Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
No, I'm not an idiot. Is it really necessary for you to call everyone an idiot that disagrees with you? Sure, subsidy per passenger isn't a "fixed" cost, I thought I was being generous using the $5 per passenger average subsidy vs the $35 per passenger average subsidy. I didn't invent the numbers, and did provide a link to where I found them. Those subsidy numbers I provided were real.
I could argue that as long as Amtrak maintains the policy to set fares so low that the trains lose money, that some subsidy is "fixed" by that policy. As long as Amtrak's fare setting policy is to fill seats instead of turning a profit, you'll find some subsidies will be needed. And I might add, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
|
The more passengers Amtrak attracts, the lower the subsidy per passenger because the
subsidy is fixed. It's obvious you don't understand the logic at work here because you wrote:
Quote:
|
That's right, when you're losing money on every passenger, having more passengers mean you're losing even more money.
|
Mind-boggling!
I guess someone should also point out to you that the
majority of the roads in this country also don't "turn a profit." User fees (fuel tax and tolls) only provide for a portion of construction and maintenance. I don't think that even includes the billions of dollars of initial investment!