5 ms·

> Private companies are the only ones willing to make these investments in infrastructure ...because there's an anti-government cult that occupies a disproport

> Private companies are the only ones willing to make these investments in infrastructure ...because there's an anti-government cult that occupies a disproportionate number of government offices in the country. "Bad" investments is exactly what government is for: things we'll all benefit from (including but not limited to broad economic contributions) but which market incentives don't align to produce.

chrisco255 6y ago
No. The fact the government can and frequently does make failed investments and wasted capital expenditures is precisely why people don't trust the government. California set out to make a single high speed rail line between San Francisco and LA 12 years ago and it's still not complete and it's run over what, $70B so far? And it's still going to be a slow rail not much faster than a trip by car after it's complete? This is what happens when you let inept bureaucracies spend money for which they never have to feel the effects of cost/benefit trade-offs and for which the opportunity costs are completely dismissed.
- zapita 6y ago
  I don’t understand anti-government zealots any more than I understand anti-capitalism zealots. Both try to cherry-pick facts in support of an obviously flawed theory: that one is the pinnacle of civilization while the other is an evil to root out. This kind of purist thinking is dangerous because it prevents you from observing the facts as they are. For example whatever the root cause of California’s high speed rail problems, it’s probably more complex than “public government is bad”. But you will never find out because you have ideological blinders on.
- acdha 6y ago
  Kind of like how U.S. telecom providers were given something like a hundred billion to deliver broadband around the country but didn’t hit the promised performance or coverage? The private sector includes Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, not just Apple or Amazon, and you have about as much choice not to pay for them as you do the local government. The key thing is not the sector but whether there’s an effective oversight mechanism. It’s a lot more productive to focus on those feedback loops than trying to assume any sector comes in exactly one universal quality level.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    > effective oversight mechanism Hard to do when the people who really understand broadband networking are working for ATT, Comcast, and Verizon and not for the government.
  - adventured 6y ago
    The US telecom companies were not given something like a hundred billion dollars. They were never paid those sums and they were also not given tax breaks in that amount either. That's one of the great forever repeating myths on HN (it's useful as a propaganda item, thus the repeating). There is even an HN member that has been repeatedly correcting the myth for years, here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Problem with local telecoms is that too often, there is a local monopoly. The problem with the government is its always in a de facto monopoly position. It has little incentive to change except during a voting cycle turnover, and at most voters can focus on a handful of issues at a time. Funny enough, it seems like SpaceX has the solution for this and it's rolling out as we speak: https://www.starlink.com/ https://www.starlink.com/ . Space-based internet that actually works and is actually fast is a game-changer. Let's see how the telecoms respond to competitive pressure. If anyone can get 100Mbps within a year, I'm willing to bet Gigabit fiber/cable will be available nearly everywhere soon.
fallingknife 6y ago
Are you referring to the anti-government cult in CA that couldn't build a train from SF to LA for $100 billion, so they decided to instead build a massive train that nobody will ride from Sacramento to Bakersfield? Because that cult really is destroying the government's reputation.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  No, no, they must be referring to the anti-government cult that couldn't repair a one mile stretch of subway in NYC for 3 billion!
- gumby 6y ago
  I have worked in the Central Valley. Frankly anything that ties the SF Bay Area and LA Basin to the Central Valley is a good thing. This does not defend the appalling incompetence in "managing" the HSR project, I'm just defending the choice of running the train up the Central Valley which I had not understood at the time the project was initially approved.
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    Running the train up the central valley was always part of the plan and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The problem is that California is currently building a train from one end of the valley to the other that _doesn't_ actually connect to either major metro area.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      CAHSR essentially consists of 6 separate pieces: Bay Area-to-Central Valley; the SF Peninsula run; Sacramento-to-Central Valley; LA-to-Central Valley; LA-to-San Diego; and the Central Valley itself. San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento were all planned to be later phases anyways, which means the initial operating segment choices are either the Central Valley itself or crossing into it in the Bay Area or LA. The Central Valley was chosen as the first construction package area because a lot of the initial money CAHSR got from the federal government had to be spent quickly, and flat ground means that the construction would be the cheapest and quickest construction portion. That the result has neither been cheap nor quick is a pretty severe indictment of the epic mismanagement involved.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>..because there's an anti-government cult that occupies a disproportionate number of government offices in the country. Yeah, all those evil libertarians that run the west coast /s NE corridor has decent passenger rail. CA has laughable passenger rail. Both are as blue and pro-"fix problems with government" as can be. I know sample size is only 2 but this does point to the cause of the discrepancy being elsewhere. I agree that "picking up the shit nobody else will" is the kind of investment government should be making but clearly just "removing the anti-government cult" isn't enough to make passenger rail succeed.

