Trains, Planes, and Krugman

There are times when Paul Krugman seems to play into every stereotype about the wooly-headed liberal, and this is one of them. Now, before I do criticize him for his position, let me add that I, too, love to ride on trains. I really do.

In fact, when I went up to NYC in January, I took the Amtrak from Cumberland to DC, and DC to Newark (where I stayed with friends). For the most part, I enjoyed my trip.

However, as George Will notes in this column, the collectivist mentality that always dominates Krugman's writings seems to manifest itself in the demand that everyone ride trains because it is good for them. Writes Will:

Generations hence, when the river of time has worn this presidency’s importance to a small, smooth pebble in the stream of history, people will still marvel that its defining trait was a mania for high-speed rail projects. This disorder illuminates the progressive mind.

Remarkably widespread derision has greeted the Obama administration’s damn-the-arithmetic-full-speed-ahead proposal to spend $53 billion more (after the $8 billion in stimulus money and $2.4 billion in enticements to 23 states) in the next six years pursuant to the president’s loopy goal of giving “80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail.” “Access” and “high-speed” to be defined later.

Criticism of this optional and irrational spending—meaning: borrowing —during a deficit crisis has been withering. Only an administration blinkered by ideology would persist.

Florida’s new Republican governor, Rick Scott, has joined Ohio’s (John Kasich) and Wisconsin’s (Scott Walker) in rejecting federal incentives—more than $2 billion in Florida’s case—to begin a high-speed rail project. Florida’s 84-mile line, which would have run parallel to Interstate 4, would have connected Tampa and Orlando. One preposterous projection was that it would attract 3 million passengers a year—almost as many as ride Amtrak’s Acela in the densely populated Boston–New York–Washington corridor.

The latest high-speed-rail caper reminds me of the silly fit that Krugman and his employer threw when Gov. Chris Christie closed the curtain on the mega-billion rail tunnel from New Jersey to Manhattan. Now, Krugman justifies all this by saying that trains are nicer than a drive, trains allow you to avoid traffic, etc.

And, to a point, I agree. I like riding the New York Subway, the New Jersey Transit, and will use the PATH trains when I go to a conference in NYC in two weeks. However, I am not naive about what these things cost, and how heavily each passenger mile is subsidized.

Yes, riding a train is more pleasant than driving, but building and operating them mean a huge opportunity cost that must be paid somewhere by someone. And it does not help to see the Obama administration claiming delusional ridership numbers, as Will notes.

But there is more. Will concludes:

So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.

Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.

To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.

Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”

So, what does Krugman say? First, the guy who has praised the TSA and claimed that its very existence is proof of it legitimacy, now complains about the "war on liquids" and the stressful airport security.

Second, while train travel is nice, he forgets the part about taxpayers having to pony up the big bucks to pay for it. True, Keynesians don't believe in opportunity cost, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

So, when I am riding the rails into NYC in a couple of weeks, I will thank all of you for paying for my trip.

Krugman's Rail Fantasy

Paul Krugman is on another tear. Those Evil Republicans are not supporting what clearly would be an extremely-costly "high-speed rail" boondoggle, which then makes them against ALL railroads. Here is Krugman in his own words:

Jonathan Cohn points out the curious opposition of Republicans to any improvement in our woefully inadequate rail system. As he suggests, this opposition goes beyond issues of cost; there’s something visceral about it.

Notice that Krugman does not say "passenger rail," just "rail," although I guess he is talking about passenger rail travel.

Furthermore, Krugman tries to invoke a questionable economic argument regarding "natural monopoly," as seen here:

It’s not too hard to understand, of course: in real life, as opposed to bad novels, railroads aren’t run by rugged individualists (nor should they be). In fact, passenger rail is generally run by government; even when it’s partially privatized, as in Britain, it’s done so with heavy state intervention to preserve some semblance of competition in a natural monopoly. So rail doesn’t fit the conservative vision of the way things should be.

Hmmm. We have a government monopoly preserving "some semblance of competition in a natural monopoly"? Uh, that does not compute, people. Furthermore, passenger rail was very, very competitive in this country until the automobile became more developed (and was subsidized by the Interstate Highway System) and also after a century of government regulation of railroads.

Furthermore, government subsidies of passenger rail don't exist to "preserve competition," but rather exist to preserve the various rail unions which have helped make the real costs of passenger rail frightfully high. All that is lost to Krugman, of course, who spins his own fantasies.

But, in the end, it really is about people ponying up so Paul can ride the rails for less than the full cost. He writes:

I almost always take trains both to New York and to Washington, and consider the time spent on those trains part of my productive hours — with notebooks and 3G, an Amtrak quiet car is basically a moving office. And I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Gee, I'm surprised Amtrak does not provide him with a heavily-subsidized private car.

As for "high-speed rail," we are speaking of billions and billions of dollars to be spent for which there really won't be any return. To those who don't subscribe to Keynesian "economics," that means that high-speed rail will use far more in resources than it will produce, which means a deficit of wealth. (Yes, Keynesians will claim it would "stimulate" the entire economy because the government is spending lots of money.)

So, any of you who might take economics seriously, don't ride on the same train with Krugman, as he might declare you an "enemy of the people" have have the conductor throw you off to the side!