Socio-Poli-Economic Discussion

[Duke87 1,070]

Toronto isn't 100% token reliant, though. They also have weekly and monthly passes, which work based on magnetic strips.

As for "changing overhead signage", it isn't impressive. VMS systems can be found on highways all over the developed world and have been around in various forms for decades. First in the 1970's it was just neon signs you could turn bits of on and off (The New Jersey Turnpike pioneered this). Then in the 80's it was flippable lit elements. Nowadays they use LEDs.

The New Jersey Turnpike also has ordinary signs that can have elements flipped over to display "road closed" or "all traffic" instead of the normal legend, of similar vintage to their ancient VMSs (which sadly, will be getting replaced with modern LED signs in the next few years).

[Danlikebooks 6]

In Cincinnati, Ohio, our only method of mass transit is the metro bus system which serves the city itself, the entire county of Hamilton, and then up into the outer suburbs of West Chester, Mason, and Batavia. For within the county, it's about a two dollar fare per way (2.50 round trip) or a 100 dollar monthly pass, with double that for going out of the county. Not too bad in respects to other cities, but the system itself is very unreliable with the buses always being late or breaking down all the time.

They're implementing a new streetcar system downtown that's causing quite a controversy, mostly because the system altogether will cost 150 million dollars total and will only serve downtown and nowhere else for the next five to ten years. It's a waste in my opinion, but hey, who listens to the taxpayers anyways? I would love to see some sort of more effective mass transit system in Cincinnati rather than just more buses or streetcars. Heavy rail running parallel the two major highways in the city (I-71 and I-75) would be nice in my opinion, as it would alleviate that nasty gridlock on those two highways during rush hour that I must drive in every day. Now I feel like I'm whining, whining over!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Did you notice that in the SOTU address, Obama was making infrastructure noises quite emphatically.  Do you suppose he is thinking of kicking off a new New Deal?  I didn't realize things were that tough in America.

The Egyptian situation seems to be turning into a revolution.  In fact, it seems that a lot of the Islamic world is a tinder box.  The Tunisian excitement has affected several other countries besides Egypt.  What effect do you suppose the Internet and social networking has had and is having on the people of that area?  and of the world?  Does freedom ring on the Internet?

I think the street mob in Tunisia are about to learn that freedom is not free.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem with these popular uprisings is that people grab their pitchforks and go to oust the regime... but with no plan as to what to do after they do. The result is often that in the political vacuum another despot just ends up rising into power. Who then holds on for a while until the people revolt again.

As such... I do not think that real democracy being born here is likely. Tunisia will end up with a new dictator, and Egypt is headed for a civil war.

[mightygoose 92]

but duke, should that stop people who are unhappy with their leadership from expressing their discontent, it is the responsibility of those with appropriate skills to further the aims of the people, is that not in theory (ideally) what a politician is for.?

[hamsterTK 93]

I'm not all that optimistic on the future of infrastructure funding in the US. Red states will get their porky road money and that's about it. Republicans want to kill Amtrak, end New Starts, etc. It's all about whose voting for who and where and that means the suburbs and rural areas, cities will get screwed again.

Maybe this failing infrastructure issue will be a good thing. After all, this will only happen in rural and suburban areas where such infrastructure was largely subsidized by the same government that the citizens of such areas want to not pay taxes to. We know the Republicans and conservative voters are hypocrites because we know they'll never lead by example and privatize the interstate system or end farm subsidies, rural electric providers or water facilities. It's only pork if it benefits someone else.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

but duke, should that stop people who are unhappy with their leadership from expressing their discontent,quote>

No, but at least think before you act. Come up with a plan, then overthrow. Don't just be an aimless angry mob.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: mightygoose

but duke, should that stop people who are unhappy with their leadership from expressing their discontent,quote>

No, but at least think before you act. Come up with a plan, then overthrow. Don't just be an aimless angry mob.

