Congratulations! You've proved you can type the phrase "broken-window fallacy". Just be careful -- if you do it three times in a single comment, a ghost will ap

Congratulations! You've proved you can type the phrase "broken-window fallacy". Just be careful -- if you do it three times in a single comment, a ghost will appear in your bathroom mirror. Meanwhile... if you're going to build a high-speed line from SF to LA, why not start the project by 1. In locations which already have rail infrastructure, upgrading that infrastructure to the required standard, and 2. In locations which lack existing infrastructure or connections to the planned stops of the line, get the construction on that going And if as a side effect it boosts the economies of the places in (2), well, that's a nice side effect. But "we were going to do this anyway, doing it in this order gets this side effect that's useful" is not the broken-window fallacy. Plus, you know, infrastructure isn't generally built for its high profit margins; it's built because of the profit it generates in other sectors.