Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[hobbsyoyo]

What do you mean 'more reasonably'? You don't get to decide how the feds and the Californians spend their money.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm confused. If we agree that investing in railway infrastructure is good, the state should spend money on it.

Kochman, if you think that the state shouldn't spend money on transportation, or should improve transportation by spending that money elsewhere, make that argument. If someone explains why trains are a means of transportation that is worth investing into, you can't just answer with "it costs a lot of money, please prove first that this money couldn't be spent on more worthwhile things". It's your turn to name these things.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm confused. If we agree that investing in railway infrastructure is good, the state should spend money on it.

Kochman, if you think that the state shouldn't spend money on transportation, or should improve transportation by spending that money elsewhere, make that argument. If someone explains why trains are a means of transportation that is worth investing into, you can't just answer with "it costs a lot of money, please prove first that this money couldn't be spent on more worthwhile things". It's your turn to name these things.

I think you might have missed his real point. He lost the exchange and now he's shifting the goalposts. We need another one of those threads.

 

[Leoreth]

So you say that this thread has been ...

... derailed?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So you say that this thread has been ...

... derailed?

Hahaha no. I'm just saying he belittles everyone he disagrees with, won't concede a point and coninuously shifts his arguments when he's lost a point while claiming everyone else is doing that.

 

[Farm Boy]

What do you mean 'more reasonably'? You don't get to decide how the feds and the Californians spend their money.

Actually, I do think he and I get some say in how the feds(who exactly is this anyhow if not all of us) spend money.

So you say that this thread has been ...

... derailed?

Naw, the thread is on topic even if people are talking past each other. My question would be - does this 95 billion over 30 years or whatever it costs, regardless of how it is/was/will be paid for, return on investment as well as it would were that funding dedicated to building/updating roads and modernizing the power grid? Just for a couple examples?

 

[kochman]

I'm confused. If we agree that investing in railway infrastructure is good, the state should spend money on it.

Kochman, if you think that the state shouldn't spend money on transportation, or should improve transportation by spending that money elsewhere, make that argument. If someone explains why trains are a means of transportation that is worth investing into, you can't just answer with "it costs a lot of money, please prove first that this money couldn't be spent on more worthwhile things". It's your turn to name these things.

I think my point is very clear. Was this the time to obligate $100B on a train?

CA has a dire fiscal problem.

Are trains a good idea? Absolutely, when it makes sense. I'm not arguing that trains suck, but they should be built intelligently. Well, the people voted for it... sure, it sounded green and that's the hip thing to do... meanwhile...

If you vote to spend nearly $100B on one, when you're furloughing your state's government workers because you can't pay the bills, it's a problem. Those are families getting effected in a very negative way. If I were in charge of a state, I would think that paying my employees that I've made contractual agreements with is a bit more important at the moment. Perhaps in the future the train would be a better idea...

Furthermore, this train, will it ever pay for itself? The answer is, probably not, based on every train so far in the US other than that Boston - DC Amtrack line... All the other routes get subsidized. What that means for CA, a new annual cost they can't get rid of. At least it provides jobs, but why is the state expanding government jobs if it can't pay all of its employees to begin with?

Planes, as annoying as airports have become, are pretty popular for the LA - SF shuttle route... That's stiff competition.

Not to mention, buses. WAY cheaper...

I just don't think it was a good time for this train. The money could have been better spent in other infrastructure and meeting payroll.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Actually, I do think he and I get some say in how the feds(who exactly is this anyhow if not all of us) spend money.

No he doesn't his reps/senators do - and even then they have no say in how Californians spend their money. The most he can do to change that is vote for someone else and that hardly counts as having a say since they might still get reelected and there's no guarantee the people he votes for will vote differently on the spending.

Naw, the thread is on topic even if people are talking past each other. My question would be - does this 95 billion over 30 years or whatever it costs, regardless of how it is/was/will be paid for, return on investment as well as it would were that funding dedicated to building/updating roads and modernizing the power grid? Just for a couple examples?

Does all infrastructure spending have to have a guaranteed RoI? I don't think that's a primary driver on most infratructure spending - especially since much of it is simply for the public good and often doesn't lead to direct or even indirect RoI. I think this is a loaded question since it sets an unfair expectation from this project that we don't set for other spending.

Honestly, we might as well start asking about the RoI for our military spending and a bunch of other federal projects/inititatives if we are going to go down this route.

 

[Crezth]

Check the budget dude. We devote exactly 750,000 dollars per year to the building project. It may cost 95B but that's going to be over a 30 year period, and as I said, it's mostly been subsidized by the federal government and bond measures which we voted on

Nah, clearly you need to buy 46 B-2 bombers instead.

Why invest in infrastructure when you can build 60 stadia?

 

[Farm Boy]

No he doesn't his reps/senators do - and even then they have no say in how Californians spend their money. The most he can do to change that is vote for someone else and that hardly counts as having a say since they might still get reelected and there's no guarantee the people he votes for will vote differently on the spending.

That's getting a bit pedantic. The whole system is a representative democracy. Ok, so we should refrain from expressing opinions on what our federal representatives do with our monies and merely vote once every two years since we have no say.

Does all infrastructure spending have to have a guaranteed RoI? I don't think that's a primary driver on most infratructure spending - especially since much of it is simply for the public good and often doesn't lead to direct or even indirect RoI. I think this is a loaded question since it sets an unfair expectation from this project that we don't set for other spending.