chrisco255 6y ago

No. The fact the government can and frequently does make failed investments and wasted capital expenditures is precisely why people don't trust the government. California set out to make a single high speed rail line between San Francisco and LA 12 years ago and it's still not complete and it's run over what, $70B so far? And it's still going to be a slow rail not much faster than a trip by car after it's complete? This is what happens when you let inept bureaucracies spend money for which they never have to feel the effects of cost/benefit trade-offs and for which the opportunity costs are completely dismissed.

zapita 6y ago
I don’t understand anti-government zealots any more than I understand anti-capitalism zealots. Both try to cherry-pick facts in support of an obviously flawed theory: that one is the pinnacle of civilization while the other is an evil to root out. This kind of purist thinking is dangerous because it prevents you from observing the facts as they are. For example whatever the root cause of California’s high speed rail problems, it’s probably more complex than “public government is bad”. But you will never find out because you have ideological blinders on.
acdha 6y ago
Kind of like how U.S. telecom providers were given something like a hundred billion to deliver broadband around the country but didn’t hit the promised performance or coverage? The private sector includes Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, not just Apple or Amazon, and you have about as much choice not to pay for them as you do the local government. The key thing is not the sector but whether there’s an effective oversight mechanism. It’s a lot more productive to focus on those feedback loops than trying to assume any sector comes in exactly one universal quality level.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  > effective oversight mechanism Hard to do when the people who really understand broadband networking are working for ATT, Comcast, and Verizon and not for the government.
- adventured 6y ago
  The US telecom companies were not given something like a hundred billion dollars. They were never paid those sums and they were also not given tax breaks in that amount either. That's one of the great forever repeating myths on HN (it's useful as a propaganda item, thus the repeating). There is even an HN member that has been repeatedly correcting the myth for years, here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Problem with local telecoms is that too often, there is a local monopoly. The problem with the government is its always in a de facto monopoly position. It has little incentive to change except during a voting cycle turnover, and at most voters can focus on a handful of issues at a time. Funny enough, it seems like SpaceX has the solution for this and it's rolling out as we speak: https://www.starlink.com/ https://www.starlink.com/ . Space-based internet that actually works and is actually fast is a game-changer. Let's see how the telecoms respond to competitive pressure. If anyone can get 100Mbps within a year, I'm willing to bet Gigabit fiber/cable will be available nearly everywhere soon.

fallingknife 6y ago

Are you referring to the anti-government cult in CA that couldn't build a train from SF to LA for $100 billion, so they decided to instead build a massive train that nobody will ride from Sacramento to Bakersfield? Because that cult really is destroying the government's reputation.

dimitrios1 6y ago
No, no, they must be referring to the anti-government cult that couldn't repair a one mile stretch of subway in NYC for 3 billion!
gumby 6y ago
I have worked in the Central Valley. Frankly anything that ties the SF Bay Area and LA Basin to the Central Valley is a good thing. This does not defend the appalling incompetence in "managing" the HSR project, I'm just defending the choice of running the train up the Central Valley which I had not understood at the time the project was initially approved.
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  Running the train up the central valley was always part of the plan and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The problem is that California is currently building a train from one end of the valley to the other that _doesn't_ actually connect to either major metro area.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    CAHSR essentially consists of 6 separate pieces: Bay Area-to-Central Valley; the SF Peninsula run; Sacramento-to-Central Valley; LA-to-Central Valley; LA-to-San Diego; and the Central Valley itself. San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento were all planned to be later phases anyways, which means the initial operating segment choices are either the Central Valley itself or crossing into it in the Bay Area or LA. The Central Valley was chosen as the first construction package area because a lot of the initial money CAHSR got from the federal government had to be spent quickly, and flat ground means that the construction would be the cheapest and quickest construction portion. That the result has neither been cheap nor quick is a pretty severe indictment of the epic mismanagement involved.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>..because there's an anti-government cult that occupies a disproportionate number of government offices in the country. Yeah, all those evil libertarians that run the west coast /s NE corridor has decent passenger rail. CA has laughable passenger rail. Both are as blue and pro-"fix problems with government" as can be. I know sample size is only 2 but this does point to the cause of the discrepancy being elsewhere. I agree that "picking up the shit nobody else will" is the kind of investment government should be making but clearly just "removing the anti-government cult" isn't enough to make passenger rail succeed.