badlatitude

China's Superfast Bullet Train Shows Just How Far Behind The U.S. is

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lark said:

Sloop is right.   The supercarrier, nuclear subs, missile subs capable of shooting from underwater, tanks capable of shooting accurately while bouncing over craters, reactive armor, depleted uranium slugs to penetrate armor, stealth planes, gps to navigate missiles, heads up displays, semiautonomous drone warplanes, live video feeds from space, who knows what else.   Since WW II ended we’ve given the world so much that does so little good, while achieving so little domestic improvement that just wasn’t just a spin off of military technology.  Imagine if we actually tried to improve people’s lives.

I imagine that any attempt to stop spending like crazy on such things would be overwhelmingly voted down.

And lo, things I imagine actually happened. Not a lot of interest in that subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

The idea that increasing economic freedom creates wealth and prosperity is not very controversial.  Even Krugman would agree.  Both China and Hong Kong serve to illustrate this concept, but in different ways.  Again, nothing too controversial about that.  

But that has little to do with your repeatedly making false claims about what I said, such as the private bank thing.  Still waiting for that quote. 

They also serve to illustrate the concept that strong central planning increases wealth and prosperity..... in fact when compared to the USA, they show this more strongly than what you claim. Of course, what they both REALLY prove is that spending money on education is a very good investment.

False claims? I've quoted you until the "quote" button is wearing out. Maybe this will help

0b_internet.jpg.2bc8968c27895b4b5b1a2b284104932b.jpg

Or maybe you've already read it, there's apparently a whole chapter on how to claim your opponent is lying.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They also serve to illustrate the concept that strong central planning increases wealth and prosperity.

The thing is, it does so mostly for those who already are wealthy and powerful and disproportionately tends to NOT do it for those who need it most.

This guy said it pretty well:

Quote

Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They also serve to illustrate the concept that strong central planning increases wealth and prosperity..... in fact when compared to the USA, they show this more strongly than what you claim. Of course, what they both REALLY prove is that spending money on education is a very good investment.

False claims? I've quoted you until the "quote" button is wearing out. Maybe this will help

0b_internet.jpg.2bc8968c27895b4b5b1a2b284104932b.jpg

Or maybe you've already read it, there's apparently a whole chapter on how to claim your opponent is lying.

-DSK

No they don't.  Hong Kong had hardly any central planning.  It became richer than the US per capita.  China was all centrally planned.  It experienced famine, and millions died.  Then China implemented a small amount of economic freedom, and now it too is getting rich.  

You stated:

"You attempted to prove that there are private banks in China..."

Quote where I attempted to prove that.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They also serve to illustrate the concept that strong central planning increases wealth and prosperity..... in fact when compared to the USA, they show this more strongly than what you claim. Of course, what they both REALLY prove is that spending money on education is a very good investment.

False claims? I've quoted you until the "quote" button is wearing out. Maybe this will help

0b_internet.jpg.2bc8968c27895b4b5b1a2b284104932b.jpg

Or maybe you've already read it, there's apparently a whole chapter on how to claim your opponent is lying.

-DSK

He's too stupid to get it. You're yelling at a fire hydrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They also serve to illustrate the concept that strong central planning increases wealth and prosperity.

The thing is, it does so mostly for those who already are wealthy and powerful and disproportionately tends to NOT do it for those who need it most.

Agreed..... after all, who is most likely to have a ringside seat in the group -doing- the central planning?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed..... after all, who is most likely to have a ringside seat in the group -doing- the central planning?

-DSK

In that case, Pfizer and the only people interested in the plight of those left out: nosy libertarians at the Institute for Justice.

And what I've been saying in this thread is that those same people are still at the IJ and if Trump High Speed Railways wanted to take land, they'd cause lots of trouble and expense again. We're Uncooperative that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed..... after all, who is most likely to have a ringside seat in the group -doing- the central planning?

-DSK

I have given you examples of how increasing economic freedom increases wealth and prosperity for the common man.  Where has central planning increased wealth and prosperity for the common man?

In case you forgot, or you just want to make up a bunch of shit, or lie about what I said, here are the examples of how economic freedom creates wealth and prosperity for the common man:

Hong Kong (part of China since 1997) - continues to be the most economic free area in the world and is richer than the US in terms of GDP per capita.