quote>

There are several different groupings in these countries – Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali are / were not "dictators" in the traditional Stalin / Idi Amin sense; while opposition groups are repressed they are not exterminated as in traditional dictatorships. While Egypt undoubtly is a mess, the Muslim Brotherhood has long been opposing Mubarak; and apparently ElBaradei, formerly of the IAEA, is another guy on the other side of politics in Egypt.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@HamsterTK:  Well, if that is the general attitude in the U.S. (a kind of helpless apathy), maybe a little civil disorder is in the works for your people as well.  If the government has become a major burden such as you imply, and you feel helpless about it, you have some choices.  One is to join the political rat race and try and change it from within;  another is to use whatever communication skills you have to voice your concerns; and finally, consider that it might be 1770 all over again.  We know that history repeats, all you have to do is review the last three or four millennia to see the cyclic nature.  From my point of view, the United States is in the same position as the Roman Republic around the time of Gaius Marius.  The next thing is the bread and circuses.

On Egypt and other middle east excitements, it seems that Mubarak is trying to create some sort of conciliation.  Good luck to him, because one of his neighbors is Israel, who won't put up with more of the same old, same old.  With what is happening now in Lebanon, I think Hamas days there are numbered, and if they are damaged there, one wonders what happens to their hegemony in Gaza, especially with Israel poised to brush them aside to get at Egypt.  Would not be surprised to see the Star of David flying at the Suez canal.

[mightygoose 92]

Yom Kippur 2, it would not surprise at all, more surprising is the quiet tentative rumblings going on in Saudi Arabia, if those escalate, (we were saying that egypt was too strong, so don't want to fall into that trap again), if those escalate, god help western financial markets...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

Yom Kippur 2, it would not surprise at all, more surprising is the quiet tentative rumblings going on in Saudi Arabia, if those escalate, (we were saying that egypt was too strong, so don't want to fall into that trap again), if those escalate, god help western financial markets...quote>

It wasn't that long ago that the ibn Saud's were wandering nomads in the bled.  If anything happens in Arabia, the oil market will go nuts (needlessly), and the feared crunch will be on.  The overthrow of the monarchy there is a possibility, but let us hope that they are as strong as they look.  We don't need Wall Street and Chicago raining brokers onto the streets.

If there hasn't been a bearish flight from oil right now, expect one this week.  Maybe we are going to see another black Friday.  The bears are definitely restless.

A little shake up in that market will push the outfits that are dependent on middle eastern oil to take another look at alternative sources.  Exxon posted a 50% profit increase this week. 

Anyway, North America is self-sustaining for oil, so I don't think anyone would be much hurt by a panic except the oil speculators.  There is enough new oil around this continent that we should be able to survive a crisis in the middle east.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Anyway, North America is self-sustaining for oil, so I don't think anyone would be much hurt by a panic except the oil speculators.  There is enough new oil around this continent that we should be able to survive a crisis in the middle east.quote>

The reason the US economy pays close attention to developments in the oil market (don't know how much the Canadian and Mexican economies care about oil market issues) is because North America may have suffcient oil reserves, but it does not have sufficient oil production.  Realistically, if the spigot got cut off from the Middle East, it would be at least 5 years before North America could build sufficient oil production capacities to supply its own oil demands.  Gas rationing would be the worst it has ever been in the US (don't know about elsewhere).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Anyway, North America is self-sustaining for oil, so I don't think anyone would be much hurt by a panic except the oil speculators.  There is enough new oil around this continent that we should be able to survive a crisis in the middle east.quote>

The reason the US economy pays close attention to developments in the oil market (don't know how much the Canadian and Mexican economies care about oil market issues) is because North America may have sufficient oil reserves, but it does not have sufficient oil production.  Realistically, if the spigot got cut off from the Middle East, it would be at least 5 years before North America could build sufficient oil production capacities to supply its own oil demands.  Gas rationing would be the worst it has ever been in the US (don't know about elsewhere).

quote>

I don't know if you've looked lately, but there is lots of oil around.  Besides Alberta and Hibernia, there are in-ground proven reserves under Lake Erie and in the Arctic.  We might have to get moving on production and pipelines, but we have the oil.  It might be uneconomic to rush this now, but if the middle eastern oil goes much above $100 per barrel, the prices will be sufficient to ration the gas.  We might be forced into accepting more hybrids and get rid of the gas guzzlers, and to get going on new biofuels, but it can be done.  All we need is the incentive.  If fuel is tight, the auto makers will toe the line or take a hit in sales.  Since most of them have just recovered from the last crisis, they should be pretty sensitive right now.  You might have to kiss the Caddy's and Linc's goodbye.  Meanwhile, the rollout of the Volt is continuing in California.

