The article the title of this article refers to (Mass Transit Is a Colossal Government Failure) is published on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. The report spoken of in the article takes its conlusions from data collected in the United States. So of course the ultimate conclusion of mass transit being a failure based on data from the United States can only be valid in the United States. BUT:
since this is Agenda 21/2030, Vision 2015 we’re confronted with, it means, that besides from country-specific differences, the system is basically the same. Mass transit is pushed by government via funding what in the mind of those who write the agenda is preferable (deemed sustainable as opposed) to all other possible solutions or personal preferences. That is why local governments rather take parking spaces away, senselessly in the eyes of the public, because since the agenda says that cars are unsustainable, local governments have to make car ownership, traffic and finding of parking possibilities more difficult than using a bike and mass transit solutions. Think also of the recent diesel driving bans. That approach is devious, especially when studies, which are published after the agenda-driven policies are implemented, report the success of the policies, although in reality the demand by the people would be far lower.
And that is really the crux of the case, why I predict that mass transit is already a failure here in Germany too. In order to connect everybody via mass transit, they have to install more stopping points and deploy more busses, trains, subway trains, etc. They have to supply more rental bikes. More car sharing. For the latter two, Smartphone technology is really helpful, and it looks like more people actually do prefer to take an Uber cab, which doesn’t invalidate my point, since Uber services are offered on a free market, free from tax-payer funding, and relatively free from government-distorted prices. In case of mass transit solutions though prices are relatively far from market reality, and everybody who uses mass transit knows that prices rise frequently, like every year, all the while the service quality doesn’t rise. How the hell do those in charge of mass transit plan to make mass transit more and more often available without raising prices? And how do they plan to also replace fossil fuel driven busses with electric busses or even hydrogen busses without raising the prices, when a) replacement costs are two or three times higher than before and b) there is no electric and/or hydrogen infrastructure at all?
Right, they will have to raise taxes. What will happen when they keep on raising taxes? The trend of impoverishing the people will be reinforced. It is the same story as with the trend of impoverishing the people via taxes on electricity for the sake of implementing “renewables.” Apparently people in the UK are struck the hardest with fuel poverty in the EU. Again, since this is Agenda 21/2030, Vision 2050, policies and their effects are all basically the same, worldwide. You should also take a look at green policies in California, to get a closer look at what it means to be a human in a world where environment protection and measures against climate change are more important than protecting the rights of the individual human being.
So there’s no hope? Well, another effect of those ill-fated green policies is the rise of the so-called populistic parties, in Germany the AfD. The Alternative für Deutschland opposes green politics and calls the Greens out on their environmental and climate change scam, which makes a lot of people very rich and much more people very poor. And now you know, why AfD politicians and their supporters are called “Nazis” in public; it’s because a lot of money is transfered from the pockets of the working class into the pockets of climate activists, climate NGOs, climate politicians.
Mass transit might very probably soon be a complete failure, since redistribution of wealth has never worked out. In the end the system always fails, hopefully this time the people are alert enough to resist soon enough, so that free people on free markets will be able again to build this nation, every nation, worldwide.
“All of it is felt most keenly by the world’s most disadvantaged people, […]” said Al Gore during his live broadcast on Tuesday, 12.4.18. Of course, he meant the most disadvantaged people of the world feel climate change most keenly, but he didn’t say why: laws on climate change which set up a system of prohibitions to “protect” the environment and keep manmade CO2-levels low, which make it harder for the most disadvantaged people to earn a living without having to resort to any support of the welfare state, while at the same time enabling a system of financial support of “sustainability” via taxes like the Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG) in Germany. Or the UK Climate Change Act, its costs rising steadily -according to official figures presented by the Global Warming Policy Foundation – “from £327 per household per year in 2014, to £875 in 2030.”
If you take a look at different states worldwide which have adopted laws on climate change, you will notice that in all these states energy costs are constantly rising. It’s a vicious circle: rising energy costs increase fuel poverty, more and more people have no other option but to use bicycles and public transportation, the costs of expanding and maintaining public transportation also being on the rise, until even public transportation is too costly for the most disadvantaged people. You can see where this is going.
This is why “all of it is felt most keenly by the world’s most disadvantaged people.” This is why decarbonisation and degrowth of the economies of the world isn’t the solution, it is the problem. This is also what Al Gore and people of his ilk won’t tell you on purpose.
First, my posiiton: I think, countries should drop tariffs on products with a similar GDP/capita completely. However, there should be a blanket tariff on goods from Third World countries.
Now, Peter Thiel:
[Donald Trump] has called into question some sacred ideas that actually do need to be questioned a great deal. … I want to focus on one in particular, which was sort of the Bush-Clinton dynasty consensus for twenty years, from 1988 to 2008, at least. It was this idea that globalization is both true and good and good, desirable. I’m going to try to unpack that a little bit and suggest why criticizing that idea is sort of an incredibly healthy corrective in our society.
More on Breitbart
Billionaire investor frustrated with what he sees as intolerance of conservatism in tech industry; has discussed resigning from Facebook board Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist who co-founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, is planning to reduce his direct role in the Silicon Valley tech industry that he helped to shape.
More on Peace and Freedom