High Speed Rail

Whoosh

I'm all about the future, hell we all are. It is what we live for. Of course there are those cliches about living in the now and how we should enjoy the moment, man. But everyone must afford a bit of foresight to survive, and I believe that the United States government should have the foresight to implement high speed rail. A technology that is ages old in other first world countries. Similar to how we scoff at the Europeans for not owning dishwashers and dryers, they rebuff the United States for poor infrastructure. I hope to explore some arguments for and against high speed rail here in the U.S.






Automakers and Unions:
Detroit, The Motor City, is home to some of America's biggest auto-making factories including, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Collectively known as "the big three" because they are the biggest automaker

We be clashin'

s in North America. Their market share has seen a decline since Toyota and Honda and other foreign companies have stepped in to the American automobile market along with the subsequent cry to halt the loss of American jobs.

And the big three have special interests in maintaining their position at the top of the transportation chain. Those with vested interests such as chair member of the General Motors corporation have the money to lobby congress and derail (badum tss) the attempts to push legislation forward. Similarly, when chair members of General Motors took  measures against railways in the 1920's when railroads were the way to travel, they could certainly do it again.

Admittedly, this country is vast and too spread out:

Mockup of potential routes.

Classic example. Someone wants to go from the biggest city in the U.S. to the second biggest. The 2,789 mile journey from New York to Los Angeles would take 11-12 hours going nonstop at around 250mph. Hang on, because of those pesky Rocky Mountains and other such track-blocks we must tack on an extra 500 miles and 2 hours to the journey. After all, high speed rail does need a straight track for best results. And then the person continuing this argument would tell you that the train would have stops along the way,
and that your total traveling time would end up being closer to 19 hours. My argument is that, although the NY-LA route is unfeasible,  many of the connections in between would be worth it. A more popular route would be perhaps Chicago to New York. at 200 mph that trip would take about 4 hours. If Sally left her Chicago apartment at 6 a.m. and caught the 7 a.m. to NY she would be there by 11 a.m. She could spend the whole day sightseeing, have an early dinner, catch a show and be home by the early morning. It seems overly idealistic and it doesn't factor any costs but there are tons more examples out there.


Bring down airline prices: 

Train versus Plane.

One of the reasons often quoted for high airfare is high oil prices. Not very convincing because Europeans face higher oil prices than the Americans and they seem to have equal or better airfare within the E.U. A big reason is that airlines main competition are cars, buses, and contemporary U.S. rail such as Amtrak or the Metra if you are in the Chicagoland area. Airlines price their tickets so that the gas and maintenance of a car is not worth it. And for some reason Amtrak prices are almost as expensive as plane tickets. Greyhound is cheap, but several days of traveling would be gladly avoided by all. High speed rail would be able to compete on those shorter distance, regional routes and help drive airline prices down, or perhaps drive them to offer more "luxuries" such as free checked bags or cookies.


Better Job Competition:

Did someone say job competition?

Say you you live in Milwaukee, have a nice house, and are settled down with your family. Then one day something unspeakable happens to the company you were working at and it ceased to exist. You file for unemployment and begin looking for jobs in the area. However, the smaller market in Milwaukee makes it hard for your specific qualifications to stand out.
With the advent of  high speed rail, however,l you will now be able to take the 91 mile Chicago-Milwaukee express route and get there in 21 minutes. You happily look for a job in Chicago knowing that your commute will not force you and your family to relocate. For employers they will see more qualified individuals apply to their firms and be able to hire more qualified personnel.


Job creation and economy stimulation and stuff like that:
In the 1930's FDR got a lot of folks back to work by creating many government agencies that employed those that were down on their luck, fresh out of high school, or otherwise willing to earn money. This mobilization of the unemployed along with WWII helped the U.S. rebound from the Great Depression. To rebound from this recent Great Recession this great country needs a project like high speed rail. Sure, we can fix our roads every season, but the country needs to become less stagnant and expand their projects in a different direction to stimulate the economy.

But the cost! Relax, we throw money around in this country like it's not even ours! Besides, there hasn't been a country that has regretted the decision of upgrading to high speed rail. Instead of the government giving tax breaks to BS programs we could spend some money creating a test track from NY to DC. And after the surge in demand, the government can privatize it, sell the rights. and we can finally have.....yes! Google Rail or GRail if you will.

GRail ©

Thanks for reading, musing, and hanging out,
-Mi

Taxing the Rich

With this year's presidential debate heating up, there is often talk about economic and fiscal policy. Naturally, there are arguments about whether there should be higher taxes, lower taxes, or a different tax structure altogether. The conservatives arguing on the side of lower taxes, and the democrats arguing for higher taxes on the rich.

The argument against taxing the rich is flawed. Yes, in theory it would be beneficial to the economy if they ponied up 35% of their wages to the IRS. However, the wealthy do not simply have an income. They do not have one number that can be pointed to objectively as taxable income. The fact is, their wealth is distributed across a multitude of investments all over the world. The majority of it is probably here in the United States, but even then it's impossible to keep track of. 

It goes like this. A man with a million dollars owns a small business. He can harbor the money in the small business; he can harbor the money in many small businesses. These businesses don't necessarily have to be money laundering joints either. But with this business, the man can now report less and less income. Essentially he chooses his own "wage". And it follows that the lower wages he reports, the lower taxes he pays. 

So what happens when the rich are taxed more? Do they finally fork over that money to the IRS? No. They pass the burden of the hire taxes on to other people by imposing higher prices, stagnating salaries, or not hiring more people. Companies and people behave to maximize their utility. Period. If their utility is increased by being philanthropic, they will go ahead and do that, but not because the government imposes taxes on them. James, an avid reader, says, "The government thinks that they can take earnings from investors or companies and redistribute that wealth in other areas of the economy to stimulate economic growth more efficiently and faster than that investor or business can reinvest their own capital to contribute to economic growth through their own business."

My point is people throw around the notion that taxing the rich will generate more revenue for the country, but they also don't have a concrete plan to execute. "Close all the loopholes", they say. While I agree there needs to be regulations put in place so that there can't be huge tax write-offs on "gift ponies", loopholes or other means to divert money will exist.

Solution? A national sales tax that is closely monitored on the suppliers' side for all goods and services, except for food. You're able to buy a lot of clothes, yachts and electronics? Well that 40% sales tax sure does pave nice roads. The rich people might start importing their goods from overseas, but even then they would be creating jobs for the increased number of warehouse employees.


I believe it would be ideal to live in complete anarchy, if everyone was rational and didn't infringe on the rights of others. But one can dream.

-Mi