General Discussion

henry6:

I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though.

I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way.  Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism.

schlimm:

henry6:

I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though.

 

I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way.  Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism.

That is the core of the debate about HSR.  Probably the most obvious example of a government response being preferable to a private sector marketing response is going to war to defend the country from foreign enemy invasion.  With HSR, the choice of government response is far less compelling.  Why would it be preferable?

schlimm:

henry6:

I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though.

 

I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way.  Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it?

Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.

htgguy:

schlimm:

henry6:

I am not totally sure that the market will find the correct answer though.

 

I am not sure the "market" is the only way to find answers to allocation nor is it always the best or most appropriate way.  Many times it is, but there are some/many sectors where capitalism - decisions based on profit/return on investment - may not be the best mechanism.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it?

Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.

I would like the critics of an open market to at least try to make alternatives here. Since they do seem to know what is 'incorrect'  I do think they can propose their own 'perfect system'. Let us hear of it---

htguy, you are not paying attention.  I don't criticze the alternative except for the one to do nothing.

Marketing and political bent are two of the most powerful tools working on the populace.  I jokingly say that the greatest marketing feats in our life time have been the NFL, Rock and Roll, Vanna White, Madonna, and the World Wrestling Federation.  But on the serious side so are TV, the mini vans and SUV's, automobiles in general, religious pursuasions, the cereal you eat, the restaurant you go to, the ciggarette you smoke(d) and why you (should) quit; the style clothes you wear, the movies you see, I mean I don't believe there is much in ourlives that hasn't been marketed, sold, forced upon us or otherwise made attractive to our lifestyles and choices.  Does the market make the decision?...only for whoever did the best marketing job. 

My rant is that something has to be done to assure an economical, safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and user freindly passenger and freight transportation system for our future has to be planned today.  HSR certainly has to be included in the planning.discussions.

htgguy:

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it?

Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.

I said there are other mechanisms (other than profit-driven or "government fiat") which we use nearly every day.  You seem so ideological about this that you perhaps have overlooked some.

$162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009.  Great allocation of financial resources.  Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR?

schlimm:

$162 Bil. in bonuses for Wall Street executives in 2009.  Great allocation of financial resources.  Thank you to the omniscient, omnipotent "market." And some are incensed about $8 Bil. for HSR?

That is not an 'open market' idea. That was stupidity. Don't be blaming an open market for stuff like that. The former USSR had graft of huge amounts----China's Gang of Four did stuff akin to this---need we go on?

NASA used the dreaded "open market" going to private/investor funded firms to do contract work on all kinds of missions. There are private/public partnerships that have worked in all kinds of areas. Germany has done partnerships and IPO's for spun off segments of their RR's in the recent past. Let's just say that .

Sheesh--we all seem to need the drug--Sombunall---Some But Not All---

schlimm:

htgguy:

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to when the free market is not the best tool for allocating capital, who should determine when those conditions are met, and what mechanism should replace it?

Don't just criticize, propose alternatives. I think the free market is the best capital allocation tool. You don't, but you fail to say what should replace it.

 

I said there are other mechanisms (other than profit-driven or "government fiat") which we use nearly every day.  You seem so ideological about this that you perhaps have overlooked some.

What are these mechanisms?

Fellas, the discussion is becoming circuitous and at the same time more political.  Please do try to ask simple questions and avoid accusations.  If the other(s) don't provide direct answers, or if they continually hedge and prevaricate, then the conversation should be over.  Interested readers will have long since forumated an opinion or conclusions about the topic, so what's left is becoming stale and leaning towards being piqued and political.

It has to stop.

-Crandell

Sometimes one must be a dictator.  As one, you know what has to be done, what your advisers say has to be done, or whatever reason there is that something, a particular something, has to be done.  So you remove, downgrade, ignore or otherwise eliminate, the value of everything else.  It is how the record companies launched rock and roll (no fooling, read the book "Hit Men") and it is how railroad companies eliminated the passenger train from their records and the public eye.  

Er, no, Crandell, this is not aimed at you!!!

wjstix:

Europeans don't see it as a "luxury item" but more a "quality of life" issue...not only is it easier and cheaper than flying, it's also environmentally sound. Hard to believe in the US but in Europe it's not uncommon for a family to not own a car. They can commute to work, take daytrips on the weekend, or longer vacation trips all on public transportation.

