Hacker News Reader

> The US, at least in spirit, doesn't like government subsidies.

The US gives $0.6 trillion / yr in energy subsidies, about 70% of which goes to oil. Which reduces the cost of cars and trucks.

Where are you getting the $420 billion per year in oil subsidies? US oil companies pay among the highest corporate income tax rates on the planet. Their taxes far exceed subsidies they receive.

$600 billion by comparison is the size of the US military and $420 billion is larger than the sales of Exxon + Chevron + Conoco + Occidental + EOG + Anadarko combined. It's an absurd claim.

I was quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

> The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."

> The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.

Apologies, it seems fossil fuels get 70%. Not just oil.

>A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period

Over 60 years.

No, per year. Specifically $606 billion in 2013.

The cited study from the sentence I referenced in my comment:

> Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years).

> In terms of countries, China had the largest absolute post-tax subsidies in 2013 ($1,844 billion or 19.5% of GDP), followed by United States ($606 billion or 3.6% of GDP), Russia ($318 billion or 15.2% of GDP), European Union ($295 billion), India ($269 billion or 14.3% of GDP), Japan ($142 billion or 2.9% of GDP), Saudi Arabia ($129 billion or 17.2% of GDP) and Iran ($118 billion or 32.2% of GDP).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...

Here is the study that you quoted, it's total.

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

edit:

The other study that you provided includes global warming and air pollution as a "subsidy", no offense but that's pushing the definition.

http://imgur.com/a/hNm6a

I'm pretty sure you're correct and those numbers are total since 1950. However, the study does seem confusingly worded - in the footnote on page 1 it says:

"All estimates quoted are in constant 2010 dollars, unless otherwise noted, and refer to actual expenditures in the relevant fiscal year, rounded to the nearest billion"

At least to me that reads like "all estimates refer to expenditures from the relevant fiscal year only". However, they later quote the same numbers as being "total spending since 1950". Am I just missing an obvious interpretation for the footnote?

I think you are. I interpret that as the estimates for each year are quoted in 2010 dollars unless noted and that those estimates (that is, the ones for each year) refer to actuals in each of those years. Then they are summed to produce the $600b.

"from the relevant fiscal year" implies that each value relates to a corresponding fiscal year. Your addition of 'only' is redundant.

But the estimates the footnote is referring to are in the first table. Those are not per year but already summed; there's no corresponding fiscal year to refer to (I think?).

Regardless, this is a tiny point so I'll drop it. I still feel confused though :(

Looks like they found that number here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fos...

> Rail systems are almost never profitable. The US, at least in spirit, doesn't like government subsidies.

Excuse me? Japan privatized its rail system in the late 80s, doesn't subsidize any of the JR companies[1][2] (which are all publicly traded to boot), and has a profitable enough industry that there are now numerous private operators[3] of various sizes who successfully compete.[4]

1 http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurelevel-play...

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation, and see the box at the bottom for lots more

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Greater_Tokyo#Oth...

I do agree completely with your statement on rural area with population. It's a fact that nobody can argue with.

But to think about it more, why do people have to live in such lifestyle with so much open "wasted" spaces?

Why everyone "has a car already"? All we talk about is the American lifestyle which most American still refuse to adapt or look different.

I don't know as much about China, but having been to Japan several times, I can say that the rail networks of Japan only extend to the urban cores of a city. If you want to live in a suburban or rural area, you have to get by with a car or take the local bus everywhere, which is slow. US urban rail infrastructure is already present, it just does not have the same frequency that Japanese rail has.

If you've been to Tokyo or Shanghai/Beijing, you would know the New York public transport system is not well developed at all.

The Shanghai metro, while pleasant to travel on and incredibly cheap, closes at 11pm.

At least the NY subway is 24/7

NYC is one of the best system. It pretty much covers most of the city 24/7. I have yet to see a system that has similar coverage and frequency.

24/7 is in fact a negative as the state of the DC Metro and NYC system show especially in comparison to Tokyo's multiple system.

There's not enough time to do proper repairs and improvements.

What I don't understand is why more cities don't operate like Philly and operate 24 hour bus service in place of the trains at night. With a system like that the night workers can still get to work as early as others and the bar crowd can still go out with out the craziness of last train like in Tokyo.

NYC has buses covering pretty much the same routes as subway, it just takes much longer. Personally I use express buses for commute and these are amazing, though twice as expensive.

Some metro systems have a 24/7 bus system, but Philly's is an exact replacement for the trains. They don't make all the extra stops of the buses that serve similar routes. I'm unaware of anywhere else that does this

I've been to both Beijing and NYC as a tourist and I don't quite understand what do you have in mind. If anything I preferred the system in NYC.

Highways (tolls) tend to be far less profitable than rail systems (ticket sales). If the US didn't like government subsidies, we wouldn't have built all these highways.

Do you have a source on this? In my state the government used the tolls roads as a cash cow, they were massively profitable. The funny thing was the toll roads still sucked because they dumped all the money into the general fund to pay for everything else

Just like about a quarter of the motor-fuels tax that is supposed to go into the highway trust fund.

> If the US didn't like government subsidies, we wouldn't have built all these highways

You can't disregard the history of the highways, or the reason they were first built - for the military in the name of national security.

A moderate increase in user fees (gas taxes today, mileage fees in an electric future) could readily fund all capital and maintenance costs for the US interstate system. Gas wouldn't have to be that much more expensive than it was 4-5 years ago. The system would endure and could even be profitable.

No such fee structure could plausibly fund any rail system outside the NE Corridor. Prices adequate to sustain the network, let alone build it up, would put ridership into a death spiral.