Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
What would the founding fathers think about this.
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<center><font color="blue">One reason Government Spend so Much</center> <br /> <br />Industries generally develop in three stages. First is scientific feasibility, second is engineering feasibility, and the third is economic feasibility. <br /> Using the airline industry as an example, the question in the 1800’s was: “Is long-distance air travel possible?” <br /> In the 1800’s, balloons were already in use but were not practical. This problem solve was the heavier-than-air-machine. <br /> The Wright Brothers in 1903 proved scientific feasibility. They risked their time, money and lives to show that a heavier-than-air-machine could fly. <br /> Lindbergh in 1927 proved engineering feasibility. He risked time, money and his life to show that long distance air travel was possible. <br /> This gave investors enough confidence to risk their money in the aircraft industry. In 1935 the Douglas Company came with the DC-3, which was the beginning of economic feasibility. <br /> The modern airline industry resulted from all this risk-taking. Today, a middle class American can go anywhere in the world much faster, and in much greater comfort, than a Roman emperor could. Travelers fly because the benefits are greater than the costs. This is economic feasibility. <br /> This three-step model explains why governments gamble with other people’s money, <b>so they tend to confuse scientific and engineering feasibility with economic feasibility.</b> <br /> Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it even if the costs are greater than the benefits.</font id="blue"> <br /> <br />If any such lines are economically feasible, they should be built. However the government is incapable of deciding if it is or isn’t. If it is economically feasible, that means the private sector will pay for it. I am not against the government giving railroads the land during the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, even funding it possibly. However if the choices are, government funding, or no railroad; then I am afraid as Americans, and rail fans, we have but two choices. These are, no HSL and we put our favoritism aside; or we build an HSL, and compromise our values of our country. You choose. <br />
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy