wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[snip old attibutions:]

A standard class return from Manchester to London is £175 now,
you know.

So what.

Exactly.
Soince no-one sensible would even think of paying that much - per
person - for such a journey, so what?

The trains that cost that much are pretty much full.
Every one of them not sensible?

Or every one of them not paying.

Some of them must be paying.
Those who are not can fully justify it to the accounts department.

You'd have to have no sense of values to all to pay £175 for such a journey.
It's cheaper on the BA Shuttle.

You could even take a taxi...

Its perhaps a problem with the free market that people do not
always behave in a sensible way

Spoken
snip Irrational and ad-homineum abuse

The so-called "Irrational and ad-homineum abuse" was no more than an
straightforward analysis and characterisation of what you had written.

Here it is again:

[in respnse to: "Its perhaps a problem with the free market that people do
not always behave in a sensible way" - the first reaction of so many who
don't even want to understand the theory of rational decision-making:]

"Spoken like a true pimply-faced 15-yr-old who thinks he's the life and soul
of the party in the back row of the first lesson of the Economics GCSE
course".

You lose, norm.

Do I? :-)

Anyone who has studied (or taught) Economics will immediately have
recognised your syndrome - if not from their own reaction, then certainly
from the reaction of class-mates. It's as well-known as the class wag
telling the teacher that "respect has to be earned, Miss".

In what way would you disagree with the above?

Which bit?

I don't disagree with the bits I wrote, and I don't even disagree with all
the bits that others wrote. John Buckley was right, for one.

The 175 pounds is fully justifyable as "you can't buck the market".

If you think £175 for a one-person fare from Manchester to London (even if
it is a return) is "justifiable", then please feel free to pay it. Most
people couldn't afford to even consider it - still less if they had to pay
for more than one ticket.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:17:58 +0100, JohnB wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:14:42 +0100, JohnB wrote:
The car is not always the answer tho' many seem to want to believe so.

No, but it usually is

No, it usually isn't.

Perhaps I should rephrase. For certain people the car usually is the best
solution. For a lot of people the car is usually a good solution. Most
people dont consider other options and just go for the car automatically.

For you and me, living in the middle of the heavenly public transport
system that is London - night busses, mass transit every few minutes etc.
Then the car is unneccersary for many journeys. For the majority of people
that dont live in London, the car is essential. I'd like to know how you
would get to your local station, 30 miles away, with 4 trains a day (none
on sundays), when the bus leaves at 7:30 and gets back at 20:00 on
tuesdays and Fridays, without using the car.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[snip old attibutions:]

A standard class return from Manchester to London is £175 now,
you know.

So what.

Exactly.
Soince no-one sensible would even think of paying that much - per
person - for such a journey, so what?

The trains that cost that much are pretty much full.
Every one of them not sensible?

Or every one of them not paying.

Some of them must be paying.
Those who are not can fully justify it to the accounts department.

You'd have to have no sense of values to all to pay £175 for such a
journey.
It's cheaper on the BA Shuttle.

But from your own economic perspective it _must_ be better to take the train
than fly.
People do it.

You could even take a taxi...

It would be a horrendous journey.

Its perhaps a problem with the free market that people do not
always behave in a sensible way

Spoken
snip Irrational and ad-homineum abuse

The so-called "Irrational and ad-homineum abuse" was no more than an
straightforward analysis and characterisation of what you had written.

No, you relate disagreeing with a theory as smart-arse-spotty kidism.
Irrational and ad-homineum stereotyping of a position you disagree with.

Here it is again:

[in respnse to: "Its perhaps a problem with the free market that people do
not always behave in a sensible way" - the first reaction of so many who
don't even want to understand the theory of rational decision-making:]

It's just one theory, and its flawed.

Anyone who has studied (or taught) Economics will immediately have
recognised your syndrome - if not from their own reaction, then certainly
from the reaction of class-mates. It's as well-known as the class wag
telling the teacher that "respect has to be earned, Miss".

[You are such a master of all things that we must not question your views?
dick ]

So, this theory, is the only theory and its cast in stone is it?
Are you saying that no-one ever makes bad decisions and this never ever
arses up the economy.

There are many examples of this happening. Its happening right now.
What you seem to be saying, is that because I question a theory I am a
spotty smartarse.

Its also an aspect of usenet-loonism and also the ability to think freely
and come to a decision based on real understanding - the kind of thing that
got industry moving in different and efficient ways through the years.

