9 ms·

I find the word subsidy to be a possible weasel word here. I don't know all the details but a railway system has certain costs (fuel, personnel, water, upkeep,

I find the word subsidy to be a possible weasel word here. I don't know all the details but a railway system has certain costs (fuel, personnel, water, upkeep, the trains themselves and so on) and takes in a certain amount of revenue (fares and subsidies, also food etc). It might be true that the government increased the subsidy in order to support the cheaper tickets. But that's not the same as "requires". Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but there's a strong danger of comparing apples and oranges if these things aren't spelled out imo.

Swizec 2y ago
Here’s another way to think about it: Germany invested N billion into shifting behavior to rail. How many billions in subsidies has OpenAI gotten to build us a chatbot?
- vkreso 2y ago
  You mean another example of apples and oranges? Is software and transportation really a good example?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I'm not aware of any subsidies openAi has received. Did I miss something or is this one of the situations we're we are making up new definitions for words?
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > I'm not aware of any subsidies openAi has received. It is rumored that the military (and perhaps three-letter agencies) has/have special contracts with OpenAI. This can definitely be called a subsidy.
    - punchmesan 2y ago
      A contract isn't a subsidy... A subsidy would be giving them dollars without any particular strings attached except perhaps to use those funds to develop the product. If the contract is to provide money in exchange for services, that's called a transaction.
      - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        I see it differently: for example the fact that the US government spends a lot of money on military can in my opinion clearly be called a subsidy for the military-industrial complex.
        punchmesan 2y ago
        So then if the government buys pens and reams of paper, then it's the government subsidizing office supply stores? But it's not a subsidy if a corporation spends money on the same supplies? My employer does business with the DoD and with private corporate entities. Both the government and the private sector spend the same money and receive the same products and services. I appreciate that you have a different perspective, but I have a hard time considering my employer "subsidized by the US government" just because the government purchases our product.
        aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > So then if the government buys pens and reams of paper, then it's the government subsidizing office supply stores? If the government is a particularly important customer: yes.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you have a different term you use for when the government is not simply a customer, buying what they need, but intentionally funding a company in excess of the goods and services it receives? This would be more in line with the traditional definition. I think a company can make 100% of its revenue from the government, but that doesn't mean it is subsidized. The critical criteria is if the government is directing funds for reasons other than pure procurement, such as buying votes, stimulating jobs, ect.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  It’s important to distinguish between an operational cost and capital investment here. If rail usage continues once the spending stops then it’s an investment. Otherwise is an operating subsidy.
  - chii 2y ago
    paying for part of the ticket is not an investment, as there's no residual value from this payment. An investment must have some sort of residual value, which over time, is recouped and perhaps even makes a return (hopefully).
    - Swizec 2y ago
      > paying for part of the ticket is not an investment, as there's no residual value from this payment Disagree. There is a lot of residual value in reducing congestion and road usage. Roads need fewer repairs, CO2 impacts the atmosphere less, cities move more efficiently, etc. There’s residual value also in people spending more time on tax-paying activities and running the economy instead of being stuck alone in their cars. Etc. If you pay $50 more in taxes because you got a $40 train ticket subsidy that’s a huge win. I don’t know if that’s how the numbers shake out, but governments are def not doing stuff like this just to throw money in the furnace.
ericmay 2y ago
I’m not sure if it’s the case here with Germany, but typically we refer to transit spending like this as “subsidies” but for some reason we forget that building and maintaining roads and highways and such are subsidies too. In the case of the US and probably everywhere else, the highway subsidies are a little insidious too because not only do you pay a boatload of money for highway expansion you have to then go and buy an expensive car and fuel too.
- gruez 2y ago
  >not only do you pay a boatload of money for highway expansion you have to then go and buy an expensive car and fuel too. the federal excise tax on fuel pays for (at least in part) the "boatload of money for highway expansion "
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    Not much. A lot more comes from state funding, which can be anything from property tax to sales tax to additional fuel taxes. Because you pay about the same fuel tax per mile on a 60 mph road as a 25 mph road (but the 60mph road costs 100x as much), you also find driving on slow roads becomes a subsidy to building fast roads.
  - diordiderot 2y ago
    No it doesn't. Fuel tax income is ~100 Billion Road expenditures are ~200 Billion (Combined state and federal)
PlunderBunny 2y ago
Don’t forget too that the cost of proving roads is also ‘subsidised’ in most countries, but we’re tend to be a bit blind to that. (This is not an argument against rail - I just find that subsidies are often mentioned with respect to rail but not with roads).
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Calculating the subsidy associated with state maintenance of roads for private vehicles is difficult. Some basic level of signage and hazard prevention (potholes, ice etc) is necessary for emergency vehicles and other government operations. Thereafter, although there is some maintenance cost associated with the road wear from private vehicles and the additional infrastructure required for higher traffic volumes, we don’t have an easy way to calculate the cost.
  - clhodapp 2y ago
    Wouldn't the very patterns of development be different (and more amenable to rail) if the state didn't spend oodles of money building nice roads to make sprawl livable?
    - treflop 2y ago
      Sprawl happens when there is available undeveloped land. Roads are just a symptom. People build outwards first and then upwards.
      - Arainach 2y ago
        There is plenty of undeveloped land that people don't move to because there are no roads to get to. We have more than a century of data showing that roads are subject to induced demand. If you build more roads, people move and sprawl (and take more trips in general) until traffic is once again unbearably bad. If you build more lanes, more people move further out. Roads create sprawl.
        2y ago
kortilla 2y ago
It’s not a weasel word, it’s a word used to describe any program provided by the government that does not bring in enough revenue on its own to pay for itself. The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls. If the government pays for something through a general fund from income/property/corporate taxes, it’s subsidized. It’s important to call these out whenever they are because it means the program is not sustainable on its own and that puts it at risk during austerity, etc.
- eschaton 2y ago
  > not sustainable on its own Or it is something that provides a benefit to society as a whole and therefore deserves to be maintained by the institution established by society to do such things, government, without assuming economic efficiency is 100% correlated with societal benefit.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Yes, that’s the argument for all subsidized things.
- Barrin92 2y ago
  >The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls. I'm German and I can tell you it really does not. Like in a lot of countries car infrastructure is treated like the state of nature, it's just somehow there, and the infrastructure burden of parking, road construction and what have you isn't a topic. It's the 'default culture' and the support it gets is just the status quo, when you try to internalize the cost you cause a shitstorm. Look at how well surge pricing or road toll debates go over in most places, or how sensitive people are to fuel prices. Rail transport be it commercial or individual despite the fact that it's so much cheaper (in particular on emissions as well) is always one political decision away from being privatized or culled.
  - immibis 2y ago
    The far-right Berlin government is currently doing its darnedest to build the most expensive highway in all of Germany, that nobody actually wants, through a cultural area. Probably because their friend owns the highway construction company.