Oil fuelled power plants may have to quickly replace their input with biofuels and/or more nukes.  Needs must, NIMBYism or no.  I am sure that freezing to death in the dark is not an option for the most rabid anti-nuke Americans.  Meanwhile, all the silly objections and trumped up pseudo science contra wind power will just have to shut up and take it.

As for Canada, if we shut off the tap to the U.S. we'll have enough oil for our economic needs about ten times over.  You can be pretty sure we won't do that and will meet our existing commitments.

Interestingly enough, electricity in this area is mostly from Bruce Nuclear, supplemented by some big wind farms.  But the area is mostly rural and the power demands are slight by comparison with the Golden Horseshoe and Toronto.  Toronto has some coal and oil fired plants as well a two nuclear plants in full operation.  And of course, there are the Hydro plants at Niagara Falls - 3 or 4 in Ontario and 1 (at least) in New York state.  The big lakeshore coal plant has been shut down, and was slated to be converted to either gas or oil.  I don't know what's happened there and I don't care enough to find out.

Maybe gas rationing would be good for America.  People would start thinking about how to get around without just hopping the the old jalopy and running about.  For short hauls in nice weather, maybe the bicycle will have a resurgence.  There is also nothing quite like shank's mare.  Most rural areas have horses, so maybe that's a possibility as well.  Would certainly slow the pace of life.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I don't know if you've looked lately, but there is lots of oil around.quote>

As I said, it isn't about whether you have the oil, but whether you have the ability to extract it from the ground.  The US is believed to sit on the largest oil field ever discovered in the history of humanity, yet it doesn't do anyone a bit of good because no one has committed to extracting it.

Maybe gas rationing would be good for America.quote>

No, it wouldn't.  The US economy is built on the availability of cheap fuels; rationing would just bring the economy down in ways that no one in the world wants to experience.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I don't know if you've looked lately, but there is lots of oil around.quote>

As I said, it isn't about whether you have the oil, but whether you have the ability to extract it from the ground.  The US is believed to sit on the largest oil field ever discovered in the history of humanity, yet it doesn't do anyone a bit of good because no one has committed to extracting it.

Maybe gas rationing would be good for America.quote>

No, it wouldn't.  The US economy is built on the availability of cheap fuels; rationing would just bring the economy down in ways that no one in the world wants to experience.

quote>

The oil honeymoon is over.  Sitting on unproduced reserves is having no reserves.  And it is less than 70 years since you had gas rationing.  Hym, I think you are a large C conservative.

Barbarossa is right, the pace of life is too frenetic, and everyone needs to stand back and take a look at how we are living.  I have seen a bumper sticker that summed it up nicely.  It said "I owe, I owe, It's off to work I go".  If that sums up life in the western world, I am glad I retired.

The main problems with current life, and going back to the 1950s as I recall, has been cheap energy and easy credit.  This has given rise to the current consumerism, which is turning out to be a bad thing in its current stage.  When a couple with two kids could live comfortably in a three bedroom bungalow, what do we find them in?  A three to six thousand square foot mansion that will never be paid out. 

My last two story house was just over 2000 sq. ft. and we had two rooms (the living room and the dining room) closed off by French doors most of the time because we lived in the family room and the all-weather sun room.  Our four bedroom upstairs, after the kids moved out, left us with a spare room and an office for each of us.  The two closed-off rooms were only used for parties and other special occasions.  We had the French doors installed to keep the dogs out of these rooms because the entry to the dining room was at the foot of the stairs and one of the setters would roar down the stairs and careen into the furniture.  After we had the doors put on, he got more cautious.