As I have often said, you seem to be some grey suited "norm" sheep that does
not want to think for yourself, and just want to swallow a flawed theory
that suits your dodgy political thoughts.


I don't disagree with the bits I wrote, and I don't even disagree with all
the bits that others wrote. John Buckley was right, for one.

The 175 pounds is fully justifyable as "you can't buck the market".

If you think £175 for a one-person fare from Manchester to London (even if
it is a return) is "justifiable", then please feel free to pay it.

I'm not paying it, but its obviously justifyable, as people do.

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:17:58 +0100, JohnB wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:14:42 +0100, JohnB wrote:
The car is not always the answer tho' many seem to want to believe so.

No, but it usually is

No, it usually isn't.

Perhaps I should rephrase. For certain people the car usually is the best
solution. For a lot of people the car is usually a good solution.

OK.

Most
people dont consider other options and just go for the car automatically.

I think that is at the crux of the problems.
Most people are so wedded to their car that they have become blind to
alternatives, so much so that they feel under threat when ideas are put to
them. Note some of the responses by the most obsessed petrolheads who accuse
anyone who dares hint at other options as being anti-car.
Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or a train and you are immediately branded as
the arch demon out to purge the world of peoples freedoms.

For you and me, living in the middle of the heavenly public transport
system that is London - night busses, mass transit every few minutes etc.

Well there you are very very wrong. I don't live in London and never have.
I live in a semi-rural area with relatively poor bus and train services -
hourly at most to the nearest town of any size, and a handful in the evenings
and Sundays.

Then the car is unneccersary for many journeys. For the majority of people
that dont live in London, the car is essential.

They often mistakenly _believe_ that it is essential to own a private car.
So long as they do not affect my life style then that is their choice.
Unfortunately, many of their resultant activities do.

I'd like to know how you
would get to your local station, 30 miles away, with 4 trains a day (none
on sundays), when the bus leaves at 7:30 and gets back at 20:00 on
tuesdays and Fridays, without using the car.

That must be an extreme situation. Where is it?
And how many people live within the catchment area of the station?

John B

"W K" writes:
"Jonathan Marten - Volume Systems Products UK"
wrote in message ...

It must be nice to have so much money to spare.

It is.

I know that too. See, we can both be smug.

Perhaps you too could reduce the amount you spend on the car per year by
1000s

Possibly, but what would be the point of doing that? I'd far prefer
to spend money on a comfortable reliable car that will take me
anywhere at any time of the day and any day of the year, than waste it
on public transport which may occasionally run on time and all the way
to the destination (at the whim of the staff and weather) but more
often fails to deliver.

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP at GMP, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:08:45 +0100, JohnB wrote:
Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or a train and you are immediately branded as
the arch demon out to purge the world of peoples freedoms.

I certainly don't think that. Preach that others should follow your
lifestyle though and you are the arch demon. Goes both ways too.

have. I live in a semi-rural area with relatively poor bus and train
services - hourly at most to the nearest town of any size, and a handful
in the evenings and Sundays.

How do you do your weekly shopping then? 4 people in a house can total 20
bags - wouldnt like to carry them 5 miles home. Wouldn't like to carry
them on the bus either!

That must be an extreme situation. Where is it? And how many people live

Of course it's an extreme situation, just wanted to see if you would agree
that sometimes a car is neccersary.

Heres some anecdotal evidence:

I used to live in an estate outside Warrington, about 5000 people within
a 2 mile radius. We had half-hourly busses until about 22:00, and a
mainline station with a local train to Warrington or Manchester every hour
(10 minutes to Warrington, 30 minutes to Manchester), and an express train
about 10 minutes before the local (5 mins/ 20 mins).

However to get to work on public transport, my Dad would ahve had to
1) Bike or Bus 2 miles to the station (10 minutes)
2) Train (0x:50) to Manchester (20 minutes)
3) Train to Walkden (20 minutes)
4) Bus or Walk to offices (20 minutes)

Add waiting arround. To be in for 09:10 he'd have to leave at 07:40, to be
in for half eight (usual time), He'd have to leave at 06:45. Those are the
only two options. Driving, it took him 20 minutes, 30 on a bad day, so he
didnt have to leave until 8AM to be in for 8:30. Didnt get stuck commuting
on a train in worse conditions then cattle either.

Similarly I went to school in Altrincham - to be in for 08:40, it meant a
07:20 departure. In the car - 25 minutes, 40 on a bad day, meaning leaving
at 8AM, 40 minutes after the train, got me in with plenty of time.