China - Was 100% centrally planned right through the end of the great famine where tens of millions died.  Then in the 1970s, China began instituting capitalistic market forms including privately owned corporations that produced goods and traded them in the global marketplace.  This has caused China to bring more people out of grinding poverty faster than any nation in the history of the world.  However, GDP per capita is still less than 1/3 of that of Hong Kong or the US.

US - The period between 1800 and 1920 was arguably the greatest advance of human civilization in history.  A similar thing happened in Sweden between 1850 and 1950.  Both economic systems leaned very close to capitalism.  During this time in the US of what you would call "unbridled capitalism," lifespans increase for the common man, and people flocked to the US.  When they found out what was going on here, they sent for their families and friends.

Ok, now your turn.  List the countries that have made the poor rich through central planning.  And if you get a chance, don't forget how you were going to quote me saying something about proving that there are private banks in China.  Still waiting on that one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ishmael said:

He's too stupid to get it. You're yelling at a fire hydrant.

I thought they were for pissing on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I thought they were for pissing on?

That's Dog's job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jzk said:

.....

Ok, now your turn.  List the countries that have made the poor rich through central planning.

China..... your favorite example. They have a lot more central planning and gov't control than the US. More of them are getting richer faster. Why is it "capitalism" and not "central planning?"

You make the unjustified assumption that a factor you like is causing the change you like. Economics is not an exact science but it is more of a science than you seem to grasp

If you were discussing medical research, you might be suggesting that wearing blue shirts cures cancer because X% of the patients who wore blue shirts had positive outcomes.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

China..... your favorite example. They have a lot more central planning and gov't control than the US. More of them are getting richer faster. Why is it "capitalism" and not "central planning?"

You make the unjustified assumption that a factor you like is causing the change you like. Economics is not an exact science but it is more of a science than you seem to grasp

If you were discussing medical research, you might be suggesting that wearing blue shirts cures cancer because X% of the patients who wore blue shirts had positive outcomes.

-DSK

Yeah, when China was 100% centrally planned, it was dirt poor and experienced the great famine in modern times.  Then when it began implementing some economic freedom, it started to become wealthy.   Not a very good case to prove central planning creates wealth and prosperity.  

The people in China that are getting rich are doing it by starting and owning a business and trading in the global marketplace.  

Still, China is no where near as wealthy per capita as Hong Kong, the US, or any of the top ten economic free countries.  

In fact, can you name any countries with centrally planned economies in the top 30 wealthiest countries?  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, when China was 100% centrally planned, it was dirt poor and experienced the great famine in modern times.  Then when it began implementing some economic freedom, it started to become wealthy.   Not a very good case to prove central planning creates wealth and prosperity.  

 

Not really. Before that, it was centrally planned and by far the wealthiest country in the world.

Fact: China is becoming wealthier faster than the US and they have more central planning in their economy.

Just because you keep repeating something you like, doesn't make it true.

33 minutes ago, jzk said:

...    ...    ...

Still, China is no where near as wealthy per capita as Hong Kong, the US, or any of the top ten economic free countries.  

In fact, can you name any countries with centrally planned economies in the top 30 wealthiest countries?  

If the US is MORE economically free, and CHina is getting richer faster, that would seem to strongly disprove your point.

Can you name the top 30 countries, at all? Without googling them? Or even with googling them, for that matter?

You continue to ignore my questions and make stupid assertions with little or no factual cause.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not really. Before that, it was centrally planned and by far the wealthiest country in the world.

Fact: China is becoming wealthier faster than the US and they have more central planning in their economy.

Just because you keep repeating something you like, doesn't make it true.

If the US is MORE economically free, and CHina is getting richer faster, that would seem to strongly disprove your point.

Can you name the top 30 countries, at all? Without googling them? Or even with googling them, for that matter?

You continue to ignore my questions and make stupid assertions with little or no factual cause.

-DSK

Your only case that central planning produces wealth and prosperity is that in ancient times, China was the wealthiest country in the world?

That is about as weak as it gets.

