Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On 10 Mar 2005 14:32:53 -0800, "MrPepper11" > wrote:
>
>>WASHINGTON - With traffic congestion growing worse - and state and
>>federal budgets as red as the brake lights from cars backed up on a Los
>>Angeles freeway - Congress is moving toward relaxing a decades-old
>>restriction on tolls on interstate highways.
>>
>>The legislation, backed by the Bush administration, would give states
>>greater authority to impose tolls to reduce gridlock.
>
>An excellent idea. Congestion pricing will go a long way towards
>getting people to consider alternatives to driving. AND the money can
>be used to build and repair roads and other transportation
>infrastructure.

Minimal amounts will go to actually repairing and maintaing the roads. Most
will be funnelled off to other projects.


>
>>In California, Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), who chairs
>>the Assembly Transportation Committee, said she would oppose any effort
>>to create more toll roads in California.
>
>I wish I lived in the 55th Assembly District so I could vote this
>bimbo out of office next fall...
>
>>The trucking industry group also warns that tolls on existing highways
>>could drive truck traffic onto city streets, worsening traffic
>>congestion on those roads.
>
>That's an empty threat. Truckers are under ridiculously tight
>deadlines; there's no way in hell they are going to slog their way
>through city streets just to save a few bucks - they would lose too
>much time.

You obviously have not seen Canal street in NYC. Many truckers will take
that route, even though it is really slow, to avoid tolls.

>In reality, reduced congestion benefits Truckers. They will be glad to
>pay. For proof just look at I-44 through Oklahoma; ever see any trucks
>driving on that toll road? How about the Pennsylvania Turnpike? I
>think I can recall seeing a truck or two there, as well...

Sometimes you have no choice.
------------
Alex

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Antipodean Bucket Farmer > wrote:
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> In article > ,
> >> Mark Anderson > wrote:
> >> >In article says...
> >> >> I'm glad we agree. Of course at the same time completely get rid of
> >> >> corporate taxes, since corporate taxes really are consumer taxes since
> >> >> the tax burden is just built into the price of goods.
> >> >
> >> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
> >> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
> >> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
> >> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
> >> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
> >> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
> >> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
> >>
> >> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
> >> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
> >> a monopoly world.
> >
> >
> >Try studying the subject of "Branding." It is part of
> >advertising/marketing.
> >
> >For example, Branding is why the tin of beans with the
> >recognisable name and pretty picture on the label costs
> >more than the generic "no-name" tin of beans. Even if
> >the actual product inside is identical (sometimes even
> >made in the same factory on the same line.)
>
> You've never tried the no-name tins, have you?


Is that really a question, or just an ASSumption?

I have eaten plenty of generic, no-name, store-brand,
off-brand, food. Recently. In fact, I have some in
the cupboard right now.

When I go to a supermarket, my brand choices are solely
based upon price. Been doing it for over a decade.

Never bothered me in the least.


> Sometimes, the no-name
> products are just as good. Often, they simply aren't. The advantage
> to the consumer of the brand is one of consistency.


Like the consistent 50-80% (or more) higher cost?

Besides, for high-quality (better than supermarket),
low-dollar (compensated by my work, discipline, and
attitude), vegetables, I go to my personal organic
vegetable garden.

If that makes you disappointed or uncomfortable, note
that I have at least two recently-moved-in neighbours
who are hoping to increase the hassle and negativity
until... they won't have to see that example of
healthy, positive living, anymore.) I never had a
problem before those dorks arrived.


> >Starbucks IS a quasi-monopoly, since they are the only
> >ones who sell *Starbucks_Brand* coffee, which may be
> >PERCEIVED as special, and worth a $$$ premium.
>
> Substitute products abound within their market;


Branding is about *emotions* and social stereotypes.
It is actually a strategy to *avoid* a rational apples-
to-apples comparison. Like I said: look it up, and do
some reading.