We realized that we didn't need all that, and moved to a two bedroom bungalow with a finished basement for a family room/office.  We were able to write off part of this because I was working out of the office area.  Later, when I retired, we moved to a two bedroom bungalow in a senior's park with a huge lot (leased land) that was in a wooded park.  We lived there until my wife passed away.  Now I have a senior's apartment in a nearby town that is around 500 sq. ft.  It is enough for me, and doesn't need a lot of upkeep.

The western world is in love with the big house.  This is a symptom of consumerism because the space is needed to hold all the junk people buy at the urging of Mad. Ave.  Maybe a little austerity would be good for folks.  The technology is there for us to be comfortable in a lot less living space than we are used to.  Now we need to prepare people to be more frugal, use less credit (cut up those credit cards), and live within our means.  I have learned to do so, and it is not a hardship.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

The oil honeymoon is over.  Sitting on unproduced reserves is having no reserves.  And it is less than 70 years since you had gas rationing.  Hym, I think you are a large C conservative.quote>

My statement isn't a reflection of large C or large L ideologies.  It's cold, hard fact backed up by economic research.  As a whole, America does a lot of commuting which translates into a large demand for fuel.  American buying habits also demand that fuel costs remain a low portion of the family's yearly expenses, otherwise they start cutting their spending.  There is only one logical way to interpret this: fuel costs are expected to remain low.

To put numbers to it:  An average family makes $50,000 or so a year, and fuel costs for the entire family are expected to remain below 3% of the family's yearly income.  This means fuel expenses for the entire family are expected to remain below $1,500 annually.  Factor in 2 vehicles, a minimum of 12,000 miles driven per year per vehicle, and a generous 30MPG fuel rating, and this results in fuel costs needing to stay below $1.88 per gallon, otherwise the cost of fuel will cut into consumer spending.  (Once you add in the reality that many families have more than 2 vehicles, that most Americans drive well above the average of 12,000 miles per year, and that 30MPG is a generous average vehicle efficiency, that maximum fuel cost goes down quite a bit lower.)

Once you sum everything up, it is blatantly apparent that the US economy is built on the availability of cheap fuels.  Once their annual fuel expenses rise above 3% of their annual income, families cut back on spending, and as we all know, once consumer spending goes down, companies begin looking at cutting expenses, with payroll often being the first target.

[Duke87 1,070]

This whole business about slowing down the pace of life honestly perplexes me. Personally, I get enjoyment more from being able to say I've done something and showing the results than I do from actually doing it. The more quickly I finish one thing, the more things I can do, and thus the more fun I have. So, excuse me if "slow down and enjoy" seems to be contradiction in terms.

I am also perplexed by the idea that in the good old days people somehow used to spend more time on leisure. That's... just a ridiculous romanticization. How does working 12 hours a day six days a week at a factory sound? Or working sunup to sundown on a farm? People used to do these things. If anything, modern society offers more time to "just live", not less.

As for the oil issue, it's been known for decades that it won't last forever and that dependance on foreign sources is a problem. But doing something about it requires having a spine, and you know they don't allow those in Washington.

And yes, suddenly rationing or what have you would be a huge bludgeon to the economy. People aren't going to alter their lifestyles tomorrow. The necessary changes (living closer to where you work and in denser areas) cannot happen overnight, nor can the building of alternative infrastructure. That is why the cold turkey method is not a viable solution. Only a gradual weaning can solve this problem without a major crisis. And that has started happening, but at a snail's pace. Partly because of resistance on the part of people equating giving up oil with giving up cars, which is simply a false notion. We can make cars that don't run on gas, and meanwhile many trains and most buses run on diesel fuel.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

[snip]

The oil honeymoon is over.  Sitting on unproduced reserves is having no reserves.  And it is less than 70 years since you had gas rationing.  Hym, I think you are a large C conservative.