My Mum - Oldham - started work at 10:00 to miss the traffic, leaving at
9:30. The train? She'd have to leave at 08:05, takes 1h 40 minutes, 4
times longer then the car journey on a normal day, and an hour longer then
a busy day.

Public transport is great, when it goes
1) Where you want to go
2) When you want to go

Of course a car is more comfortable then a commuter train, although I
enjoy my 50 minutes on the tube every morning, get a chance to read! I
love public transport when it's right for me, less stress then a car. I do
miss the radio though.

wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

Most people dont consider other options and just go for the
car automatically.

I think that is at the crux of the problems.

Problems or problem? And whose problem(s)?

Most people are so wedded to their car that they have become blind to
alternatives, so much so that they feel under threat when ideas are
put to them. Note some of the responses by the most obsessed
petrolheads who accuse anyone who dares hint at other options as
being anti-car. Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or a train and you are
immediately branded as the arch demon out to purge the world of
peoples freedoms

That's unfair because it is inaccurate.

Those who do those things present no "threat" (at least, not just by doing
them, though the manner in which some of them are sometimes done by some
people may present problems).

The "threat" is perceived when attempts are made to coax, cajole, threaten
or force others into doing the same thing (or perhaps to travel less), even
though they simply don't want go along with such "suggestions".

For [ those ] living in the middle of the heavenly public transport
system that is London - night busses, mass transit every few minutes
etc. ... the car is unneccersary for many journeys. For the majority
of people that dont live in London, the car is essential.

They often mistakenly _believe_ that it is essential to own a private
car. So long as they do not affect my life style then that is their
choice. Unfortunately, many of their resultant activities do.

...which of course, brings us right back to the kernel of many of the
arguments here and in ukt:

You suggest that *they* have no right to "affect [your] life style", but
seemingly fail to see that you are trying to affect *theirs*.

I'm sure I don't need to labour that point - do I?

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

[ standard class - not even first class - return rail fare from
Manchester to London at £175]

Soince no-one sensible would even think of paying that much - per
person - for such a journey, so what?

The trains that cost that much are pretty much full.
Every one of them not sensible?

Or every one of them not paying.

Some of them must be paying.
Those who are not can fully justify it to the accounts department.

You'd have to have no sense of values to all to pay £175 for such a
journey. It's cheaper on the BA Shuttle.

But from your own economic perspective it _must_ be better to take
the train than fly. People do it.

*I* don't do it - I could not justify such profligacy out of my limited
travel budget, which has to be much better-managed than that.

And especially not for a whole family (£700?).

But none of this is novel - it has been argued over many times here.

You could even take a taxi...

It would be a horrendous journey.

About the same as the car, but less stressful because you wouldn't be
driving - but don't let's get hung up on it - it *was* only a suggestion to
show how ridiculous a rail fare of £175 for such a journey really is. I
wouldn't suggest a taxi for that sort of journey (at least, not for just one
passenger, except ias a distress purchase).

Its perhaps a problem with the free market that people do not
always behave in a sensible way

snip Irrational and ad-homineum abuse

The so-called "Irrational and ad-homineum abuse" was no more than an
straightforward analysis and characterisation of what you had
written.

...and I am going to re-type it here (well, cut'n'paste

"Spoken like a true pimply-faced 15-yr-old who thinks he's the life and soul
of the party in the back row of the first lesson of the Economics GCSE
course."

No, you relate disagreeing with a theory as smart-arse-spotty kidism.
Irrational and ad-homineum stereotyping of a position you disagree
with.

Disagreeing with a theory with some academic justification is one thing
(though there is effectively no soundly-based counter to the Theory of
Rational Decision-Making). The response: "But sir, people don't behave
rationally; just look at the way they..." is *all* Year 11 stuff. Economics
teachers *know* it's coming and are ready for it. Just ask one.

It's just one theory, and its flawed.

So you say. But if you say that with sincerity, it can only be because you
have made the (classic) mistake of assuming that it says something that it
doesn't say.

Here it is in a nutshell: "An economic actor will seek to maximise his
utility by making a rational decision in his own interest".

As a theory, it is pretty well unassailable (it has never been falsified or
superseded).

Note that "his own interest" is what *he* thinks it is, not what a third
party thinks it is. In the transport field, that is a pretty crucial
distinction (though it is often not made by the "Please sir, people aren't
rational" back-row-bunch).

