5 ms·

In the U.S. it'd be politically impossible, but not in other countries, especially not in China. All the other countries have to say is "yes" and they very lik

by fnid2 17y ago

In the U.S. it'd be politically impossible, but not in other countries, especially not in China. All the other countries have to say is "yes" and they very likely will because it'll be cheaper to transport goods and people between their markets. The Eurail pass will take you nearly anywhere you want to go in Europe for 6 months and $2k. They love trains. This project and this vision is another nail in the U.S. hegemony coffin.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Everyone has to keep saying "yes" in perpetuity, or the project has gaps and interruptions and is worth less than was planned. 17 nations with wildly different goals are unlikely to keep saying yes.
- fnid2 17y ago
  They said yes to airlines for the same reason they'll say yes to this project. China paying for it is a big incentive. Imagine if the U.S. told Romania they'd build them an international airport if Romania provided the concrete and iron. Do you think Romania would say no? Of course not. Saying yes opens up Romania to the world. Similarly, this rail line opens up europe and asia to a market that will dwarf the west. If they don't say yes, they will be excluded from perhaps the most powerful coalition of countries ever before assembled. It is definitely not in any country's best interest to say no to this project. Why would they say no?
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    Many nations do many things that aren't in their best interest, objectively speaking. It's not like politics or even economics are ruled by rational decision making, you know.
    - fnid2 17y ago
      I kept thinking, "They only have to say yes once, not in perpetuity." But they could shut it down to exert power. There are disputes in eastern europe where gas lines get shut down. But in this case, their own people are going to be hurt by saying no. The powerful, rich, and elite as well as the common person. Imagine a country shutting down its airports. Are there risks? Yes. People could die. Trains can crash. Terrorists can kill. But I prefer to make decisions for the upside. There's a lot of upside here. Overall, I think there is more upside than downside. Rails can be repaired if they are blown up. People can't undie, but we can't stop terrorism. We can't stop violence. And yes, I agree. The U.S. does things that aren't in its best interests all the time. I haven't found much rationality in U.S. politics for over a decade now. Really kind of sad about it. We can't even get high speed wireless here. I think we are bumping up against the limits of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't think long term. Loans must be repaid. Revenue must be made. But governments don't have time limits. China gets that. China builds huge dams and rail lines and roads up Mt. Everest. The U.S. funds wars. Something has to change. Something has to change fast or we are going to be displaced and our quality of life is going to continue to deteriorate.
CapitalistCartr 17y ago
Within the US, it'd be easier than going through the Middle East. To get Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, Turkey, Poland Germany etc., totaling 17 countries in agreement is a monumental task, exceeding getting Israel and the Palestinians to settle their differences. Then every time China does something that annoys any of the 17 nations, those trains will be held hostage. Yeah, it's a huge challenge, but not because of the engineering. That said, if it gets built, I'll be rushing to ride it.
- fnid2 17y ago
  I'll preorder my ticket. If it was easier, why hasn't it been done yet? Our rail lines are ancient compared to the rest of the world. We spent too much money on outdated infrastructure for cars and we are about to be leapfrogged. The same thing happened with wireless. Imagine if we had spent that money and energy building something efficient instead of catering to the individual and hugely inefficient cars. Regarding the politics, you know Russia, Iran, and China are friends right? Turkey needs to do more for their place in the EU. Germany wants a bigger market for its products. Poland can be bought and China will pay more to build the rail than the U.S. will pay to prevent it. Kazakhstan is still trying to shake the Borat image. They are poor and they want to increase their wealth. This is their ticket! Besides, poland is in the north and they only need one way in so resistance is reduced through parallel resistors. The U.S. can't even build a fence to keep out immigrants -- not that I think they should. I wish there was something in the U.S. that was at all exciting. What are we doing?? We're blowing all our cash on guns and we are running out of butter!
  - enjo 17y ago
    I see the assertion that far-flung rail is superior to air or car travel. I've lived in Europe, and while I admittedly used the rail system quite a bit... it was more a matter of economics. With Southwest flying basically anywhere in the nation, why does far flung high speed rail make sense? High speed commuter rail, sure. Connecting Portland to Seattle? Absolutely. But we have the most sophisticated flight network in the world. Why is that such a bad thing?
heresy 17y ago
It would be possible in the U.S. because the U.S. does not think long term any more. Everything is short term, and a failure if not successful within a very tightly compressed timeframe. There is no vision or ambition in the U.S. any more when it comes to infrastructural projects like this.
- olefoo 17y ago
  And that is one of the most worrisome aspects of modern american political culture. What happened to the country that put a man on the moon, that built the interstate freeway system, that made universal telephone and electric service available from sea to sea? None of those projects could be done today, they require planning horizons of ten years or longer and even if the vision were there would become mired in petty politics and shortsighted penny-wise pound-foolishness. Done right infrastructure projects create far more economic value than they cost over their lifetime.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    Those projects were all before the invasion of the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower prophetically warned us about. Plus, stocks are traded by households now and are focused on quarterly earnings. Prior to the 50's that was only true just before the great depression and look where we are now...
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  the U.S. does not think long term any more Can you give specific evidence of this? On the one hand there is evidence of bridge failures, for example. But that's probably a result of poor initial design (i.e., many years ago) or incorrect monitoring and testing, rather than a failure to think long term. On the other hand, I offer the insanely large (and continually growing) investment in education. That's a long-term view, although a poorly formed one.
  - yardie 17y ago
    Bridges are designed with a lifetime. The wear and tear of weatherization, vibrations, and entropy. The vast majority have no initial design problems. Bridges get old and need to be replaced. A lot were built in the 50s along with the interstate system. Many are coming up to or are past their expiration date. And for a long time American corporations and people really didn't think in the longterm. Now that we've found out what the real cost of short term gains are there has been a resurgence in thinking local. For example, the locavore movement, popularity of hybrid and electric vehicles, and the healthcare debate can all be considered long term strategies.