That China is advancing faster than the US is evidence of nothing.  The US is virtually at the top.  China is coming from the bottom of the bottom.  How could it not advance faster than us?   It is evidence of nothing.  

If I you have $1 to your name, is it easier for you to double your wealth, or Bill Gates?  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Your only case that central planning produces wealth and prosperity is that in ancient times, China was the wealthiest country in the world?

That is about as weak as it gets.

...    ...

Actually it was far more recent than "ancient times." You don't know when China lost it's rating at the top of the world's economies, and you blurt out an answer without bothering to look it up.

Your ignorance makes your pronouncements on economic matters as weak as it gets.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually it was far more recent than "ancient times." You don't know when China lost it's rating at the top of the world's economies, and you blurt out an answer without bothering to look it up.

Your ignorance makes your pronouncements on economic matters as weak as it gets.

-DSK

Was it right about the time that the economically free US surpassed China being centrally planned?

Wow, you really made your case there.

China has the largest economy now.  But that doesn't mean that its people are wealthier than the people of the US.  China is just much bigger.  And it was back then too, when it was previously the largest economy in the world.  Dirt poor by our economically free standards.  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 9:17 PM, Ishmael said:

He's too stupid to get it. You're yelling at a fire hydrant.

Quit insulting fire hydrants 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t forget the Japanese miracle. Also centrally planned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Don’t forget the Japanese miracle. Also centrally planned. 

Japan is the early warning system for the rest of the industrialised world.

They peaked early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Japan is the early warning system for the rest of the industrialised world.

They peaked early.

Demographics are destiny. If they had let in migrants, they wouldn’t have the issues they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Don’t forget the Japanese miracle. Also centrally planned. 

Yeah, the centrally planed "miracle" of the Japanese economy.  Interesting that you brought that up.  

How is that central planning working out?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 7:46 PM, Raz'r said:

Poor jerkie boy:

It is the third-largest in the world by nominal GDP and the fourth-largest by purchasing power parity(PPP).[17][18] and is the world's second largest developed economy.[19]

What is pathetic about this post is that you don't even know why you wouldn't want Japan as your poster child economy.  Just pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a train in Bangladesh gets crowded:

It made me wonder a couple of things:

Why is standing toward the front better than one of those end cars with room to stretch out? They're going to arrive about the same time.

They haven't invented liability lawyers in Bangladesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 12:21 PM, TMSAIL said:

Oh I can imagine it.   It’s a lot more than digging a ditch.   If going below grade you need drainage and the road needs a bridge.  Climate plays a part.  I read the study on the high speed from St Louis to Chicago.  So many crossings that the speed was no longer high speed and approaching the same time as driving.  

Do you really think 100 years from now high speed rail will be the choice?  Think about how far we went in 70 years   Horse  and buggy to landing men on the moon.  

I don’t the profit motif was in play for the moon landings, except for the contractors....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a great plan for smaller airplanes going direct point to point, more smaller airports, etc etc a few years back, which landed with a thud, what with the religious chant of bigger is better, spoke and  hub is cheaper, noise concerns, NIMBY, blah blah blah

I’ve been flying a small commuter airline coupled with a micro commuter airline lately, and it’s finally made a 300 mile trip faster than driving, and it’s all on prop planes.  As soon as you include a jet, like a 737, it’s slower.  Just getting off and on a big jet is tedious and time consuming.  Small airports are a lot more fun, convenient, and easy to get in and out of.  Float planes are even better.  You just walk on and walk off both.

Maybe electric airplanes will help-

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/electric-planes-promise-big-benefits-air-passengers-planet-ncna862001

Big and cheap is choking things here- question is, when will China hit the choke point?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Amati said:

I don’t the profit motif was in play for the moon landings, except for the contractors....

Then maybe we shouldn't be going there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amati said:

There was a great plan for smaller airplanes going direct point to point, more smaller airports, etc etc a few years back, which landed with a thud, what with the religious chant of bigger is better, spoke and  hub is cheaper, noise concerns, NIMBY, blah blah blah

I’ve been flying a small commuter airline coupled with a micro commuter airline lately, and it’s finally made a 300 mile trip faster than driving, and it’s all on prop planes.  As soon as you include a jet, like a 737, it’s slower.  Just getting off and on a big jet is tedious and time consuming.  Small airports are a lot more fun, convenient, and easy to get in and out of.  Float planes are even better.  You just walk on and walk off both.

