Trains. You either love them or you couldn't give a shit. Good piece, but a little misleading itself. If rail and highway were equally subsidized or taxed, I think highway probably would have won anyway. Perhaps, not by such a large margin, but it would have still been prefferred outside of major metropoles such as New York. There are a mere handful of such condensed cities in the country. Public transit works for shit in San Diego because it's a sprawling metropolis. We have quite a bit of rail, but it still only goes to a very small percentage of the city. Now, I've always said, if we had trolley stops in my part of town, I'd probably get out into other parts of the city more often, but do I think it's fair to fleece taxpayers so I can party downtown without having to drive home drunk? Probably not. I'd prefer it if the taxpayers picked me up in their car.
More important than the trains in the video was how to work with political opposition. Conservatives don't want to spend money on "green" nonsense so why present that as a selling point? Tailor the sales pitch to appeal to the target audience.
You should already be getting rides home from taxpayers as the roads are what they've been fleeced for.
I fully agree that if you want to bend an opponent to your will you should use bullshit and misdirection to sell your snake oil, but I assumed that was just common sense.
And looking around, I find it hard to believe any of my taxes have gone to fixing roads.
Using terms the opposition understands is a good tactic. Making an argument that appeals to the target audience make sense.
One thing he didn't mention was the fact that pretty much all Government run entities (bus systems, rail, highway workers, etc.) end up being unionized. This puts a restictive cost on running the entity, so taxpayers have to get fleeced to pay for over compensated and not-too-skilled labor.
5 comments:
Trains. You either love them or you couldn't give a shit. Good piece, but a little misleading itself. If rail and highway were equally subsidized or taxed, I think highway probably would have won anyway. Perhaps, not by such a large margin, but it would have still been prefferred outside of major metropoles such as New York. There are a mere handful of such condensed cities in the country. Public transit works for shit in San Diego because it's a sprawling metropolis. We have quite a bit of rail, but it still only goes to a very small percentage of the city. Now, I've always said, if we had trolley stops in my part of town, I'd probably get out into other parts of the city more often, but do I think it's fair to fleece taxpayers so I can party downtown without having to drive home drunk? Probably not. I'd prefer it if the taxpayers picked me up in their car.
More important than the trains in the video was how to work with political opposition. Conservatives don't want to spend money on "green" nonsense so why present that as a selling point? Tailor the sales pitch to appeal to the target audience.
You should already be getting rides home from taxpayers as the roads are what they've been fleeced for.
I fully agree that if you want to bend an opponent to your will you should use bullshit and misdirection to sell your snake oil, but I assumed that was just common sense.
And looking around, I find it hard to believe any of my taxes have gone to fixing roads.
Using terms the opposition understands is a good tactic. Making an argument that appeals to the target audience make sense.
One thing he didn't mention was the fact that pretty much all Government run entities (bus systems, rail, highway workers, etc.) end up being unionized. This puts a restictive cost on running the entity, so taxpayers have to get fleeced to pay for over compensated and not-too-skilled labor.
BTW Arvin, I'm enjoying your input lately.
Post a Comment