this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
206 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38310 readers
4115 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, objectively Chinese HSR is cheaper per unit distance than California's or London's by... I think an order of magnitude? They can afford to build additional infrastructure at scale.

China connected basically all major Chinese cities for less than 10x the cost of California HSR or HS2.

[–] Eldritch 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not decrying investment in infrastructure. But rather the types and ways China has done it, specifically with propping up their faltering economy in mind.

I'd also love to see nationwide build out of quality desirable public housing in the US. To put landlords out of business and bring housing costs back to reality. But it would be silly to build it all in Wyoming where most people don't want to live. Or as Brutalist architecture which most people don't enjoy.

High speed rail and public transportation too. But building high speed rail to villages that don't need or want it. Just to prop up the economy. Is again wasteful, not actually serving their needs, and only going to make their problems bigger in the end. The party is serving the party and not the people.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

I mean, I think it's just a completely different development model.

China develops for future demand, while the US develops for past demand.

Invariably, developing for future demand sometimes leads to poor development, but those cases are not the norm. What it does allow is taking advantage of economies of scale to improve net efficiency (again, in the HSR example, China incurred 10x the debt to build 50x the rail of California and 150x the rail of the UK). Even if half of your buildup is useless, it's still more efficient than the American approach.

I'm sure there's some optimal point in the middle and I don't think China's hit that, but I think you're conflating different issues to justify the lack of infrastructure investment in the US. The thing is, with the massive rural-urban migration in China, it was always better to have excess capacity than insufficient capacity: the urban population is the key driver to economic growth.

For what it's worth, you can ask people in SF if they'd prefer to live in brutalist buildings for $500/month or pay the exorbitant rents in the area...