Barbarossa is right, the pace of life is too frenetic, and everyone needs to stand back and take a look at how we are living.  I have seen a bumper sticker that summed it up nicely.  It said "I owe, I owe, It's off to work I go".  If that sums up life in the western world, I am glad I retired.quote>

Frenetic? Is that I portmanteau (means combo word when spelled right) of fast, frantic, and energetic?

The main problems with current life, and going back to the 1950s as I recall, has been cheap energy and easy credit.  This has given rise to the current consumerism, which is turning out to be a bad thing in its current stage.  When a couple with two kids could live comfortably in a three bedroom bungalow, what do we find them in?  A three to six thousand square foot mansion that will never be paid out.

My last two story house was just over 2000 sq. ft. and we had two rooms (the living room and the dining room) closed off by French doors most of the time because we lived in the family room and the all-weather sun room.  Our four bedroom upstairs, after the kids moved out, left us with a spare room and an office for each of us.  The two closed-off rooms were only used for parties and other special occasions.  We had the French doors installed to keep the dogs out of these rooms because the entry to the dining room was at the foot of the stairs and one of the setters would roar down the stairs and careen into the furniture.  After we had the doors put on, he got more cautious.

quote>

Who would do such a thing? When my parents were still together, the 4 of us lived in house with 1 master bedroom and 1 shared children's bedroom. Now that my mother bought a house with the father of 2, they bought a 4 bedroom house with a bed in the recreation room (and a large living room, 2 dining areas, 2.5 bathrooms, and a 2 car garage),  which they are paying off with their rent and wages until retiring at 80 (if they are not unlucky). To be honest, your first house was much fancier than my childhood house (now being rented) though none of us are high earners (government secretary, manager of a restaurant, busboy/student, shopgirl/student, all non-union)

We realized that we didn't need all that, and moved to a two bedroom bungalow with a finished basement for a family room/office.  We were able to write off part of this because I was working out of the office area.  Later, when I retired, we moved to a two bedroom bungalow in a senior's park with a huge lot (leased land) that was in a wooded park.  We lived there until my wife passed away.  Now I have a senior's apartment in a nearby town that is around 500 sq. ft.  It is enough for me, and doesn't need a lot of upkeep.quote>

I see, you downgraded, smart.

The western world is in love with the big house.  This is a symptom of consumerism because the space is needed to hold all the junk people buy at the urging of Mad. Ave.  Maybe a little austerity would be good for folks.  The technology is there for us to be comfortable in a lot less living space than we are used to.  Now we need to prepare people to be more frugal, use less credit (cut up those credit cards), and live within our means.  I have learned to do so, and it is not a hardship.

quote>

That might be true for the USA (and apparently Canada also) in general, but my family comes from poor backgrounds (my grandparents had a 3 bedroom, 1 story+unfinished basement for holding them and their 6 children and my father is a Mexican immigrant) so we have no lust for oversized houses (though we do like views). I want an apartment with a view.

I just discovered the spell checker!

EDIT: I just saw Barbossa's new response and Duke87's snipe/ninja post.

Well, consumers are cutting spending because they now realize that they need to save up and they know that gasoline has gone over $4/gal in the past. More people are taking mass transit and many people are bragging about their hybrids (I heard a funny joke about the kind of people who buy hybrid SUVs for city driving, how it would be an environmentalist whose husband is a jerk [well, the word for "cleaning" bag that starts with d and ends in a silent e was used]).

There was a sweet spot where families had 1 worker per household and worked 40 hours a week. There were also dual-income families where one (typically the husband) worked 35 hours and another (typically the wife) worked 10-20 hours a week and used her disposable income to shop.

I doubt the economy will ever recover, to be honest, I think the world is living at the apex of prosperity these 2 centuries (20th and 21st).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

I am also perplexed by the idea that in the good old days people somehow used to spend more time on leisure. That's... just a ridiculous romanticization. How does working 12 hours a day six days a week at a factory sound? Or working sunup to sundown on a farm? People used to do these things. If anything, modern society offers more time to "just live", not less.

quote>

I think you'll find that this description has something to do with pre-Dickens industrial England. 

