[lbo-talk] Weimar on the Pacific

Wojtek Sokolowski swsokolowski at yahoo.com
Tue May 27 14:19:06 PDT 2008


--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:


>
> What makes you think that the same forces that keep
> an airline from
> flying non-stop from Salinas to Bakersfield would
> result in having a
> fast train being built beetween those two small
> cities? Did you look at

[WS:] I am not sure if you miss the point on purpose or just miss it. What makes you think that I would propose building a fast train between two small towns?

The train would run between LA and SF (or any other major metropolitan areas,) but also serve some smaller localities en route - something that plane cannot do very well, at least not without wasting a lot of time and fuel.

Another point that you missed (or chose to ignore) is that ALL modes of transportation are subsidized - the only question is how those subsidies are allocated so certain modes appear "cheaper" than other. The US chose to subsidize airplanes and roads more heavily than it does railroads for purely political reasons. Arguing that planes are cheaper than trains is the same disingenous bulllshit as arguing, say, that US agricultural products are cheaper than Third World agricultural products. Of course they are "cheaper" because they have been made cheaper by government fiat and on a public dime. You do not think that the "invisible hand" made them that way, do you?

I can understand when such bullshit is being spread by aplogists of the empire who populate media outlets and think tanks, but I do not suspect you of such motives.

To sum it up, I am not arguing that trains are better than planes (that woul dbe obviously preposterous), but that they offer certain advantages in certain market niches. These advatages include cost savings, time saving and lower pollution. However, they can be only achieved if, and that is a big IF, the government choses to properly invest in this mode of transportation. The US government chose not to make that investment, and did so for purely political reasons (greasing the lobbying interests), at the cost of effciciencly, cost to the public and the environment. Why is it so difficult to accpet that and instead coming with bullshit excuses of bullshit policies?

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list