Why are people against high speed rail? An answer from a rightest.

Tweet

Well first off, why do we not have passenger rail service? Early in American history, rail transportation was the default standard. If you wanted to go anywhere, you had to buy a rail ticket, and nearly every place worth going to had rail service. Why did that happen? Because rail service was valuable, and to the people, the value of the service was greater than the cost of providing it. When a company finds a product worth more than the cost of creating that product, you have what is called "profit". Profit of course encourages investment, and thus rail service was dominate throughout the country. In other words, the free-market system caused the system to be created. So where did it go? Well as people spread out all over the country, and as the cost of owning an automobile declined, the value of passenger rail service to the people, also declined. As the value of the service dropped below the cost of providing that service, the passenger rail services closed. In other words, the free-market system through the public voting with their money, moved away from passenger rail service. When a company produces a product or service, that is worth less than it's value to the public, that company no longer produces a profit, and thus closes. This system works to ensure that companies produce wealth. The only exceptions would be if a government bails out a failing company, or in a government controlled company, like the Soviet Union, which had negative equity firms. The firms actually produced products that were worth less than the raw materials used in making the product. So why are some against high speed rail? Well first off, as I just discussed, if high speed rail produced value above cost, then a company would create such a service to make a profit, without any help from anyone. Thus, if they refuse to do so without government support, doesn't that tell you something? It means the value of the service is less, than the cost of producing that service. High Speed Rail service is a net loss for society Not one single example of high speed rail service, shows that it can be done successfully without government assistance. Nearly all of the rail lines throughout Europe cost the tax payers hundreds of millions a year to operate. To date, I only know of one single high speed rail service that comes close to breaking even. But even there, that does not include the BILLIONS used in capital investment. High Speed Rail doesn't actually create wealth There's this strange idea going around that high speed rail will create wealth. That there will be an economic boom due to rail service. First off, there is no direct evidence of this at all. Most of the reports that try and make this claim, basis it on the idea that since the service is being used, therefore it must be a benefit. But this assumes that without the service, those people would not have come. Say a business man wants to travel to another city. If there was no rail service, would he just stay at home and lose the business? No he'd find another way to get there. And several reports concluded that when a rail service comes to a location, commuter jet travel decreases. That indicates that there hasn't really been an increase in travel, but it's simply switched from jet to rail. Which means that rich people are moving from self-sustaining jet service, to tax-payer subsidized rail service. Like all leftist policies, the rich benefit from the poor. If you want proof of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Competition_with_air Talks about several air lines that closed after rail service was put in. Government rail subsidies will benefit primarily the rich Building on my prior example, subsidies will typically go to the rich. When government builds a high speed rail service, who do you think is getting that money? Of course big companies, and additionally the rich investors. Who are they? Well, I'll give one example. In 2009 Buffet spent $26 Billion cash, and additional stock to the tune of $44 Billion, to buy one of the largest rail road companies in the US, Burlington Northern Santa Fe. When answering questions about why he did this, Buffet cited specifically the government deals to subsidize the industry. In other words, government through high speed rail subsidies is going to be making the worlds second richest man, even richer. Now, you can complain about those darn rich people, but Buffet is merely taking advantage of the system we the public are choosing to make happen through demands for un-needed high speed rail. Finely, high speed rail doesn't help the economy Back to Japan. In the late 80s early 90s, Japan's economy started to tank. During this time, the Japanese government decided the solution was to "invest in infrastructure" (sound familiar?). As such they invested billions into new high speed rail lines, and extending existing lines. Did this revive the Japanese economy? No, in fact the economy remained stagnate for many many years (sound familiar?). After spending billions, the economy really didn't recover until the early 2000s. And even before the recent problems, their economy wasn't all that strong. So, does anyone have any questions about why we're against high speed rail?