Maybe electric airplanes will help-

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/electric-planes-promise-big-benefits-air-passengers-planet-ncna862001

Big and cheap is choking things here- question is, when will China hit the choke point?  

I can fly Chicago to Florida from $45 - $65 one way.  Not bad at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moon flights a generation ago was really a demonstration that it could be done. That is why nothing directly followed Apollo in terms of getting to Mars or wherever. A similar situation exists in China with the maglev train that goes to Shanghai airport at speeds up to 430 km/h (268 mph). It has worked successfully for quite a few years now but makes no economic sense. The Chinese considered building a maglev line between Shanghai and Beijing. It would have saved an hour compared to the conventional high-speed line they build (top speed of that is 238 mph). What is special about the Chinese system is how extensive it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jzk said:

I can fly Chicago to Florida from $45 - $65 one way.  Not bad at all.

How long does it take- from door to door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Amati said:

How long does it take- from door to door?

3 hours plus security.  $65 each way right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

3 hours plus security.  $65 each way right now.

From your home to your destination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

From your home to your destination?

Lets say 20 minutes to the airport, 1 hour before flight time, 3 hour flight, 30 minutes to get out of the airport, 7 minutes to the destination.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Lets say 20 minutes to the airport, 1 hour before flight time, 3 hour flight, 30 minutes to get out of the airport, 7 minutes to the destination.  

You don’t park and walk into the airport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so - you are taking advantage of subsidized transport to the airport? tsk tsk.

Yeah.  Those massive uber subsidies.  

Is it really your clown position that I am somehow not allowed to take public transportation for which I pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah.  Those massive uber subsidies.  

Is it really your clown position that I am somehow not allowed to take public transportation for which I pay?

Did the Uber car have commercial plates, or were you unknowingly supporting tax fraud?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

Did the Uber car have commercial plates, or were you unknowingly supporting tax fraud?   

Is this supposed to be a serious question?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

When a train in Bangladesh gets crowded:

It made me wonder a couple of things:

Why is standing toward the front better than one of those end cars with room to stretch out? They're going to arrive about the same time.

They haven't invented liability lawyers in Bangladesh?

You get to eat free bugs.  They obviously can't afford a scoot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah.  Those massive uber subsidies.  

Is it really your clown position that I am somehow not allowed to take public transportation for which I pay?

No- you apparently live close to the airport, apparently don’t travel during traffic congestion, or you don’t have it- You use uber, and you live next to a hub-  if this model was available to most of the country, we wouldn’t be talking about trains, or different airline business models.  

So I’d argue you’re proving my point- 

quick, easy access to airports, and direct flights to destinations.

So, for example, how long, and how much $ would it take you to fly to Bemidji, Minnesota?  On Business class?

Or St Marie’s, Idaho?

I know you want to ask why.  I just did it for you- and my answer that it is an example-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

Is this supposed to be a serious question?  

Oh come on, Uber drivers are always taking fares off the app-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amati said:

No- you apparently live close to the airport, apparently don’t travel during traffic congestion, or you don’t have it- You use uber, and you live next to a hub-  if this model was available to most of the country, we wouldn’t be talking about trains, or different airline business models.  

So I’d argue you’re proving my point- 

quick, easy access to airports, and direct flights to destinations.

So, for example, how long, and how much $ would it take you to fly to Bemidji, Minnesota?  On Business class?

Or St Marie’s, Idaho?

I know you want to ask why.  I just did it for you- and my answer is an example-

 

I don't want to go to those places.  But if enough people did, there would be flights going there.  Maybe we should construct high speed rail to St Marie's Idaho?  Sounds like that would be cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

I don't want to go to those places.  But if enough people did, there would be flights going there.  Maybe we should construct high speed rail to St Marie's Idaho?  Sounds like that would be cost effective.

I’m sure the industries there, and the town appreciate your condescending sarcasm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Amati said:

I’m sure the industries there, and the town appreciate your condescending sarcasm...