by fnid2 17y ago

waterlesscloud 17y ago

Everyone has to keep saying "yes" in perpetuity, or the project has gaps and interruptions and is worth less than was planned. 17 nations with wildly different goals are unlikely to keep saying yes.

fnid2 17y ago
They said yes to airlines for the same reason they'll say yes to this project. China paying for it is a big incentive. Imagine if the U.S. told Romania they'd build them an international airport if Romania provided the concrete and iron. Do you think Romania would say no? Of course not. Saying yes opens up Romania to the world. Similarly, this rail line opens up europe and asia to a market that will dwarf the west. If they don't say yes, they will be excluded from perhaps the most powerful coalition of countries ever before assembled. It is definitely not in any country's best interest to say no to this project. Why would they say no?
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Many nations do many things that aren't in their best interest, objectively speaking. It's not like politics or even economics are ruled by rational decision making, you know.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    I kept thinking, "They only have to say yes once, not in perpetuity." But they could shut it down to exert power. There are disputes in eastern europe where gas lines get shut down. But in this case, their own people are going to be hurt by saying no. The powerful, rich, and elite as well as the common person. Imagine a country shutting down its airports. Are there risks? Yes. People could die. Trains can crash. Terrorists can kill. But I prefer to make decisions for the upside. There's a lot of upside here. Overall, I think there is more upside than downside. Rails can be repaired if they are blown up. People can't undie, but we can't stop terrorism. We can't stop violence. And yes, I agree. The U.S. does things that aren't in its best interests all the time. I haven't found much rationality in U.S. politics for over a decade now. Really kind of sad about it. We can't even get high speed wireless here. I think we are bumping up against the limits of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't think long term. Loans must be repaid. Revenue must be made. But governments don't have time limits. China gets that. China builds huge dams and rail lines and roads up Mt. Everest. The U.S. funds wars. Something has to change. Something has to change fast or we are going to be displaced and our quality of life is going to continue to deteriorate.

CapitalistCartr 17y ago

Within the US, it'd be easier than going through the Middle East. To get Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, Turkey, Poland Germany etc., totaling 17 countries in agreement is a monumental task, exceeding getting Israel and the Palestinians to settle their differences. Then every time China does something that annoys any of the 17 nations, those trains will be held hostage. Yeah, it's a huge challenge, but not because of the engineering. That said, if it gets built, I'll be rushing to ride it.

fnid2 17y ago
I'll preorder my ticket. If it was easier, why hasn't it been done yet? Our rail lines are ancient compared to the rest of the world. We spent too much money on outdated infrastructure for cars and we are about to be leapfrogged. The same thing happened with wireless. Imagine if we had spent that money and energy building something efficient instead of catering to the individual and hugely inefficient cars. Regarding the politics, you know Russia, Iran, and China are friends right? Turkey needs to do more for their place in the EU. Germany wants a bigger market for its products. Poland can be bought and China will pay more to build the rail than the U.S. will pay to prevent it. Kazakhstan is still trying to shake the Borat image. They are poor and they want to increase their wealth. This is their ticket! Besides, poland is in the north and they only need one way in so resistance is reduced through parallel resistors. The U.S. can't even build a fence to keep out immigrants -- not that I think they should. I wish there was something in the U.S. that was at all exciting. What are we doing?? We're blowing all our cash on guns and we are running out of butter!
- enjo 17y ago
  I see the assertion that far-flung rail is superior to air or car travel. I've lived in Europe, and while I admittedly used the rail system quite a bit... it was more a matter of economics. With Southwest flying basically anywhere in the nation, why does far flung high speed rail make sense? High speed commuter rail, sure. Connecting Portland to Seattle? Absolutely. But we have the most sophisticated flight network in the world. Why is that such a bad thing?

heresy 17y ago

It would be possible in the U.S. because the U.S. does not think long term any more. Everything is short term, and a failure if not successful within a very tightly compressed timeframe. There is no vision or ambition in the U.S. any more when it comes to infrastructural projects like this.

olefoo 17y ago
And that is one of the most worrisome aspects of modern american political culture. What happened to the country that put a man on the moon, that built the interstate freeway system, that made universal telephone and electric service available from sea to sea? None of those projects could be done today, they require planning horizons of ten years or longer and even if the vision were there would become mired in petty politics and shortsighted penny-wise pound-foolishness. Done right infrastructure projects create far more economic value than they cost over their lifetime.
- fnid2 17y ago
  Those projects were all before the invasion of the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower prophetically warned us about. Plus, stocks are traded by households now and are focused on quarterly earnings. Prior to the 50's that was only true just before the great depression and look where we are now...
CWuestefeld 17y ago
the U.S. does not think long term any more Can you give specific evidence of this? On the one hand there is evidence of bridge failures, for example. But that's probably a result of poor initial design (i.e., many years ago) or incorrect monitoring and testing, rather than a failure to think long term. On the other hand, I offer the insanely large (and continually growing) investment in education. That's a long-term view, although a poorly formed one.
- yardie 17y ago
  Bridges are designed with a lifetime. The wear and tear of weatherization, vibrations, and entropy. The vast majority have no initial design problems. Bridges get old and need to be replaced. A lot were built in the 50s along with the interstate system. Many are coming up to or are past their expiration date. And for a long time American corporations and people really didn't think in the longterm. Now that we've found out what the real cost of short term gains are there has been a resurgence in thinking local. For example, the locavore movement, popularity of hybrid and electric vehicles, and the healthcare debate can all be considered long term strategies.