> Think about our modern malaise - we have no grand projects, particularly in the public sector.
Interestingly I've heard that in economic return-on-investment terms grand projects are almost always failures.
> [1] There is no technological barrier here. The Qinhuangdao–Shenyang high speed rail - 250 miles long - was built in 4 years.
The barriers are other than technological, sure - I don't know about California, but the things delaying the next high-speed rail line in my own country are court cases, appeals, and political disputes over matters like: some houses need to be demolished to build the stations; the line might disturb the ecology of some wetlands, the line will make a naturally beautiful area less so. Along with some analysis-paralysis issues (is this the best use of public funds? The model for the original analysis was wrong! Will the line still be in the right place by the time it's built?)
I suspect China, or a hypothetical America-at-war (or even America-at-cold-war), would not worry about the first category, and would take higher risks on the second. We've become a lot more risk-averse as a society, sure. I'm not convinced that this isn't simply a rational response to a safer world, where most citizens, on the whole, enjoy a pretty good life. Risking a few deaths and some blighted regions for the sake of a bit more growth makes more sense the poorer you are.
Interestingly I've heard that in economic return-on-investment terms grand projects are almost always failures.
> [1] There is no technological barrier here. The Qinhuangdao–Shenyang high speed rail - 250 miles long - was built in 4 years.
The barriers are other than technological, sure - I don't know about California, but the things delaying the next high-speed rail line in my own country are court cases, appeals, and political disputes over matters like: some houses need to be demolished to build the stations; the line might disturb the ecology of some wetlands, the line will make a naturally beautiful area less so. Along with some analysis-paralysis issues (is this the best use of public funds? The model for the original analysis was wrong! Will the line still be in the right place by the time it's built?)
I suspect China, or a hypothetical America-at-war (or even America-at-cold-war), would not worry about the first category, and would take higher risks on the second. We've become a lot more risk-averse as a society, sure. I'm not convinced that this isn't simply a rational response to a safer world, where most citizens, on the whole, enjoy a pretty good life. Risking a few deaths and some blighted regions for the sake of a bit more growth makes more sense the poorer you are.