True, farms do require a lot of work, but much of this has been relieved by technology.  The sun-up to sun-down farmer these days is usually running a dairy herd, and even that is quite automated.  There are now automated milking stalls where the cown enters, stops at a gate, sensors cause the udder to be washed, the milking machine to be attached, and a feed chute presents the cow eith a ration of grain.  Cows have electronic tags that identify them.

One of my in-laws ran such a farm before he retired comfortably in Regina.  After the morning milking, (not quite as automated as today)  he put the cows out to pasture with the help of his dogs, then went and relaxed for most of the day, doing whatever book keeping required, and selling his milk, which was picked up by a truck daily.  The evening milking started with his telling the dogs to "Go get the cows"..  Other than this daily activitiy, he spent some time on field maintenance, manure hauling, and such activities.  Well-rotted cow manure sells very well as a fertilizer to some big outfit that processes it.  He certainly had lots of time for reading the daily paper, enjoying his wife's company and cooking, and raising his kids, all of whom left the farm.  When he retired, he sold it for very good money, and settled down in the capital as a farm insurance salesman.  By the way, he hauled his manure with a pair of Clydesdales hitched to a wagon or sled.  Minnie and Dan were sold with the farm, so I have no idea what happened to them.

When I was a kid, during the last major kerfuffle in Europe, we lived first with my grandparents, then with one of my aunts, then eventually got a rented flat.  The rent for the flat was $20. per month.  It had two bedrooms, living room, kitchen and bathroom/laundry.  We lived there until the landlady died, them moved to other rental accommodations.  When my dad got back from the war, he purchased a parcel of land with the intent to build a house, but my mother became ill, he lost his job, and the land was sold to make costs.  They never did own any property after that but always rented.  My mother never worked after the war, and dad finally got on as a customs officer using his veteran's preference and a little drag that my mother had with an old school chum who happened to be the Secretary of State at the time.

You have to remember that I probably have a longer perspective than many on this forum.  I graduated from high-school in

1955.  I was on my own by 1959 after a couple of years of engineering school, and a slight recession when my job moved me to Toronto.

As for rushing about having many experiences, that is a waste of your youth.  You'll have enough life experiences over the years if you don't burn out first.  You should stop being a Huron warrior running around counting coup, and live a little.  See the first line of my signature, and you should get the message.

[Athanasius 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Athanasius

considering that motorways are subsidized by the state the cost of transpotation is artificially low. privatise motorways as they're not vital because there's always a public road but it's smaller. this will level the playing field for other forms of transportation buses rarely use motorways in my experience (yes i have experience and i've never seen a public bus on a motorway that is in service. i depend on buses)and railways have to pay for the maintainance of the track.quote>

It is absolutely true that transportation is artificially cheap due to subsidization. But I don't see where you're coming from with your argument on privatization. How is the playing field not currently level and how would privitization change that?quote>

Motorways aren't a necessity (they are necessary for some things but not necessary to existence) railways as i mentioned pay for the trains, track maintainance and salaries of the workers and the leccy bill. motorway users pay no more than someone using "normal" roads. the point i'm making is that motorways are fundamentally different to regular roads - they are a luxury - but you don't actually pay anything for this luxury. you don't get a discount if you never use a motorway.

Railways are uneconomic because of the lack of flexibility they have for freight. but if lorries either have to pay more to use a motorway or take longer using a smaller public road then freight transportation will be more balanced.quote>

Freight rail is actually very economic when you have to move a large quantity of goods a long distance. The problem is that most freight traffic in Europe doesn't fit that description and so everything is shipped or trucked. Not so elsewhere, in the US 42% of domestic freight travels by rail. In China it's 58%!quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

As for rushing about having many experiences, that is a waste of your youth.  You'll have enough life experiences over the years if you don't burn out first.quote>

It isn't an issue of burning out, it's an issue of getting tied down with other obligations. Can't have wild experiences when you're married and raising children, and it's considerably more difficult when you have a full-time job. Most of this sort of fun is had while still single or after the kids have grown up and moved out, and much of that fits into the years before graduating from college or after retiring. 

