One is investment into speculative vs proven ideas. I don't have a single/principled answer to that. Another is subsidization, though that is fairly common (almost universal) in transport . A third is monopoly. Again, almost unavoidable in transport.
I guess if you put the last two together, publicly subsidized private monopoly than you get to some "political-industrial complex" issues. If you object to these arrangement entirely in principle, than that's effectively an objection to privately built/run transport infrastructure in general. Public only. That's not that unusual a position.
I think that's fine, but I still don't see the hostility towards the idea of hyperloop or Elon Musk. Hyperloop is a concept/design. You could build it without Musk. You could build it without private money.
The entire point is that there is no problem with private transportation, as that's on the risk of private individuals instead of the common tax payer. You can have a system like the Hong Kong rail, operated and owned by MTR Corporation Limited. A monopoly that is profitable without subsidy by government but instead by companies; it remains one of the cheapest transportation services in the world. It pays for the privilege of being a monopoly to the government of Hong Kong. But yes, a publicly subsidized private enterprise is the political-industrial complex; and it's becoming more rampant at the expense of competition, along with the tax payers. The Hong-Kong MTR demonstrates that there is no reason why tax payers need to subsidize significant private risk, when private individuals can do it alone, especially in cases where they stand to benefit the most. If Elon Musk was so sure of his technology, he wouldn't hesitate in taking a loan.
Refer to my initial comment. Elon Musk is using massive subsidies to support his businesses, and Hyper-loop will be no different (even escaping externality costs). A mag-lev train is not speculative, a subway system is not speculative. There are many cheaper ways to create a transportation system for similar performance. Musk's isn't particularly needed at all, he is solving a problem that doesn't really exist. There would be no problem if the technology is proven to be significantly beneficial to everyone. There would be no problem with a private company paying and taking the risk on a large-scale Hyper-loop. But in Musk's current attempts, he is creating a redundant enterprise that only benefits the rich, at the expense of the common tax payer, which is money that could be used in any other government branch that has proven benefits. In general, the government should not subsidize unproven technology being implemented at large-scale with unknown real benefits to the common tax payer.
One is investment into speculative vs proven ideas. I don't have a single/principled answer to that. Another is subsidization, though that is fairly common (almost universal) in transport . A third is monopoly. Again, almost unavoidable in transport.
I guess if you put the last two together, publicly subsidized private monopoly than you get to some "political-industrial complex" issues. If you object to these arrangement entirely in principle, than that's effectively an objection to privately built/run transport infrastructure in general. Public only. That's not that unusual a position.
I think that's fine, but I still don't see the hostility towards the idea of hyperloop or Elon Musk. Hyperloop is a concept/design. You could build it without Musk. You could build it without private money.