America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[WildCat]

Could you quote that part of the OP? I must have missed it.

Travis has been beating this horse for quite some time. This isn't the only HSR thread here.

 

[Toontown]

It is very funny watching spending-addicted political ideologues and special-interest buffs discuss government spending or the proposed hypothetical lack thereof. One group of ideologues want to spend more and more and stop the government from spending by cutting taxes and government programs. The other group of ideologues want to spend vicariously through the government.

We are the John Henrys of spending. Before we will let anyone shut our spending down, we will die with our credit cards in our hands.

Not to worry. The current economic system will eventually fade away, and all the money and debt generated by the antiquated system will fade away with it. We will simply evolve our way out of debt.

I kid. Actually, all you spendthrift bozos are going to debtors prison.

 

[Dymanic]

Big oil has nothing to fear from high speed rail.

Nor do they, along with Firestone Tire, General Motors, or Mack Trucks, have anything to fear from light rail. Nor does the United States of America have anything to fear from the Confederate States of America. Certain power struggles once took place, were resolved by force, and are now part of history. Those from subsequent generations may go through their entire lives without appreciating the extent to which those historical events influenced the choices available to them.

In 1949, Firestone Tire, Standard oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, General Motors and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by National City Lines and other companies; they were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. The verdicts were upheld on appeal in 1951.[n 9] The corporations involved were fined only $5000. In addition, the jury convicted H.C. Grossman, who was then treasurer of General Motors. Grossman had played a key role in the motorization campaigns and had served as a director of PCL when that company undertook the dismantlement of the $100 million Pacific Electric system. The court fined Grossman the magnanimous sum of $1.

By the time of the 1973 oil crisis, controversial new testimony was presented to a United States Senate inquiry into the causes of the decline of transit car systems in the US. This alleged that there was a wider conspiracy—by GM in particular—to destroy effective public transport systems in order to increase sales of automobiles and that this was implemented with great effect to the detriment of many cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

Whatever you choose to do, you are simultaneously choosing not to do everything else. The choice to invest huge amounts of public money into an interstate highway system was also a choice not to put that money into rail infrastructure. It may be fairly argued that America's love affair with the automobile began on first sight, and that placing the emphasis on roads rather than rails was a response to a strong public demand. But it may be just as reasonable to ask how enduring that love affair would have been if the struggle over the decision-making apparatus for the allocation of public funds toward infrastructure had not been so heavily rigged.

 

[TraneWreck]

It is very funny watching spending-addicted political ideologues and special-interest buffs discuss government spending or the proposed hypothetical lack thereof. One group of ideologues want to spend more and more and stop the government from spending by cutting taxes and government programs. The other group of ideologues want to spend vicariously through the government.

We are the John Henrys of spending. Before we will let anyone shut our spending down, we will die with our credit cards in our hands.

Not to worry. The current economic system will eventually fade away, and all the money and debt generated by the antiquated system will fade away with it. We will simply evolve our way out of debt.

I kid. Actually, all you spendthrift bozos are going to debtors prison.

It's very funny watching people with barely a child's understanding of economics sanctimoniously whine about that which they do not comprehend.

 

[WildCat]

It's very funny watching people with barely a child's understanding of economics sanctimoniously whine about that which they do not comprehend.

Help me out here TraneWreck:

Step 1: Spend tens of billions on a white elephant
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

What is Step 2?

 

[Dymanic]

Help me out here TraneWreck:

Step 1: Spend tens of billions on a white elephant
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

What is Step 2?

I thought tyr_13 addressed that rather nicely above:

Infrastructure and transport improvements specifically, aren't money makers, they create wealth. They let people and companies make more money, transport workers and goods more easily, and encourage competition. The massive highway projects after WWII helped grow the nation greatly. Did they 'make money'? No. They were a massive initial investment.

The argument for them has never, as far as I've seen, been that they themselves make money.

 

[Toontown]

It's very funny watching people with barely a child's understanding of economics sanctimoniously whine about that which they do not comprehend.

You mean like you do every day, most of the day, here at JREF?

 

[TraneWreck]

Deleted.

 

[Toontown]

With all you economic experts around to tell the dumb politikers what to do, it is very disheartening that they came to loggerheads over a measly 2% of this year's deficit. Couldn't you experts get across to the ignorant politikers how niggardly the paltry amount they were grandstanding about really was?

 

[TraneWreck]

Help me out here TraneWreck:

Step 1: Spend tens of billions on a white elephant
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

What is Step 2?

Step 1: Borrow money at historically low rates that are below the nation's growth rate.
Step 2: invest that money in jobs programs (building infrastructure, schools, renewable energy plants...etc.) and support for the impoverished to deal with the crash in aggregate demand that's causing the slow recovery.
Step 3: When we've recovered (2015 according to the CBO based on current law--proper stimulus could make this happen much more quickly), then we deal with the long term economic issues, which are 90% health care costs.
Step 4: Profit from a stable, thriving economy.

Or we can pretend like the economy is an inscrutable volcano god, adopt policies that sound good to idiots who haven't thought about the issue, struggle through a prolonged recovery because we adopt austerity measures, then never deal with the actual long term budgetary issues.

 

[Toontown]

Wow.

I want to know what you considered before posting this. I can only imagine what hit the cutting room floor.

Suffice to say I did not say what I really think. You don't really want to know what I really think. People have tried to kill me for saying what I really think. More than once. And I'm not exaggerating.

 

[Ziggurat]

Step 1: Borrow money at historically low rates that are below the nation's growth rate.
Step 2: invest that money in jobs programs (building infrastructure, schools, renewable energy plants...etc.) and support for the impoverished to deal with the crash in aggregate demand that's causing the slow recovery.
Step 3: When we've recovered (2015 according to the CBO based on current law--proper stimulus could make this happen much more quickly), then we deal with the long term economic issues, which are 90% health care costs.
Step 4: Profit from a stable, thriving economy.

