3 ms·

> Billions to build a few miles of rail in California Literally no private company will do it though because trains are too efficient. You make MUCH more money

> Billions to build a few miles of rail in California Literally no private company will do it though because trains are too efficient. You make MUCH more money selling cars and gasoline, and then sprawling cities over decades. Trains make no sense if you're trying to make money. So the gov has to do it or it will never be done. > How many billions on wars Straight to defense contractors, who are purposefully lazy and incentivized to suck as much as possible. But they hire a lot of people. > almost nothing to show for the average citizen Yeah, besides your education that is the only reason you can even write this comment. Or the roads. Or the internet you're writing this on. But no, I'm sure if you were illiterate and banging rocks together that's fine. I'm being a little hyperbolic but you get the point.

wonderwonder 2y ago
The government is literally the reason the rail costs so much. They created the regulations that force the cost so high. Your argument appears to be sure, the government spends a ton of money on useless things and overpays massively for the end result on the ok things but hey at least that's something? Which is a fine argument I guess if you think that wasting tax payer money for poor quality outcomes is ok because its better than nothing.
- consteval 2y ago
  > They created the regulations that force the cost so high Yeah, after enough people got blown up. Something something free market... > wasting tax payer Look, the entire point of government services is they are a COST. They are different from a business because they don't have to profit and often it's better if they DON'T profit. Businesses can't operate that way, which creates some perverse incentives for some domains. For example, providing universal healthcare would only burn money. Nobody, except doctors and whatnot, makes money. There's no profit there. And, well, that's the entire draw! If there were a profit, which we have now, then there's some fucked up stuff that happens. > because its better than nothing yeah, it is better than nothing. No rail results in thousands of automobile deaths and unbelievable amounts of pollution. Companies won't do it because they can't profit, and also land is stupidly expensive, and automobiles are an obvious money maker. So somebody has to, to break this cycle of automobile abuse in the US. It was fine in the 70s. It's gotten really out of control now and everyone is pissed off at spending 2 hours a day in traffic and also driving 30 minutes for water. Also now everyone is obese and dying. So yes, it legitimately is better than nothing.

wonderwonder 2y ago

The government is literally the reason the rail costs so much. They created the regulations that force the cost so high. Your argument appears to be sure, the government spends a ton of money on useless things and overpays massively for the end result on the ok things but hey at least that's something? Which is a fine argument I guess if you think that wasting tax payer money for poor quality outcomes is ok because its better than nothing.

consteval 2y ago
> They created the regulations that force the cost so high Yeah, after enough people got blown up. Something something free market... > wasting tax payer Look, the entire point of government services is they are a COST. They are different from a business because they don't have to profit and often it's better if they DON'T profit. Businesses can't operate that way, which creates some perverse incentives for some domains. For example, providing universal healthcare would only burn money. Nobody, except doctors and whatnot, makes money. There's no profit there. And, well, that's the entire draw! If there were a profit, which we have now, then there's some fucked up stuff that happens. > because its better than nothing yeah, it is better than nothing. No rail results in thousands of automobile deaths and unbelievable amounts of pollution. Companies won't do it because they can't profit, and also land is stupidly expensive, and automobiles are an obvious money maker. So somebody has to, to break this cycle of automobile abuse in the US. It was fine in the 70s. It's gotten really out of control now and everyone is pissed off at spending 2 hours a day in traffic and also driving 30 minutes for water. Also now everyone is obese and dying. So yes, it legitimately is better than nothing.