You should stop being a Huron warrior running around counting coup, and live a little.quote>

I suppose the phrase "live a little" could be used to describe the stop and smell the roses approach to life... but in my experience it's usually associated with the aforementioned wild fun.

Originally posted by: Athanasius

Motorways aren't a necessity (they are necessary for some things but not necessary to existence) railways as i mentioned pay for the trains, track maintainance and salaries of the workers and the leccy bill. motorway users pay no more than someone using "normal" roads. the point i'm making is that motorways are fundamentally different to regular roads - they are a luxury - but you don't actually pay anything for this luxury. you don't get a discount if you never use a motorway.quote>

Thinking of motorways as a luxury is utterly misrepresenting their purpose. First of all, travelling faster is not a luxury, it is beneficial to society in general by increasing the mobility of people and goods, which is an economy booster. And beyond that, there's more to it. Motorways reduce congestion and make towns more livable by routing traffic around them rather than through them. Motorways provide economic stimulus to these same towns because drivers will use them as places to stop and get services (food, fuel, lodging, etc.). Motorways provide more capacity than "normal roads" and are necessary when demand exceeds what a "normal road" can provide.

commuter railways do not generally make money. they only exist by the demand of the middle class in a lot of cases (yes commuter belt i'm talking about you)quote>

Urban railways do not make money either. So, using your logic, they only exist by the demand of the working class.

Class warfare is beneficial to no one. People at different levels of wealth are all still people and each is just as entitled to transportation as any other.

i was talking about 1 train every 15 seconds on EVERY line. pavement congestion is an obvious symptom of critical density. the thing everyone forgets about public transport is that people have to use it quite a lot between rush hours. having a train carrying 1,800 passengers twice might look good on paper but what does that train do for 8 hours in between?quote>

Keep running and serve people who are travelling for reason other than to commute. New York, at least, has no shortage of riders at any hour of the day (or night).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

As for rushing about having many experiences, that is a waste of your youth.  You'll have enough life experiences over the years if you don't burn out first.quote>

It isn't an issue of burning out, it's an issue of getting tied down with other obligations. Can't have wild experiences when you're married and raising children, and it's considerably more difficult when you have a full-time job. Most of this sort of fun is had while still single or after the kids have grown up and moved out, and much of that fits into the years before graduating from college or after retiring. 

You should stop being a Huron warrior running around counting coup, and live a little.quote>

I suppose the phrase "live a little" could be used to describe the stop and smell the roses approach to life... but in my experience it's usually associated with the aforementioned wild fun.

quote>

I see from this that you have convinced yourself that working permanently and/or having a family is the death of fun experience.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If your job doesn't excite you, you are in the wrong one.  Time to find the job where you will look forward to going to work. 

As for a family, you can't imagine what family life is like until you have your own wife and kids.  It is a rocky road full of bumps and surprises, but on the whole it is a fun time.  In our case, we tied ourselves down even further by picking up a couple of dogs (setters), and they helped make our lives more fun.  Caring for each other and the puppies is one of the pleasures of having a family around you.  My wife liked cats, so we had some nice cats too.  Three just before she passed away.  I am not a cat person to I adopted them out with the help of Pet Finder.

At the time we married, I had my own yacht and was heavily involved in Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons both as a manager and instructor.  This boating safety volunteer outfit helped us both have goals outside the family.  When my wife took her seamanship examination, she not only was the first one out of the exam group but the aced the paper, which was unheard of.  "From any clear point of view, always marry woman smarter than you" to misquote a Harry Belafonte song. 

We had two kids, and my son was the youngest person in Toronto to ever get his restricted marine radiotelephone operator's license.  He was eleven, and wanted to learn how to use the radio on the boat.  Both my kids are musical.  My son plays trumpet and my daughter trombone.  Before they left home, my son was in a junior concert band (by invitation), and my daughter played in the city-wide symphony youth orchestra.  Both like any kind of music.  Both have grown up, married and have kids of their own.  Which gives me considerable nachus as our Israeli friends say.  Being a grandpa is neat.

