A day in the life of Fox News

[giblets]

Video: Is China’s high-speed rail a model for U.S. transportation? Based on his travels in China, Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane thinks not.

By Keith B. Richburg,

BEIJING — China’s expanding network of ultramodern high-speed trains has come under growing scrutiny here over costs and because of concerns that builders ignored safety standards in the quest to build faster trains in record time.

.

[giblets]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...fQE_video.html

Go ahead and watch the first five seconds, you stupid clown. Listen to him explain he's from the EDITORIAL PAGE.

Since you don't seem to know what that means here's the wiki: "The editorial page (also known as the opinion page) is the page reserved in a newspaper or magazine for the publication's editorial. ..."

As for the blog associated with the Economist (which is a magazine I like and subscribe to) read The Economist's published position of blogs. Here's a hint they are a place for individual writers to editorialize and post their personal opinions without reflection on the official position of The Economist Magazine.

In short, you're being a ****** as usual. All three are opinion pieces.

The second one is not an opinion piece, but since it says "it remains to be seen whether the bullet trains will earn money" it doesn't exactly prove Drake's point.

[Dinner]

Well, two out of three are opinion pieces while the third has a opinion video embedded at the top of a news article. I'd say two out of three is closer to my position then to Drake's retarded assertions.

[Tupac Shakur]

[Dinner]

The second one is not an opinion piece, but since it says "it remains to be seen whether the bullet trains will earn money" it doesn't exactly prove Drake's point.

It's main thrust is that construction of HSR in China has slowed because not enough people are buying the high priced sleeper accommodations and instead buy regular tickets. From the Economist piece we know a regular 2nd class ticket sells for $9 while a sleeper cabin sells for ~$300. Is it any wonder no one wants a sleep cabin on a relatively short trip? Either way, WTF should HSR make money without subsidies? Airlines get subsidized up the ass with government built airports, government subsidized loans to buy aircraft, tax breaks to help airlines, and a million other things while cars get subsidized even more. Hell, user fees for cars (registration fees and gas taxes) only pay about 25% of road maintaince before we even count the MASSIVE costs tax payers pay to actually build those damn freeways so that right there is a huge subsidy. Why the double standard? Why does every other form of transportation get subsidies but rail is magically supposed to do everything on its own? That seems like a double standard to me and hopefully everyone else who hasn't been sniffing glue.

[giblets]

Maybe we should stop subsidizing cars and airports then.

[Dinner]

Also, Gribbler, the HSR in California also proposes to use the right of ways (which are much wider then needed for one rail line) to also build a freight rail line next to it. Even the state's former Republican governor said the state's freeway system is near maxed out and the majority of the traffic miles driven is by long haul truckers so we have to build more roads, expand existing roads to add more lanes, or we can shift freight to rails. Given that building freight rail lines is way cheaper then building new freeways or even expanding existing ones pushing freight on to rail lines makes economic sense. It's not just how much you spend but how much the other options cost which must also be considered. Yes, having the state already owning the right of ways makes it a hell of a lot easier to convince a rail road to build a new line compared with them having to go out and buy those right of ways on their own from scratch so this most certainly improves multiple transportation aspects in the state.

[Dinner]

Maybe we should stop subsidizing cars and airports then.

Yeah, we can't even stop the subsidies to big oil companies so that they net pay SOMETHING in taxes. How likely is it that politicians will tell airlines, trucking companies, auto makers, aircraft makers, and dozens of other special interests that they can no longer suckle at the tax payers tit? I don't see that happening. Hell, the profits to be made by drilling for oil is already so high that no tax payer subsidies are needed to encourage additional development yet their lobbyists are so entrenched they literally get billions more in subsidies then they net pay in taxes. Talk about throwing money away for absolutely no measurable benefit yet it will never stop because politicians want money and special interests can legally bribe them with unlimited "contributions".

[Dinner]

To summarize the actual content of the debate (if you can call it that when Drake was just being a clown):

Me: HSR is widely used where it has been built. In China the HSR trains are packed.