It's probably not going to be possible to get beyond the fact that Europeans and Americans have opposite views of life. In Europe the feeling is "if we pool our resources, we can create things that benefit all of us" - like rail transportation, health care, day care etc. In the US we feel "I want to keep all my money for myself, and to heck with everybody else". We pay lower taxes than any other industrialized nation, but think we pay the most...so politicians know it's suicide to put forward anything to help society as a whole if it would mean even a tiny tax increase. That's why we're a generation or two behind Europe in transportation.

 As an expat now retired in Italy, I see WJSTIX point of view, but I also disagree on a few issues.  It's really about freedom, and having choices is freedom.  When you take away choices and give no alternatives, you lose freedom -- the freedom of choice, and that is waht you have in America.  America calls itself the Land of the Free, and yet at the same time, transportation is only twofold -- either drive or fly, and both are VERY expensive.  There is no alternative.  I live in Trieste, a city of about 200,000 hard on the border with Slovenia.  Outside my door are 7 bus routes, and within 2 blocks walk ther are 4 more.  We have 55 buses per hour in front of our windows and can anywhere we wish.  Venice is 2 hours 6 minutes away, and there are about 30 trains a day each way.  It is not a high speed route and trains are limited to 90 MPH -- very fast by USA standards, but just a normal train here.  Buses travel the routes that trains do not, mostly into Slovenia and Croatia.  I have not driven since we left the the US some 5 years ago, and do not expect to.  I have that fredom of choice -- you do not.

I will be traveling to the US in a few months and want to visit my son and my sister.  One lives in the bay area amd one near LA.  Driving time is 6.5 hours while Amrak is closer to 12 hours.  Fast??  Absolutely crawling.  I leave around 8AM and arrive close to midnight. I like trains or that would no a non-starter. 

As for taxes, WJSTIX is absolutely wrong.  The taxes are really equal because of symantics.   The Italian tax rate usually is over 40% which is appalling to Americans.  In 2003 I paid less that 7%.  BUT -- add in 13% social security (yours plus the employer's share), medicare, and both your and your employer's share of health insurance, health deductibles and co-pays, unemployement taxes, and all that, it's about even.  You have to remember that the Italian 40% includes social nets that Americans totally lack.  It's not an even playing field when you look just at income tax -- not even close.

I retired with social security at about 20% of my average wage, as did my wife who was born and raised here but immigrated to the US when we were married in 1968.  She has high school friends her who are her age and have been retired for years.  You can retire with full benefits after 35 years, so by age 53, you get full retirement.  They retired with 60-100% of their LAST wage, not just the average.  We feel poor and are ashamed of our meager retirement.  THIS is what you pay for -- in addition to high speed rail.  I can be in Milan by rail in 4.5 hours -- you can't even make it that fast if you fly.  The last time I checked, the rail fare was about 80€ and the air fare arout 450€.  With gas at $8 a gallon -- only Americans drive.  The trains are packed here, and they love it.  You're living in a cacoon.

 wjstix and GN Fan:  good points!

Back to HSR.  I remember reading Trains 40 years ago when they had an annual Speed Survey by (the late?) Donald Steffee.  Back then (pre-Amtrak, pre-FRA track speed limits) the US still was right up there on some passenger fast tracks.  Now?  Too bad it had to be d/c'd.

There is a lot of route possibilities for HSR in the US that would probably make sense.

Miami - Orlando - Jacksonville

Tampa - Orlando - Jacksonville

Jacksonville - Atlanta

Jacksonville - New Orleans

Atlanta - Birmingham - New Orleans

New Orleans - Houston - San Antonio

Houston - Dallas

San Antonio - Austin - Dallas

Dallas - Denver

Dallas - Oklahoma City - Kansas City

Tucson - Phoenix - Los Angeles

Los Angeles - San Francisco

San Diego - Sacramento

Los Angeles - Las Vegas

And this is just across the southern tier. Not all of these routes if built will turn a profit in the first decade but they are all growth cities and connecting them with HSR will make sense in the long run. It was just yesterday that hundreds of domestic flights were cancelled and people were left stranded at airports due to a computer glitch in the ATC system. Most of the Interstates need major upgrades and gasoline will once again be on the rise. A fast alternative means to Air and highway travel is an absolute necessity as our population continues to grow. Not every city needs HSR but the ones I have mentioned in the southern tier are all growth cities and need alternative transportation methods.

Al - in - Stockton 

On this question of "let the market decide":

Mu MIT Alumni magazine informs me that Julius Ceaser decreed in the year 45 BCE that all private chariots were banned from downtown Rome between 6AM and 4PM.

Do you let the market decide when it comes to police, firemen, traffic lights, water, sewerage, etc?   Some people do think transportation should be treated similarly.