After the kids moved out and we settled away from Toronto, we found that we had time on our hands, so we toured all over eastern Canada.  You've never eaten lobster until you get it fresh off the docks at Mirimachi, N.B.  About the only place we didn't get to was Newfoundland and Labrador.  In Quebec, the eastern counties around the Gaspé are quaint.  Lots of dairy farming as well as pigs, and some areas remind one of Switzerland.  Up hill and down dale, you wonder if the car will make the hills, but there are quaint towns with old, old churches in those vales.  Simply beautiful,

I could also yarn for hours about our adventures aboard our yacht, Gallina Maris.  But that's enough.  Go find your own good experiences in life.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Originally posted by: Duke87

[snip]

Originally posted by: Athanasius

[snip]

commuter railways do not generally make money. they only exist by the demand of the middle class in a lot of cases (yes commuter belt I'm talking about you)quote>

Urban railways do not make money either. So, using your logic, they only exist by the demand of the working class.

Class warfare is beneficial to no one. People at different levels of wealth are all still people and each is just as entitled to transportation as any other.

i was talking about 1 train every 15 seconds on EVERY line. pavement congestion is an obvious symptom of critical density. the thing everyone forgets about public transport is that people have to use it quite a lot between rush hours. having a train carrying 1,800 passengers twice might look good on paper but what does that train do for 8 hours in between?quote>

Keep running and serve people who are traveling for reason other than to commute. New York, at least, has no shortage of riders at any hour of the day (or night).

quote>

Class warfare is beneficial to no one but is exciting to simulate (City Life was unique that it simulated it in the guise of being a 3D city builder, but hey it was French).

Why would a train run only twice? In many parts of the world (especially the Puget Sound area) rush "hour" is more like 4 hours. Over here it occurs from 6-10 AM and then from 3-7PM

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I see from this that you have convinced yourself that working permanently and/or having a family is the death of fun experience.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If your job doesn't excite you, you are in the wrong one.  Time to find the job where you will look forward to going to work.quote>

Not "the death", but I definitely have a lot less time on my hands now than I did in college. I enjoy my job (as I enjoyed going to class), but it by no means qualifies as entertainment. No job can, because the nature of employment simply isn't conducive to being so. It is doing things for the sake of others rather than for myself. It is doing what is needed, not what I want. It happens on a fixed schedule rather than when I feel like it.

Only so much fun you can have in situation where you're not really in control. Only so much fun you can have with something where any pleasure is a side effect rather than the purpose. It can be fun, certainly, but at the end of the day, it's still work.

As for family life, I can't really comment since I am not there yet and may very well never be. But I do know from experience that children are just as much a source of stress and annoyance as they are of joy. And as with a job, you will spend time doing what they want and need rather than what you want and need. Which for the same reasons outlined above means less fun all around.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My dear Duke87, I really can't tell how you see your job, but when I found the right niche, I spent 30 years doing an interesting job, and when that evaporated, I found that one of my avocations supplied my employment until I retired.  The main thing is having more than one string to your bow.  I went from being a highly paid support consultant in a major computer manufacturer to being a professor in a community college.  I was able to make the transition fairly easily because I was a volunteer teacher of boating safety for many years along with my consulting job which also included many aspects of adult education.

Over the years, as you progress, you will find many things that impinge on your "freedom".  Freedom isn't everything, but political freedom is essential.  It depends on whether you want to be a tommy Mandeville, and just waste your life, of whether you want to make something out of it, contribute whatever little you can to society, and try to enjoy what you can.  Everything isn't a bed of roses because this also comes with thorns.  The most important thing is to be like Brian, and "look on the bright side of life" even if you are hanging on a cross.  There are a lot of life lessons in Monty Python.

When things are dark, keep Captain John Carter in mind who always thought "I still live".  One of Edgar Rice Burroughs' better thoughts.