Honestly, we might as well start asking about the RoI for our military spending and a bunch of other federal projects/inititatives if we are going to go down this route.

Guaranteed? Naw, don't know how couldn't even if we wanted. But we should try to avoid "bridges to nowhere." We should ask questions about our RoI from the military. We should ask questions about the RoI on everything we spend. Not doing so would seem to be a total abdication of caring about just about the most basic responsibility of the legislative branch.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's getting a bit pedantic. The whole system is a representative democracy. Ok, so we should refrain from expressing opinions on what our federal representatives do with our monies and merely vote once every two years since we have no say.

It is pedantic, but it's also true.

Guaranteed? Naw, don't know how couldn't even if we wanted. But we should try to avoid "bridges to nowhere." We should ask questions about our RoI from the military. We should ask questions about the RoI on everything we spend. Not doing so would seem to be a total abdication of caring about just about the most basic responsibility of the legislative branch.

I'm pretty darn sure we do do this kind of analysis on all projects, especially one as big as the CA railway expansion.

However, that's not enough to stop some people from claiming the money isn't well spent, could be spent better on other things without identifying what these things are or why this money isn't well spent. Though you raise an absolutely valid point, we should not be building bridges to nowhere and we should analyse these projects (which we do, but RoI isn't always a primary motivator).

During a recession or period of weak economic growth, sometimes a bridge to nowhere is exactly what you should build. And in the future, those bridges could turn out to be very handy. I remember using all kinds of backroads in southern Illinois that were roads to nowhere built during the Great Depression.

 

[Crezth]

However, that's not enough to stop some people from claiming the money isn't well spent, could be spent better on other things without identifying what these things are or why this money isn't well spent.

Oh no, the link kochman posted identified quite a few great alternatives. Instead of a railroad, let's build stealth bombers, football stadia, and theaters! This is how make U.S. of A. great country again!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh no, the link kochman posted identified quite a few great alternatives. Instead of a railroad, let's build stealth bombers, football stadia, and theaters! This is how make U.S. of A. great country again!

I have problems with people who use articles as their arguments.

But whatevs, USA#1!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh no, the link kochman posted identified quite a few great alternatives. Instead of a railroad, let's build

a Death Star!

 

[Farm Boy]

It is pedantic, but it's also true.


I'm pretty darn sure we do do this kind of analysis on all projects, especially one as big as the CA railway expansion.

However, that's not enough to stop some people from claiming the money isn't well spent, could be spent better on other things without identifying what these things are or why this money isn't well spent. Though you raise an absolutely valid point, we should not be building bridges to nowhere and we should analyse these projects (which we do, but RoI isn't always a primary motivator).

During a recession or period of weak economic growth, sometimes a bridge to nowhere is exactly what you should build. And in the future, those bridges could turn out to be very handy. I remember using all kinds of backroads in southern Illinois that were roads to nowhere built during the Great Depression.

I think I suggested two alternative projects that I would be less sketchy about. I think if we are going to engage in "make-work" I think upgrading the powergrid would be a better project than highspeed rail. It's more desperately needed, imo. Or I could have my facts wrong. Does California already have it's widespread power infrastructure in buried lines/or is it not feasible to do that due to earthquakes in certain parts or other concerns? It's a big state, what about the other parts. Etc etc. But alas, I suppose I should hush and wait to vote.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think I suggested two alternative projects that I would be less sketchy about.

I wasn't referring to you Farm Boy.

I think if we are going to engage in "make-work" I think upgrading the powergrid would be a better project than highspeed rail. It's more desperately needed, imo. Or I could have my facts wrong. Does California already have it's widespread power infrastructure in buried lines/or is it not feasible to do that due to earthquakes in certain parts or other concerns? It's a big state, what about the other parts. Etc etc. But alas, I suppose I should hush and wait to vote.

You're probably right, the whole country needs an upgraded power distribution system.

 

[kochman]

Oh no, the link kochman posted identified quite a few great alternatives. Instead of a railroad, let's build stealth bombers, football stadia, and theaters! This is how make U.S. of A. great country again!

The ideas I had for spending the $100B included none of the above, and I already posted the things I thought should receive the money:
1) Pay your state government employees, no furloughs
2) Fund schools better
If you would like me to suggest more options, I would be happy to... the point is, in my opinion... this was not money well spent. Please stop trying to misrepresent me.

 

[kochman]

I think I suggested two alternative projects that I would be less sketchy about. I think if we are going to engage in "make-work" I think upgrading the powergrid would be a better project than highspeed rail. It's more desperately needed, imo. Or I could have my facts wrong. Does California already have it's widespread power infrastructure in buried lines/or is it not feasible to do that due to earthquakes in certain parts or other concerns? It's a big state, what about the other parts. Etc etc. But alas, I suppose I should hush and wait to vote.

As did I...

Some counties in CA have buried power lines, others don't... it is feasible, at least in most places.

 

[Crezth]

I think if we are going to engage in "make-work" I think upgrading the powergrid would be a better project than highspeed rail. It's more desperately needed, imo.

How do you know? This is something of an unqualified opinion.

1) Pay your state government employees, no furloughs
2) Fund schools better

Hey man, I'm all for that. But it's rather foolish to rail against spending on infrastructure of all things. There are so many worthier targets considering infrastructure is a place the USA is falling massively behind in.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed. Rail against funding for military operations instead of being used for infrastructure. Much more sympathy from me