4 ms·

“High-speed rail can be a good idea; I just think it should be left up to the private sector,” Ludicrous, the private sector has absolutely no incentive to bui

“High-speed rail can be a good idea; I just think it should be left up to the private sector,” Ludicrous, the private sector has absolutely no incentive to build something in which they have to wait 25-30 years to receive a return on their investment.

crazy1van 12y ago
> Ludicrous, the private sector has absolutely no incentive to build something in which they have to wait 25-30 years to receive a return on their investment. But they do have an incentive to find transportation solutions that have a return on investment of a couple of years. I'd argue that a faster cycle is much better with anything that deals with technology. Let's not spend decades to build the best horse drawn carriage in history only to have it passed by an automobile the day it launches.
- chrishacken 12y ago
  I'd agree, but transportation is inherently slower to build than your average tech gadgets. By that logic, we probably just shouldn't build anything at all. A 10-15 mile highway expansion project here in Philadelphia has been going on for almost 2 years now.
awad 12y ago
I imagine something like a new airplane design would be approaching that (speaking from ignorance here, I have no idea what that actually looks like for Boeing). Also, what about home loans?
- roc 12y ago
  Home loans would be a terrible example for your position. Mortgage interest is paid off disproportionately sooner than the principle and the bank still has a claim on the property until the last penny is (re)paid. So long as they didn't finance a home beyond its value, they're ahead on paper well within the first year. (only needing to recoup the costs and commissions associated with closing the sale before the paper shows profit) Further, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage didn't really exist until the government got into the business of subsidies and guarantees. Before that, the standard were balloon payment mortgages with larger down payments, far shorter terms and the eponymous balloon payments due at maturity (which greatly favored the bank's end of the deal in practice).

crazy1van 12y ago

> Ludicrous, the private sector has absolutely no incentive to build something in which they have to wait 25-30 years to receive a return on their investment. But they do have an incentive to find transportation solutions that have a return on investment of a couple of years. I'd argue that a faster cycle is much better with anything that deals with technology. Let's not spend decades to build the best horse drawn carriage in history only to have it passed by an automobile the day it launches.

chrishacken 12y ago
I'd agree, but transportation is inherently slower to build than your average tech gadgets. By that logic, we probably just shouldn't build anything at all. A 10-15 mile highway expansion project here in Philadelphia has been going on for almost 2 years now.

awad 12y ago

I imagine something like a new airplane design would be approaching that (speaking from ignorance here, I have no idea what that actually looks like for Boeing). Also, what about home loans?

roc 12y ago
Home loans would be a terrible example for your position. Mortgage interest is paid off disproportionately sooner than the principle and the bank still has a claim on the property until the last penny is (re)paid. So long as they didn't finance a home beyond its value, they're ahead on paper well within the first year. (only needing to recoup the costs and commissions associated with closing the sale before the paper shows profit) Further, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage didn't really exist until the government got into the business of subsidies and guarantees. Before that, the standard were balloon payment mortgages with larger down payments, far shorter terms and the eponymous balloon payments due at maturity (which greatly favored the bank's end of the deal in practice).