Anyone who has studied (or taught) Economics will immediately have
recognised your syndrome - if not from their own reaction, then
certainly from the reaction of class-mates. It's as well-known as
the class wag telling the teacher that "respect has to be earned,
Miss".

[You are such a master of all things that we must not question your
views? dick ]

Ask an Economics teacher? There are plenty of them.

So, this theory, is the only theory and its cast in stone is it?

As far as the theoretical underpinning of micreconomic actions (and
therefore of macroeconomic actions), yes, it is.

It has never been falsified.

This is fact, not opinion.

Even Marx depended upon it (whether he knoew it or not - but he probably
did).

Are you saying that no-one ever makes bad decisions and this never
ever arses up the economy.

Whether a decision is "bad" or not is a value judgment. What may look bad
(or even selfish) to a bystander will not necessarily do so to the person
who had the decision to make. "Irrational" does not mean "bad", and
vice-versa.

There are many examples of this happening. Its happening right now.
What you seem to be saying, is that because I question a theory I am a
spotty smartarse.

Not at all.

Effectively, I said you did it *like* a spotty smartarse" (to borrow your
phrase).

As I have often said, you seem to be some grey suited "norm" sheep
that does not want to think for yourself, and just want to swallow a
flawed theory that suits your dodgy political thoughts.

If you imagine for one moment that there is any serious counter-philosophy
to the Theory of Rational Decision-Making, you would do well to think again.

All you are doing is defining (ad-hoc) any decision you don't like or don't
agree with as "irrational".

That is neither a scientific nor an academic approach.

I don't disagree with the bits I wrote, and I don't even disagree
with all the bits that others wrote. John Buckley was right, for one.

The 175 pounds is fully justifyable as "you can't buck the market".

If you think £175 for a one-person fare from Manchester to London
(even if it is a return) is "justifiable", then please feel free to
pay it.

I'm not paying it, but its obviously justifyable, as people do.

For *some* (small minority of) people, it may be - I heard today that Andrew
Lloyd-Webber habitually - every week - booked two seats from London to New
York on Concorde (at a cost of £6000 per seat), just so he would have an
empty seat to put his newspaper on. If that's what he wanted to do - and if
the (tiny amount of) extra space was worth £6000 to him (let alone the £6000
he paid for his own fare), then that was rational for him. Whether you or I
could rationally do the same thing (even once in a lifetime) is a quite
separate point, and the answer in either case says nothing about AL-W's
rationality.

But we are posting in a general transport newsgroup - not a forum where the
transport needs of multi-millionaires are the foremost topic. For ordinary
travellers, on ordinary incomes, paying for their own transport (as opposed
to having it paid by a company), never mind Concorde - £175 from Manchester
to London is not justifiable (unless there something intrinsically desirable
about the mode itself, as there might be for a trainspotter, which might
make it a rational decision, or in a case of exceptional urgency where the
journey becomes a distress purchase, a bit like people paying a £50
taxi-fare at dead of night).

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:51:47 +0100, "JNugent"
wrote:
driving - but don't let's get hung up on it - it *was* only a suggestion to
show how ridiculous a rail fare of £175 for such a journey really is. I
wouldn't suggest a taxi for that sort of journey (at least, not for just one
passenger, except ias a distress purchase).
Is 175.00 such an outrageous price to pay for a train journey to
London from Manchester ? when you think of all the people on very high
wages (thanks to the unions) who are involved for someone to be able
to make that journey train staff booking clerks platform staff signal
men not to mention all the expense of maintaining the permanent way
these things don't come cheap .
Grant

wrote:

wrote:

...but don't let's get hung up on it - it *was* only a
suggestion to show how ridiculous a rail fare of £175 for such a
journey really is. I wouldn't suggest a taxi for that sort of
journey (at least, not for just one passenger, except ias a distress
purchase).

Is 175.00 such an outrageous price to pay for a train journey to
London from Manchester ? when you think of all the people on very high
wages (thanks to the unions) who are involved for someone to be able
to make that journey train staff booking clerks platform staff signal
men not to mention all the expense of maintaining the permanent way
these things don't come cheap .

I think we all have some idea of why the fares are so high, but that has to
be the secondary point. With fairs high, not many people could afford to pay
them out of their own pockets (especially not for a multiplicity of
passengers - like a family). It might be OK - perhaps - for someone on
expenses, but not for many others. Others either have to hunt for the lower
fares (by - I dunno - booking in advance on a Tuesday when there's no R in
the month) or go some other way - or not go at all.