Y’all got Bezos’ed

[Pakuni]

All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".

Oh,  I have no idea. There are people far more educated in the subject than I - you, for example, I would imagine - who could speak to that far better. In this instance, it's better I stay in my lane.

My only point is that we shouldn't mock those with bold and imaginative ideas that could provide solutions to our problems or help create great technological leaps forward. Most of those who have done so in the past were mocked as fools and told their ideas were impossible or useless by cranky and cynical know-it-alls, as well.

[Cheeks]

"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - Advice from a president of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry Ford's lawyer Horace Rackham.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.

"[Television] won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." - Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox.

You forgot to mention the 10 year part I put in there, for some reason.  That's the current insanity being pushed.  I'm all about progress, but 10 years.  LOL.  Way to bankrupt a nation.

[Cheeks]

All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".

My state just killed the choo choo train, and we can't be any more "progressive" or pushing sustainability as we lead it all.  But the price tag they finally admitted was a joke.  Positioned as $30B, went as high at $100B, finally killed most of the project earlier this week.  All this stuff is great, when money is endless and other things are accounted for....somewhere in Utopia Land.

[forgetful]

You forgot to mention the 10 year part I put in there, for some reason.  That's the current insanity being pushed.  I'm all about progress, but 10 years.  LOL.  Way to bankrupt a nation.

It would not bankrupt the nation. In fact, it would likely greatly enrich the nation, even if it was never implemented.

An example: The ROI on government spending on space exploration range from 7:1, to 40:1 (APOLLO program). That's because the technology that evolves from government spending/research in game-changing technology, revolutionizes the entire economy.

The goals outlined in these proposals are similar in ambition to the APOLLO program, and would return similar ROIs. Investing in pioneering new technology, that will not provide an ROI on a timescale short enough to inspire the private sector, should be a primary focus of the government.

Your views on this are miopic.

[Cheeks]

It would not bankrupt the nation. In fact, it would likely greatly enrich the nation, even if it was never implemented.

An example: The ROI on government spending on space exploration range from 7:1, to 40:1 (APOLLO program). That's because the technology that evolves from government spending/research in game-changing technology, revolutionizes the entire economy.

The goals outlined in these proposals are similar in ambition to the APOLLO program, and would return similar ROIs. Investing in pioneering new technology, that will not provide an ROI on a timescale short enough to inspire the private sector, should be a primary focus of the government.

Your views on this are miopic.

The little fun plan that the unicorns have come up with that has a 10 year implementation, would cause massive harm primarily because of the timeline and cost of capital.  Over 50 years....sure, I'm on board....10 years, not a chance.  My views aren't myopic at all, they are reasonable and tied to real timelines, not puffery and stupidity from 29 year olds that have no seasoning and are tied to utopian fantasies.  Hell, I've had solar panels on my roof for years, way ahead of the curve. I'm all for sustainability, but it has to make sense in timing and capital allocation. 

[Pakuni]

You forgot to mention the 10 year part I put in there, for some reason.  That's the current insanity being pushed.  I'm all about progress, but 10 years.  LOL.  Way to bankrupt a nation.

Investment in technology will bankrupt the nation.
Tax cuts that add trillions to the national debt, no problemo.

[Cheeks]

Investment in technology will bankrupt the nation.
Tax cuts that add trillions to the national debt, no problemo.

Debts and deficits were awesome only a few years ago, in fact doubling the debt.  Now they aren't....I love hypocrisy.

[jesmu84]

Investment in technology will bankrupt the nation.
Tax cuts that add trillions to the national debt, no problemo.

We've already pushed a good chunk of the 99% to the bankruptcy edge.  Wouldn't want to threaten the 1%

[Herman Cain]

Delighted that Amazon pulled out of Long Island City. All that would have done is create an incredible traffic jam and make the airports in NY more miserable than they already are.

[GB Warrior]

I heard there's a lot of room available in Kenosha these days

[mu03eng]

It would not bankrupt the nation. In fact, it would likely greatly enrich the nation, even if it was never implemented.

An example: The ROI on government spending on space exploration range from 7:1, to 40:1 (APOLLO program). That's because the technology that evolves from government spending/research in game-changing technology, revolutionizes the entire economy.

The goals outlined in these proposals are similar in ambition to the APOLLO program, and would return similar ROIs. Investing in pioneering new technology, that will not provide an ROI on a timescale short enough to inspire the private sector, should be a primary focus of the government.

Your views on this are miopic.

All true, but the Apollo program had a singular, measurable goal that people could literally see. The GND is esoteric at best and highly questionable that it is achievable from a technical standpoint. There is no doubt the moonshot was a very stretch goal but it was based on realistic growth.....GND is literally unachievable in its scope/timeline.

[forgetful]

All true, but the Apollo program had a singular, measurable goal that people could literally see. The GND is esoteric at best and highly questionable that it is achievable from a technical standpoint. There is no doubt the moonshot was a very stretch goal but it was based on realistic growth.....GND is literally unachievable in its scope/timeline.

Although the end goal of the APOLLO program was very specific, much of the goals along the way were not, they were more general. The program overall was highly questionable that it would be achievable from a technical standpoint.

