for investments in reducing emissions,…" and to pay for a transmission line for wind-generated electricity.
On the other hand, government isn't supposed to raise taxes for investments in education and transportation infra-structure. Is business going to step in and make these investments? It certainly needs an educated work force and transportation to move goods and services.
Friday, September 04, 2009
The new buzzword: "efficiency"
Today's Star Tribune had yet another op-ed piece calling for government efficiency. See "MnDOT must work smarter for savings". This time it was for MnDOT to be more efficient in keeping our roads in good shape. Oh, yes, it was by a member of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
Whenever, I see calls for efficiencies in government, I read calls for doing more with less money.
If people want efficiency in transportation, they should be calling for more public transit and more trains. After all, it is more efficient to have one driver transporting 30 to 50 people than 30 drivers transporting 30 people and to have one engineer transporting 100 to 400 people between cities than 100 drivers transporting 100 people.
What these modes don't provide is convenience, which is one measure of effectiveness. Since we choose convenience as an important part of our transportation infra-structure, we should be willing to consider all the costs of such convenience.
One of the costs is that the convenience entices more and more people to drive, so much so, that more collective travel withers. As more and more people drive, we need more lanes and roads. "Build it and they will come." As we need more lanes and roads, we need more money. As we need more money, we need more taxes. Oops! No new taxes. If no new taxes, shall we have no new lanes and no new roads?
Whenever, I see calls for efficiencies in government, I read calls for doing more with less money.
If people want efficiency in transportation, they should be calling for more public transit and more trains. After all, it is more efficient to have one driver transporting 30 to 50 people than 30 drivers transporting 30 people and to have one engineer transporting 100 to 400 people between cities than 100 drivers transporting 100 people.
What these modes don't provide is convenience, which is one measure of effectiveness. Since we choose convenience as an important part of our transportation infra-structure, we should be willing to consider all the costs of such convenience.
One of the costs is that the convenience entices more and more people to drive, so much so, that more collective travel withers. As more and more people drive, we need more lanes and roads. "Build it and they will come." As we need more lanes and roads, we need more money. As we need more money, we need more taxes. Oops! No new taxes. If no new taxes, shall we have no new lanes and no new roads?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Are there any monopolies left?
I've been thinking about writing this blog for some time because I think most monopolies have met competition. I was spurred to write such a blog on seeing an appeals court action in favor of Comcast over an FCC rule -- "Court rejects cap on cable market share – again".
Oops, I can't give you the URL because Yahoo Finance has some block from using it other than a Yahoo Finance page. So to read rejection article, first go to http://finance.yahoo.com and then copy and paste all of
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Court-rejects-cap-on-cable-apf-4283410271.html;_ylt=ApfFZ31U4vvHDv99Cs8DBwC7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1M2NpMDZkBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjb3VydHJlamVjdHM-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=
into the URL box of your browser.
I'm sorry about past Yahoo Finance references I've given you that may not have worked. Nobody I know complained.
Back to what I wanted to write.
Essentially the FCC had been directed by Congress to set a limit on how much national coverage any cable company can have. The appeals court ruled that the FCC did not consider all possible issues in determining what would compose a monopoly.
These include the competition for TV subscription service from satellite companies and telephone companies.
This same but not exactly the same competition exists in other fields.
An airline might have a monopoly on an air route between two cities, but flying is not the only way to get there. Many people can drive or take a bus, especially when the cities are close. Given the hassle of airport security, they may even arrive more quickly than flying. For some routes, like the Boston-Washington corridor, rail travel may be preferable, if for nothing more than being able to walk around frequently.
About the only routes that air travel has no meaningful competitors is across oceans. Few want to take the many, many days that a ship would take. Even then, most major routes have multiple airlines serving them.
All transportation modes have another major competitor – telecommunications. Why make an expensive, time-consuming trip when you can just make a cheap phone call or send email.
The Bell companies once had a monopoly on telephone service in most parts of the company. A court broke them up to give other telephone companies a better chance. The decision had its up sides and its down sides. But I bet the judge did not forsee the free-for-all in telephony competition that exists now.
You can have a cell phone from several carriers, or you can use your computer and Skype. For the latter, you don't have to use a telephone; see above about cable companies.
Electricity is still mostly a monopoly, but you can take many steps to reduce your reliance on the power company, other than conservation. You can install solar panels or wind turbines to augment or replace grid electricity; the extent you can do so depends on your location and your wallet.
Natural gas has not been a monopoly for a long time. Propane and electricity have been alternative cooking fuels. These plus oil and wood are alternative heating fuels.
Railroads were once monopolies. If you wanted to ship something to another city, you generally had once choice of railroad. Then highways got better and small loads could be shipped anywhere in the nation by truck. And a shipper didn't need access to a rail spur.
As time goes on, we will see more and more alternatives to monopolistic services. TV replaced newspapers for many people, the internet is replacing both newspapers and TV for more and more. What's next to fall?
Oops, I can't give you the URL because Yahoo Finance has some block from using it other than a Yahoo Finance page. So to read rejection article, first go to http://finance.yahoo.com and then copy and paste all of
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Court-rejects-cap-on-cable-apf-4283410271.html;_ylt=ApfFZ31U4vvHDv99Cs8DBwC7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1M2NpMDZkBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjb3VydHJlamVjdHM-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=
into the URL box of your browser.
I'm sorry about past Yahoo Finance references I've given you that may not have worked. Nobody I know complained.
Back to what I wanted to write.
Essentially the FCC had been directed by Congress to set a limit on how much national coverage any cable company can have. The appeals court ruled that the FCC did not consider all possible issues in determining what would compose a monopoly.
These include the competition for TV subscription service from satellite companies and telephone companies.
This same but not exactly the same competition exists in other fields.
An airline might have a monopoly on an air route between two cities, but flying is not the only way to get there. Many people can drive or take a bus, especially when the cities are close. Given the hassle of airport security, they may even arrive more quickly than flying. For some routes, like the Boston-Washington corridor, rail travel may be preferable, if for nothing more than being able to walk around frequently.
About the only routes that air travel has no meaningful competitors is across oceans. Few want to take the many, many days that a ship would take. Even then, most major routes have multiple airlines serving them.
All transportation modes have another major competitor – telecommunications. Why make an expensive, time-consuming trip when you can just make a cheap phone call or send email.
The Bell companies once had a monopoly on telephone service in most parts of the company. A court broke them up to give other telephone companies a better chance. The decision had its up sides and its down sides. But I bet the judge did not forsee the free-for-all in telephony competition that exists now.
You can have a cell phone from several carriers, or you can use your computer and Skype. For the latter, you don't have to use a telephone; see above about cable companies.
Electricity is still mostly a monopoly, but you can take many steps to reduce your reliance on the power company, other than conservation. You can install solar panels or wind turbines to augment or replace grid electricity; the extent you can do so depends on your location and your wallet.
Natural gas has not been a monopoly for a long time. Propane and electricity have been alternative cooking fuels. These plus oil and wood are alternative heating fuels.
Railroads were once monopolies. If you wanted to ship something to another city, you generally had once choice of railroad. Then highways got better and small loads could be shipped anywhere in the nation by truck. And a shipper didn't need access to a rail spur.
As time goes on, we will see more and more alternatives to monopolistic services. TV replaced newspapers for many people, the internet is replacing both newspapers and TV for more and more. What's next to fall?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)