That's funny, but I thought we were talking about high-speed rail. But your post has nothing to do with high-speed rail. It's an argument for infrastructure in general, but we've got more than enough work to do repairing existing infrastructure. So why high-speed rail? You have failed to answer, or even address, that question.

 

[eeyore1954]

Tranewreck

It's very funny watching people with barely a child's understanding of economics sanctimoniously whine about that which they do not comprehend.

Toontown

You mean like you do every day, most of the day, here at JREF?

Wow.

Why would you say Wow. His comment was pretty much the same as yours. Except you aimed it at him.

You belittle him, he belittled you.

 

[TraneWreck]

With all you economic experts around to tell the dumb politikers what to do, it is very disheartening that they came to loggerheads over a measly 2% of this year's deficit. Couldn't you experts get across to the ignorant politikers how niggardly the paltry amount they were grandstanding about really was?

You want us to tell Congress that they're having a pointless argument over a tiny fraction of the budget? Ok.

Just sent an e-mail. Now that's done. I expect sane fiscal policy to begin in the next few hours.

 

[TraneWreck]

Deleted.

 

[TraneWreck]

That's funny, but I thought we were talking about high-speed rail. But your post has nothing to do with high-speed rail. It's an argument for infrastructure in general, but we've got more than enough work to do repairing existing infrastructure. So why high-speed rail? You have failed to answer, or even address, that question.

Once we've acknowledged that jobs programs aimed at building infrastructure are an excellent way to stimulate the economy and deal with the crippling problem of depressed demand, we can then evaluate the merits of particular projects.

High Speed rail has a number of benefits that extend beyond just a location for the Helicopter dump.

 

[Neally]

The HSR thing for most places in the US is not about more efficiently or more cost effectively moving people around, it's about creating union jobs.

 

[Ziggurat]

High Speed rail has a number of benefits that extend beyond just a location for the Helicopter dump.

So in other words, you won't actually argue the merits of high-speed rail over filling in potholes.

 

[Toontown]

Sure, you've expanded the scope to note that both were insults. That doesn't make them the "same."

Shakespeare and Danielle Steele are both "writers."

Fun with scope shifting.

Yeah. That'll teach me, damn me to hell.

Frankly, I find it puzzling that, with all your wit, charm, and education, you don't seem to have a full-time job, considering the amount of arguing you do here every day. I find it unfortunate that all that argumentative talent and energy is being largely wasted on a bunch of dumb doo-doo-heads.

 

[TraneWreck]

So in other words, you won't actually argue the merits of high-speed rail over filling in potholes.

If by "other words" you mean, "my silly strawman words," then yes. There are two levels of argument for high speed rail: 1) the broader economic issues of stimulus 2) the merits of rail vs. other stimulative efforts. I made a statement about 1, and people are upset I didn't discuss 2. You can ask me to discuss 2, but the fact that I didn't has no bearing on the argument for 1.

That being said, let's look at the benefits of high speed rail:

1) Safety.
2) Less polution.
3) Cost effective relative to our current transportation infrastructure (before you respond, make sure you're isolating the actual costs you want to compare):

But among the most annoying things about the discussion is the extent to which HSR is held to an entirely different standard than other investments.

Consider. What should America’s top transportation investment priority be at this stage? I don’t think it’s controversial to say that first on the list should be spending to bring existing infrastructure into good repair. But current spending is insufficient to maintain current levels of service, to say nothing of improvements up to acceptable standards, and current revenues are insufficient to fund current spending absent broad transfers from general funds at the local, state, and federal level. Now, if we are interested in economic efficiency, then we should want the beneficiaries of transportation investments to pay for the benefits they receive. And that means that revenue should be raised from increases in user fees. To raise enough revenue to cover necessary spending, gas taxes would need to rise at least 20 to 40 cents, and perhaps more. In much of the country, that moves the retail gas price to near $3.50.

Beyond paying for maintenance, we would want to ensure that existing roads and rails were being used efficiently before deciding to build more. And those caring about economic efficiency would insist that this be accomplished through road pricing. The added driving cost from congestion pricing would probably swamp that from increased fuel costs. I don’t know exactly what it would cost to drive from Washington to New York under a system that would keep that route congestion free 90% of the time, but I suspect it would be between $50 and $100, and potentially more (especially if one’s drive involved a trip into Manhattan). Costs would be significant in lots of places outside the Northeast Corridor. It wouldn’t be cheap to keep I-85/I-40 between Raleigh and Charlotte free of traffic 90% of the time.

http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2357

We don't require a return on our investment for roads from those that use it. If we did, gas prices would be significantly higher (or there would be more obnoxious toll roads). Yet we demand that high speed rail somehow cover the cost of its infrastructure investment.

To continue the list:

4) Quality and ease of travel. Please, let me hear you impassioned defense of air travel. At distances of less than 400 miles, rail delivers passengers between city centers at the same speed (probably faster when calculating security lines, and such) as air travel for a fraction of the price per traveler. You can move around, have plenty of space, can nap, can read, can work...etc.

6) All of the stimulative economic measures that go beyond pure helicopter dropping: i.e. quality jobs that last and important experience. Every dollar of money spent on rail projects delivers between $1.70 and $2.50 of economic benefit.
http://elpc.org/benefits-of-high-speed-rail

We subsidize every step of the car-centric travel system. Because our population is growing, we will be building new infrastructure. We can either build more car-centric infrastructure that is less efficient when all variables are factored in and the true cost is measured, and that's before dealing with the environmental impact (which is impossible to fully comprehend at this point). It's a better way to travel.