Drake: HSR isn't profitable though!

Me: So what? Cars, trucks, and airlines are all subsidized by the government so why should rail be the only mode of transport which magically must exist without subsidies?

Drake: (Goes off on tangent about how I called three links he posted opinion pieces when in fact only two were opinion pieces and the third had a video from the WaPo's opinion page and an article which didn't answer my question. Drake then disappeared from this thread in embarrassment.)

Even the one news article said it was unclear if HSR in China would make a profit or a slight lose so we're back to my original question of my HSR shouldn't get subsidies when airplanes and motor vehicles get subsidies? Also what form of transport is the most cost effective for the taxpayers making a rail line or building a brand new freeway? That's my summary of Drake's behavior and why it is a waste of time to actually try to discuss anything with him.

[Lorizael]

No, it is the point. If you are the opposition, it is your explicit job to oppose the president, right or wrong. The way it has ALWAYS worked is to almost always oppose whatever the administration is doing at the moment.

I'm not sure you know what the word explicit means.

[Ben Kenobi]

5) The fact that high-speed rail is already profitable in less crowded corridors than the projected American ones

That's why I'm totally in favour of high speed rail from Quebec City to Montreal. I think it's a great investment for the people of Quebec.

[Ben Kenobi]

Trains.


High speed trains.


High speed trains that run on time.

Mussolini

[DaShi]

Well, two out of three are opinion pieces while the third has a opinion video embedded at the top of a news article. I'd say two out of three is closer to my position then to Drake's retarded assertions.

Damn, I really shouldn't even bother to play this game because I just don't have the time anymore for these drawn out trolls.

So really quickly:

1. The Economist, while a pretty good source of international news, is surprisingly ****ty when it comes to China. I've noticed this a lot in some their other articles, but China has always received consistently bad analysis from them to the point that I just don't bother reading their articles anymore. They read too much like DanS's posts: wishful thinking rather than any real analysis or insight as to what is going on. Though the comments are usually pretty good.

2. The WaPo article is eye-rolling bad and hardly addresses the point. "'In China, we will have a debt crisis — a high-speed rail debt crisis,' he said. 'I think it is more serious than your subprime mortgage crisis. You can always leave a house or use it. The rail system is there. It’s a burden. You must operate the rail system, and when you operate it, the cost is very high.'" Seriously? This is Fox News type journalism. Anyway, there's no real analysis here so not much more to discuss.

3. Wow! I had to check the date on this article, because its views of China are so obsolete. Western China is growing. Chengdu is now an amazing city in its own right that was **** half a decade ago. The "Golden Coast" still exists for obvious reasons, but the interior is seeing rapid development as well. This is due is large part to improved transportation networks, including both freight and people. In fact, many of the second tier cities along the coast enjoy the benefits of having high-speed trains. People who want to live in Hangzhou but work in Shanghai, or vice versa, will be easily able to do so thanks to a train that only takes ~30 minutes. But anyway, the thesis of this article is this line: "Rather than moving people more quickly, the country should build a rail system that moves goods and makes people more productive where they already are." But, I guess he forgot, because the rest of the article never addresses it, instead favor tried and true bromides for what foreigners think Chinese development is.

Here's something with actual analysis: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2010/07/27/world-bank-report-commends-chinas-development-high-speed-rail

And for those interested whether US high speed rail plans have any merit: http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_HSR_Investment_Paper.pdf

[Tupac Shakur]

Wow! I had to check the date on this article, because its views of China are so obsolete.

The reference to the 12th Five-Year Plan should have been enough to alert you to the recent nature of the piece.

Anyway, discovering Patrick Chovanec was a nice unanticipated benefit of this thread; the guy really seems to know his stuff...

http://chovanec.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/chinas-been-working-on-the-railroad/

[DaShi]

That wasn't what I was referring to. Now you're just being flagrantly stupid.

But at least, you've admitted you don't know what you're talking about. However, I'll contend that you never really needed to admit it.