Swizec 2y ago

Here’s another way to think about it: Germany invested N billion into shifting behavior to rail. How many billions in subsidies has OpenAI gotten to build us a chatbot?

vkreso 2y ago
You mean another example of apples and oranges? Is software and transportation really a good example?
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I'm not aware of any subsidies openAi has received. Did I miss something or is this one of the situations we're we are making up new definitions for words?
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > I'm not aware of any subsidies openAi has received. It is rumored that the military (and perhaps three-letter agencies) has/have special contracts with OpenAI. This can definitely be called a subsidy.
  - punchmesan 2y ago
    A contract isn't a subsidy... A subsidy would be giving them dollars without any particular strings attached except perhaps to use those funds to develop the product. If the contract is to provide money in exchange for services, that's called a transaction.
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      I see it differently: for example the fact that the US government spends a lot of money on military can in my opinion clearly be called a subsidy for the military-industrial complex.
      - punchmesan 2y ago
        So then if the government buys pens and reams of paper, then it's the government subsidizing office supply stores? But it's not a subsidy if a corporation spends money on the same supplies? My employer does business with the DoD and with private corporate entities. Both the government and the private sector spend the same money and receive the same products and services. I appreciate that you have a different perspective, but I have a hard time considering my employer "subsidized by the US government" just because the government purchases our product.
        aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > So then if the government buys pens and reams of paper, then it's the government subsidizing office supply stores? If the government is a particularly important customer: yes.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you have a different term you use for when the government is not simply a customer, buying what they need, but intentionally funding a company in excess of the goods and services it receives? This would be more in line with the traditional definition. I think a company can make 100% of its revenue from the government, but that doesn't mean it is subsidized. The critical criteria is if the government is directing funds for reasons other than pure procurement, such as buying votes, stimulating jobs, ect.
spacebanana7 2y ago
It’s important to distinguish between an operational cost and capital investment here. If rail usage continues once the spending stops then it’s an investment. Otherwise is an operating subsidy.
- chii 2y ago
  paying for part of the ticket is not an investment, as there's no residual value from this payment. An investment must have some sort of residual value, which over time, is recouped and perhaps even makes a return (hopefully).
  - Swizec 2y ago
    > paying for part of the ticket is not an investment, as there's no residual value from this payment Disagree. There is a lot of residual value in reducing congestion and road usage. Roads need fewer repairs, CO2 impacts the atmosphere less, cities move more efficiently, etc. There’s residual value also in people spending more time on tax-paying activities and running the economy instead of being stuck alone in their cars. Etc. If you pay $50 more in taxes because you got a $40 train ticket subsidy that’s a huge win. I don’t know if that’s how the numbers shake out, but governments are def not doing stuff like this just to throw money in the furnace.

