2 ms·

> which requires constant capital. So you're saying passenger rail can never provide enough value to people to justify the constant influx of capital? Cool, th

> which requires constant capital. So you're saying passenger rail can never provide enough value to people to justify the constant influx of capital? Cool, thanks for making my point. > providing a valuable service doesn't mean that it can be directly financially profitable No, it literally means exactly that. > Like literally any public infrastructure ever? You literally said that Japanese high speed rail is profitable. Why change tracks (pun unintended) when I point out the inaccuracy? > That's literally one of the major points of a government, to build infrastructure everyone needs and will use. No, but let's not diverge from the fact that rail is the worst, most inefficient mode of transport in history. > Roads, bridges, airports, railroads are capital intensive and rarely if ever profitable on their own in the first decades of their use. Yes, and out of those only railroads are the one which are never profitable, even after 10 decades of constant technological advancement. > Unless you're advocating for personal teleportation devices for everyone I'm not advocating for anything except not wasting taxpayer money on inefficient, unsustainable transportation. > anyone with such a misunderstanding simply does not know enough to be a useful participant in a discussion. Classic cope when you can't attack the argument, just resort to insults.

sofixa 3y ago
> So you're saying passenger rail can never provide enough value to people to justify the constant influx of capital? Cool, thanks for making my point. Can not, or more likely should not receive enough money from consumers to make for the constant influx of capital needed for it to remain as useful as possible. The main goal is to be as useful and practical as possible, not to make the most money possible - a fully business class with a spa and golden jacuzzi train might be profitable (like the Orient Express was as a luxury thing) but again, the goal of passenger rail is to be accessible and practical to most people. If your only way of measuring productivity is financial profit, yeah, I see you can't understand that. > You literally said that Japanese high speed rail is profitable. Why change tracks (pun unintended) when I point out the inaccuracy? Because you elaborated on your definition of profitability (can't have received any money at all from a government, ever), which no infrastructure project from the past few decades really meets. In my view the Japanese rail system is profitable after some initial well needed help; and again, if you apply your own (bad) measurement stick to any infrastructure, you'll find that nothing is really profitable. As for your argument that rail is the least profitable, I'm fairly sure if you do the math you'll see that Japanese rail has been less unprofitable (has needed less subsidies and bailouts) than Japanese airlines over the same time. > Yes, and out of those only railroads are the one which are never profitable, even after 10 decades of constant technological advancement. Airlines literally need bailouts on a what, decade schedule? But sure, railroads are "never profitable" because they get subsidies and need continued improvement to get better. > I'm not advocating for anything except not wasting taxpayer money on inefficient, unsustainable transportation. How is rail not sustainable? It's the cleanest and environment friendly method of transportation by far, which is very sustainable. > Classic cope when you can't attack the argument, just resort to insults. I am attacking your argument, but that doesn't mean I can't dismiss your entire position as one of ignorance (which, again, doesn't mean I'm not trying to explain to you why you're wrong). I cannot take libertarians seriously, only someone profoundly privileged or ignorant can have such views on the world.

sofixa 3y ago

> So you're saying passenger rail can never provide enough value to people to justify the constant influx of capital? Cool, thanks for making my point. Can not, or more likely should not receive enough money from consumers to make for the constant influx of capital needed for it to remain as useful as possible. The main goal is to be as useful and practical as possible, not to make the most money possible - a fully business class with a spa and golden jacuzzi train might be profitable (like the Orient Express was as a luxury thing) but again, the goal of passenger rail is to be accessible and practical to most people. If your only way of measuring productivity is financial profit, yeah, I see you can't understand that. > You literally said that Japanese high speed rail is profitable. Why change tracks (pun unintended) when I point out the inaccuracy? Because you elaborated on your definition of profitability (can't have received any money at all from a government, ever), which no infrastructure project from the past few decades really meets. In my view the Japanese rail system is profitable after some initial well needed help; and again, if you apply your own (bad) measurement stick to any infrastructure, you'll find that nothing is really profitable. As for your argument that rail is the least profitable, I'm fairly sure if you do the math you'll see that Japanese rail has been less unprofitable (has needed less subsidies and bailouts) than Japanese airlines over the same time. > Yes, and out of those only railroads are the one which are never profitable, even after 10 decades of constant technological advancement. Airlines literally need bailouts on a what, decade schedule? But sure, railroads are "never profitable" because they get subsidies and need continued improvement to get better. > I'm not advocating for anything except not wasting taxpayer money on inefficient, unsustainable transportation. How is rail not sustainable? It's the cleanest and environment friendly method of transportation by far, which is very sustainable. > Classic cope when you can't attack the argument, just resort to insults. I am attacking your argument, but that doesn't mean I can't dismiss your entire position as one of ignorance (which, again, doesn't mean I'm not trying to explain to you why you're wrong). I cannot take libertarians seriously, only someone profoundly privileged or ignorant can have such views on the world.