High Speed Rail and Billion Dollar Whimsy

Oh man.  This has got to be the funniest Obama quote yet. Our brilliant President recently announced that we will be spending billions of dollars on a high speed rail system in the U.S. Being the hyper educated intellectual he is, I am sure we can see reams of data on the economic, geographic and political feasibility of such a boondoggle project! 

"I am always jealous about European trains," Obama said April 3 in Strasbourg, France. "And I said to myself, 'why can't we have high-speed rail?' And so, we're investing in that as well."

I am seriously. Apparently we are now replacing decision making with the whimsical comments of  college kids spending dad's money on Eurail passes and hash, while 'finding themselves' after graduation. 

This reason is topped only by an insightful Onion columnist of years past that blithely suggested we mimic another venerable European social invention.

Back in adult reality–I think the Cato analyst cited in the ABC article captured it best.

"You might as well have the government invest in nuclear-powered bicycles," Mitchell added. "That's probably the only thing I could imagine that would be more of a waste of money than inter-city rail."

Smart Guys

If only the people in power ever listened to smart guys. Impressive that this was  on cnn.com I know. 

Fun times

A little optimism.  Not sure I am convinced, but he does demonstrate that you can read the cards in different ways. I am convinced that this would be a good idea. Oh well. Should get back to blogging more about Christianity and stuff. 

Rejoinder

I should point out one small problem I have with Glaeser's general argument. When you decrease the number of people who pay taxes at all, you increase the number of people who are willing to tax high-income individuals. Although the earned income tax credit was championed by none other than Milton Friedman, there is an element of public choice theory that of course has been borne out in reality. Without getting in to all of that, the general point still stands, which is that government is terrible at the equitable distribution of wealth because politicians have no incentive to actually respond to poor people. 

If they are no longer poor, they will not vote for Democrats! The Republicans don't get their votes anyhow. Government has always responded to those who have enough money and influence to ask it for money. The poor do not hire K St. lobbyists. 

Finally. I have one more thing to ad about this despicable bailout. You are now poorer by $800b not just because you paid taxes into that pool, but more because they pulled that money out of thin air. Today there are suddenly $800b more dollars. That makes every dollar you own worth $800b less all of the dollars in circulation. Not only is your stock account down, your house worth less etc, but now the politicians have decided that your dollars themselves should be each worth a little less.  Congratulations.  

Libertarian Egalitarianism

I first became aware of Edward Glaeser when he was promoting his theory (which is demonstrably correct) that zoning laws are a primary driver of real estate bubbles in liberal cities (San Fran, DC et al.)  

Today, he posted what I consider to be the clearest enunciation of my economic viewpoint. This should be tattooed on the eyelids of all of the young evangelicals who prance around saying that they support BHO and the Dems because Christ told us to care for the poor. 

Guess what! Free markets help the poor more than the transfer of wealth from tax payers to rich-well connected people. This 'bailout' / 'stimulus', it is designed to make rich people who have politicians ears richer. The fundamental conceit of socialism is the 'transfer of wealth.' Unfortunately it always results in the transfer of wealth to a few who are close to the throne. 

If you want to be Christ-like you achieve this by giving your money to the poor. Its as simple as that. The reason we do not want the government to take our money and give it to the poor for us is: 1) then we were not being Christ like at all, but rather abdicating that responsibility on to others, and 2) the government doesn't really give money to the poor but rather to special interest groups, and 3) when we give money to the government, not only does it not give it to the poor, and rather give it to special interest, but then the poor get even poorer because there are fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, and fewer innovative products that save the poor money while increasing their standard of living.