ericmay 2y ago

I’m not sure if it’s the case here with Germany, but typically we refer to transit spending like this as “subsidies” but for some reason we forget that building and maintaining roads and highways and such are subsidies too. In the case of the US and probably everywhere else, the highway subsidies are a little insidious too because not only do you pay a boatload of money for highway expansion you have to then go and buy an expensive car and fuel too.

gruez 2y ago
>not only do you pay a boatload of money for highway expansion you have to then go and buy an expensive car and fuel too. the federal excise tax on fuel pays for (at least in part) the "boatload of money for highway expansion "
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  Not much. A lot more comes from state funding, which can be anything from property tax to sales tax to additional fuel taxes. Because you pay about the same fuel tax per mile on a 60 mph road as a 25 mph road (but the 60mph road costs 100x as much), you also find driving on slow roads becomes a subsidy to building fast roads.
- diordiderot 2y ago
  No it doesn't. Fuel tax income is ~100 Billion Road expenditures are ~200 Billion (Combined state and federal)

PlunderBunny 2y ago

Don’t forget too that the cost of proving roads is also ‘subsidised’ in most countries, but we’re tend to be a bit blind to that. (This is not an argument against rail - I just find that subsidies are often mentioned with respect to rail but not with roads).

spacebanana7 2y ago
Calculating the subsidy associated with state maintenance of roads for private vehicles is difficult. Some basic level of signage and hazard prevention (potholes, ice etc) is necessary for emergency vehicles and other government operations. Thereafter, although there is some maintenance cost associated with the road wear from private vehicles and the additional infrastructure required for higher traffic volumes, we don’t have an easy way to calculate the cost.
- clhodapp 2y ago
  Wouldn't the very patterns of development be different (and more amenable to rail) if the state didn't spend oodles of money building nice roads to make sprawl livable?
  - treflop 2y ago
    Sprawl happens when there is available undeveloped land. Roads are just a symptom. People build outwards first and then upwards.
    - Arainach 2y ago
      There is plenty of undeveloped land that people don't move to because there are no roads to get to. We have more than a century of data showing that roads are subject to induced demand. If you build more roads, people move and sprawl (and take more trips in general) until traffic is once again unbearably bad. If you build more lanes, more people move further out. Roads create sprawl.
      - 2y ago

kortilla 2y ago

It’s not a weasel word, it’s a word used to describe any program provided by the government that does not bring in enough revenue on its own to pay for itself. The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls. If the government pays for something through a general fund from income/property/corporate taxes, it’s subsidized. It’s important to call these out whenever they are because it means the program is not sustainable on its own and that puts it at risk during austerity, etc.

eschaton 2y ago
> not sustainable on its own Or it is something that provides a benefit to society as a whole and therefore deserves to be maintained by the institution established by society to do such things, government, without assuming economic efficiency is 100% correlated with societal benefit.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Yes, that’s the argument for all subsidized things.
Barrin92 2y ago
>The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls. I'm German and I can tell you it really does not. Like in a lot of countries car infrastructure is treated like the state of nature, it's just somehow there, and the infrastructure burden of parking, road construction and what have you isn't a topic. It's the 'default culture' and the support it gets is just the status quo, when you try to internalize the cost you cause a shitstorm. Look at how well surge pricing or road toll debates go over in most places, or how sensitive people are to fuel prices. Rail transport be it commercial or individual despite the fact that it's so much cheaper (in particular on emissions as well) is always one political decision away from being privatized or culled.
- immibis 2y ago
  The far-right Berlin government is currently doing its darnedest to build the most expensive highway in all of Germany, that nobody actually wants, through a cultural area. Probably because their friend owns the highway construction company.