The Great Train of China: Longest high-speed rail line in the world is launched

>>>>Wow, where do you get your stats? From the stat fairy? EU unemployment is 11.1% overall and it is only that high because of Greece at 26% and some of the other eastern european countries.

Spain is in a depression and probably has 40% unemployment, perhaps more. Same with Italy and Portugal. You’re swallowing their official statistics rather than looking under the hood at what the numbers show. EU numbers reflect “workforce participation”, not how many people actually have jobs. In the US, if someone is in fact unemployed, but kicks backs and gives up, preferring to live with his parents until things change, our numbers expunge him from “workforce participation” and he is simply not counted among the unemployed, making our numbers appear better than they really are. Same with Europe except more so. European welfare states have many more categories — “in training”, “receiving gov’t medical care”, etc. — in which someone can be in fact without a job, but not be counted as unemployed. And since their “safety nets” are so much more entrenched than ours, they stay unemployed for years, not months. Europe also has much more “under-employment” or “under-utilization” — workers seeking full-time jobs who can only work part-time or temporary jobs — than the US, though ObamaCare may equalize the US with the EU.

You’re just being naive and gullible by swallowing the official stats for Europe. You have to apply some economic knowledge to the numbers to ferret out the truth.

>>>They are among the world leaders in pharmaceuticals, etc. (what does this have to do with railroads?).

Dude, I can’t waste time with you. You are plainly ignorant of basic, 101-level economics. Once more (because I’m generous): OPPORTUNITY COST!!!!! Ever hear of it? If you have $10K and choose to go on a world cruise rather than attend a semester at college, then the opportunity cost of your cruise was: one semester at college. It’s the thing of next-highest-value that you gave up in order to do something else. In fact, in economics, that’s actually the meaning of the term “cost”; i.e., every cost is actually an opportunity cost.

Europe has decided in favor of ultra-high taxes to subsidize gleaming new airports and super-fast trains . . . which is why their opportunity cost — the thing they have given up in order to have those things — is entrepreneurship in pharma, medical devices, and computer technology.

>>>Have you ever stepped foot out of your own neighborhood? You obviously haven’t traveled if you think the U.S. has better transportation than Europe.

You’re an arrogant dunce. I never claimed the US has “better” transportation. I claimed Europe’s choice for gleaming transportation infrastructure at the opportunity cost of more dynamic and innovative entrepreneurship hasn’t left them better off, which is why not only Greece has fallen off a cliff, but Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and Spain are deeply in recession, or even depression, too; and both France and Germany are also considered “at risk” nations, especially France (The Economist magazine recently called France “the ticking time bomb in the EU”).

You’re quite wrong about Europe’s contributions to pharma. Most innovation over there occurs in US subsidiaries, or with US funding. Europe, however, does get the advantage of being able to use many US-designed pharma molecules and US-designed medical devices, so US innovation helps raise the standard of European medical care, at least in terms of potential patient outcomes. You haven’t done your homework on this.

http://www.forbes.com/innovative-companies/

If you check out various listings of the world’s cutting edge companies (Forbes traditionally has one such listing) you’ll see that European countries rank pretty low. Out of the top 50, there were only 9 from Europe. Most were from the US, with others from India, Japan, and China distant runners-up.

...since you don’t have to be at the train station hours ahead of time for security, etc.

You will, if a high-speed rail line is introduced. The TSA will enforce the same level of security theater we now use for air travel.

I’ve taken the Spanish high speed AVE train on several occasions. It’s fast, comfortable and always leaves on-time, and I mean to the second. It’s so much pleasanter than air travel. I know all the arguments against doing it here, it’s just too bad we can’t make something like this work.

The federal government doesn’t want high speed rail anywhere except the northeastern seaboard. That is why they make it impossible for the many private railroads to even run conventional passenger service, never mind high-speed. In the past they used taxation; nowadays they use regulation.

Good evening.

Dat you Willie?

Did somebody go and get a new IP addy?

5.56mm

Not Willie, but I remember him when I was just a lurker...and I agreed with him.

Train travel worked great in this country with a lot less population density.

As did horses. Everything is relative. Trains now have to compete with airplanes and interstates.

I had to travel from VA to AL two years ago. Airline schedule had me going through Atlanta to Memphis to AL. Total travel time was 12 hours, including airport waits, TSA, etc. Took the train instead, overnight with sleeper compartment, from Manassas, VA to Tuscaloosa. 15 hours travel time, much of it asleep. Meals paid for, able to walk around the train and saved $350, including tip for the porter.

Sounds nice, but I've never been able to find that kind of deal. Every time that I've ever looked at train travel, it was much more time and much more money than flying.

I presume that you did not require a rental car at your destination, as that would have quickly added enormously to the cost of driving there.

Each to his own, as long as I'm not paying for it through subsidies. And yes, that opinion applies to all forms of travel.

or could it be that people here in the vast nation don’t want to use 19th century technology as mode of transportation..

Paved roads date back as far as the fourth century BC. And IINM, automobiles also date back to the nineteenth century, so any arguments based on presumed obsolescence versus Luddism are not going to go anywhere, especially in the face of comparative technological advances. AFAICS, the primary arguments here ought to be based on regulation and taxation (as well as other government interference) being an impediment to private-sector implementation.