> a monopoly on selling a particular brand is _not_ at all
> the same as having a monopoly on the product. Brand loyalty
> allows them to maintain some premium, not
> total insulation from competition.


That is right. And "some" premium may be enough for
profitability. By playing on the emotions of the
marketing-ad-targets/consumers.

"Ooooohhh... S/he has a kewl new Beemer... Whoa... must
be a really kewl human being..."

Try living and socialising in Southern California for a
few years. Then you know what I mean.

And, of course, it is still emotional. The kewl person
with the kewl car might really be in debt up to their
elbows, with a negative net worth which will end at
Bankruptcy Court. Or moving back in with their mommy.
Or, sometimes, moving into "Cardboard Condo" down on
Skid Row.

Before you continue any condescension, please note that
my JOB is tightly intertwined with the concept of
Branding. (Feels rather goofy, considering my own
personal values and lifestyle...)



--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

In article >,
Endangered Bucket Farmer > wrote:
>In article >,
says...
>> In article >,
>> Antipodean Bucket Farmer > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> says...
>> >> In article > ,
>> >> Mark Anderson > wrote:
>> >> >In article says...
>> >> >> I'm glad we agree. Of course at the same time completely get rid of
>> >> >> corporate taxes, since corporate taxes really are consumer taxes since
>> >> >> the tax burden is just built into the price of goods.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
>> >> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
>> >> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
>> >> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
>> >> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
>> >> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
>> >> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>> >>
>> >> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
>> >> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
>> >> a monopoly world.
>> >
>> >
>> >Try studying the subject of "Branding." It is part of
>> >advertising/marketing.
>> >
>> >For example, Branding is why the tin of beans with the
>> >recognisable name and pretty picture on the label costs
>> >more than the generic "no-name" tin of beans. Even if
>> >the actual product inside is identical (sometimes even
>> >made in the same factory on the same line.)
>>
>> You've never tried the no-name tins, have you?
>
>
>Is that really a question, or just an ASSumption?
>
>I have eaten plenty of generic, no-name, store-brand,
>off-brand, food. Recently. In fact, I have some in
>the cupboard right now.
>
>When I go to a supermarket, my brand choices are solely
>based upon price. Been doing it for over a decade.
>
>Never bothered me in the least.

OK, so you are apparently unable to sense differences in taste and
texture. Good for your wallet.

>> Sometimes, the no-name
>> products are just as good. Often, they simply aren't. The advantage
>> to the consumer of the brand is one of consistency.
>
>Like the consistent 50-80% (or more) higher cost?

Obviously not.

>Besides, for high-quality (better than supermarket),
>low-dollar (compensated by my work, discipline, and
>attitude), vegetables, I go to my personal organic
>vegetable garden.

Vegetables are rarely sold by brand anyway, so that's a particularly bad
example.

>> >Starbucks IS a quasi-monopoly, since they are the only
>> >ones who sell *Starbucks_Brand* coffee, which may be
>> >PERCEIVED as special, and worth a $$$ premium.
>>
>> Substitute products abound within their market;
>
>
>Branding is about *emotions* and social stereotypes.
>It is actually a strategy to *avoid* a rational apples-
>to-apples comparison. Like I said: look it up, and do
>some reading.

But it doesn't work perfectly. Despite all this manipulation, people
DO make comparisons. Even some of the strongest cases of brand
loyalty, such as cola, haven't managed to create a monopoly-like
situation, as can be seen by the fact that Pepsi and Coke continue to
compete, and compete on price at that.

>> a monopoly on selling a particular brand is _not_ at all
>> the same as having a monopoly on the product. Brand loyalty
>> allows them to maintain some premium, not
>> total insulation from competition.
>
>That is right. And "some" premium may be enough for
>profitability. By playing on the emotions of the
>marketing-ad-targets/consumers.

So? Them having "some premium" doesn't at all address the claim that
price is insensitive to cost.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.