108
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2026
108 points (97.4% liked)
Videos
18742 readers
337 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think you're arguing something else now, or I'm misunderstanding your argument. I'm not arguing that if the government had subsidized rail that it would have been better, that's no question it would have been better. It absolutely should have been prioritized at minimum same level as the interstate and air budgets.
What I am disagreeing with is that capitalism did a great job on it's own. It didn't. The companies were going bankrupt, and in rail's case they were torpedoing it on purpose so they could get out of the passenger rail business. It's not a "Oh woe is us if only capitalism had saved us"
I believe both have failed public transit in this country. That's the key difference. Nothing in the last message is wrong - except that both have actively destroyed transit here.