The industries of St Marie Idaho think they deserve society to build high speed rail for them?  Or $65 flights to Florida?  What exactly is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jzk said:

The industries of St Marie Idaho think they deserve society to build high speed rail for them?  Or $65 flights to Florida?  What exactly is your point?

I have made my point ^^^^^^, but I’ll play along with your rhetorical gambit-  there are other ways to deal with transportation other than the race to the bottom, and we could have them sooner than later, if it weren’t for your (and a lot of other’s) apparent insistence that bankruptcy (or boom and bust?) is the best way to measure a business model.  You seem to have an exceedingly low tolerance for risk.  I hope it continues to work for you- God knows you’ve been incredibly lucky so far!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

I have made my point ^^^^^^, but I’ll play along with your rhetorical gambit-  there are other ways to deal with transportation other than the race to the bottom, and we could have them sooner than later, if it weren’t for your apparent insistence that bankruptcy (or boom and bust?) is the best way to measure a business model.  You seem to have an exceedingly low tolerance for risk.  I hope it continues to work for you- God knows you’ve been incredibly lucky so far!

 

Why do you feel that mankind providing itself with cost effective products and services is a "race to the bottom?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jerkz is picking historically heavily subsidized transport (road, air) over one that was uncompetitive against those after ww2 (rail) in part because it lacked subsidies. somehow this showcases the triump of the free market to the moronic assclown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

jerkz is picking historically heavily subsidized transport (road, air) over one that was uncompetitive against those after ww2 (rail) in part because it lacked subsidies. somehow this showcases the triump of the free market to the moronic assclown.

Yes, all of the success of the free market was brought to us by government subsidies.  We should just shut it down now and let government control everything.  Maybe we can travel in Trabants.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Why do you feel that mankind providing itself with cost effective products and services is a "race to the bottom?"  

You switch from “cheap” to “cost effective” and fill in  “profitability“ once in a while so easily!  It’s smooth, I’ll give you that!

But be that rhetorical sleight of hand as it may, even with all the government subsidies the airline industry has enjoyed, an argument can be made that industry, as a whole, has not made a profit, although there are years when it has(and here is a piece that you can cherry pick away at :P https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031714/why-airlines-arent-profitable-dal-ual-aal-luv-jblu.aspx), and the seat to Miami you were using as an example was most likely losing money (let’s say per seat mile), which seems kind of cut throat on your part, since profitability seems a mantra of yours, but perhaps only for you, and indicates you will gladly trade on the misfortune of others, which sounds like a race to the bottom to me- I mean, if you were serious about profitability, and not flying on companies operating under bankruptcy protection(which would be government protection, no?), your tickets would probably cost more.  On which airline was the ticket you posted available?

https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/american-airlines-president-we-wont-make-things-better-for-passengers-unless-we-can-make-a-profit-out-of-it.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Amati said:

You switch from “cheap” to “cost effective” and fill in  “profitability“ once in a while so easily!  It’s smooth, I’ll give you that!

But be that rhetorical sleight of hand as it may, even with all the government subsidies the airline industry has enjoyed, an argument can be made that industry, as a whole, has not made a profit, although there are years when it has(and here is a piece that you can cherry pick away at :P https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031714/why-airlines-arent-profitable-dal-ual-aal-luv-jblu.aspx), and the seat to Miami you were using as an example was most likely losing money (let’s say per seat mile), which seems kind of cut throat on your part, since profitability seems a mantra of yours, but perhaps only for you, and indicates you will gladly trade on the misfortune of others, which sounds like a race to the bottom to me- I mean, if you were serious about profitability, and not flying on companies operating under bankruptcy protection(which would be government protection, no?), your tickets would probably cost more.  On which airline was the ticket you posted available?

https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/american-airlines-president-we-wont-make-things-better-for-passengers-unless-we-can-make-a-profit-out-of-it.html

 

I checked the airline.  It has been profitable.  Not in bankruptcy either.  Any other shit you would like to make up for this conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

I checked the airline.  It has been profitable.  Not in bankruptcy either.  Any other shit you would like to make up for this conversation?

Which airline?  Are they spoke and hub?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now