But current NASA investment, which is much more broad and general in scope, has an ROI of 7-1. Just because of the technology that is spurred out from the investment.

Imagine if we had an extra $8B lying around and we could invest it in technology research.

[Cheeks]

Although the end goal of the APOLLO program was very specific, much of the goals along the way were not, they were more general. The program overall was highly questionable that it would be achievable from a technical standpoint.

But current NASA investment, which is much more broad and general in scope, has an ROI of 7-1. Just because of the technology that is spurred out from the investment.

Imagine if we had an extra $8B lying around and we could invest it in technology research.

Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it.  Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please

[D'Lo Brown]

Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it.  Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please

Our own defense department has a solution to save $125 billion in pure waste. Thank goodness for the media, as the report was buried internally for fear that they might actually have to carry out the plan.

How to save $125 billion

This is not even to mention the "functional" waste, stuff that we did pay for and receive that was practically worthless.

[MUBurrow]

Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it.  Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please

[GooooMarquette]

All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".

I have flown between cities in Europe...and I have taken high-speed trains between cities in Europe.

If you try the same, you will definitely see how high-speed trains can make transit "better."

[Cheeks]

I have flown between cities in Europe...and I have taken high-speed trains between cities in Europe.

If you try the same, you will definitely see how high-speed trains can make transit "better."

Geography and infrastructure is key.  Old European cities, tightly packed, make sense.  There's a reason why even in Calif, we just killed the monstrosity rail here because of cost and engineering challenges.  What works in some areas of the world, doesn't mean it works everywhere.

[MUBurrow]

Geography and infrastructure is key.  Old European cities, tightly packed, make sense.  There's a reason why even in Calif, we just killed the monstrosity rail here because of cost and engineering challenges.  What works in some areas of the world, doesn't mean it works everywhere.

I'll admit that I haven't read any green papers on this stuff, but my understanding is that the rail proposals have been primarily designed to reduce/eliminate regional air travel with series of local networks. Over time, maybe the connections among each regional network would increase, but I thought the aim was to clear air traffic for flights between long distance hubs, and utilizing a train system for more local routes and/or routes that are connecting flights today.

[mu03eng]

I have flown between cities in Europe...and I have taken high-speed trains between cities in Europe.

If you try the same, you will definitely see how high-speed trains can make transit "better."

I've travelled extensively in EMEA, via just about any and all modes of transportation and there is no doubting train is my favorite.

Having said that Europe is of sufficient density and size to make it practical. The same is not true in the US generally. Yes it probably makes sense in the Northeast, some parts of the midwest and maybe the LA/SD/Phoenix area but it can't possibly work at a national level. I want nothing to do with a 10 hour mag/lev ride between Chicago and Portland if I can get there in 4 hours on a non-stop flight.

Also this ignores all the negative impact to the environment that results by the infrastructure deployed and land "destroyed" in the various routes.

[mu03eng]

I'll admit that I haven't read any green papers on this stuff, but my understanding is that the rail proposals have been primarily designed to reduce/eliminate regional air travel with series of local networks. Over time, maybe the connections among each regional network would increase, but I thought the aim was to clear air traffic for flights between long distance hubs, and utilizing a train system for more local routes and/or routes that are connecting flights today.

Generally you are correct but if you look at the trade offs between transit times, efficiencies, etc it's really flights less than 90 minutes you could eliminate. That leaves a lot of space uncovered.

Don't get me wrong I'm for it as a general objective independent of the NGD but it's an incremental change at best

[GooooMarquette]

Having said that Europe is of sufficient density and size to make it practical. The same is not true in the US generally. Yes it probably makes sense in the Northeast, some parts of the midwest and maybe the LA/SD/Phoenix area but it can't possibly work at a national level. I want nothing to do with a 10 hour mag/lev ride between Chicago and Portland if I can get there in 4 hours on a non-stop flight.

You're forgetting the 2 hours for airport security, the increased susceptibility of air travel to weather-related delays (I have never seen a line of trains waiting to be de-iced) and the 3 hours it takes to straighten out your back after sitting in the fetal shrimp position in the airline seat.

Add it all up, and it might very well be a wash....

[Cheeks]

About 10 minutes for security with TSA Precheck.  Point is, incredibly costly due to geography and size here in the States.  Plus the enviornmental impact to build would be amazing to see the hypocrisy there.  Building a fence or wall might keep a lizard from moving back and forth, but building railways all over this country wouldn't impact some wildlife?  LOL

[reinko]

Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it.  Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please

About 1% of the budget is foreign aid, or around 50 billion dollars.  Of course that is a ton of cash to you and I, but your term astronomical, in relation to the overall budget seems a bit over the top.

The only way the US is gonna dig itself out of this hole is target sacred cows, entitlements and defense spending.  This pearl clutching of foreign aid, food stamps, Department of Education, yadda yadda is peanuts, politicians know it’s peanuts, but sounds good on the TEEEEEVEEEEEE.

[warriorchick]

About 1% of the budget is foreign aid, or around 50 billion dollars.  Of course that is a ton of cash to you and I, but your term astronomical, in relation to the overall budget seems a bit over the top.

So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget?  What's the fuss about?

[Cheeks]

So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget?  What's the fuss about?

Bada bing