The Harvard Crimson (see the disclosures here) has an editorial declaring that a shutdown by regulators of a private interstate bus line is a good reason for more government spending on Amtrak:
While buses may have their place delivering children to school and ferrying tourists around a city, there are few compelling arguments to why they should be relied upon for long distance transportation. At the moment, trains serve as the perfect surrogate. But a rise in demand must be met with a commensurate rise in supply. We hope America's policymakers understand this basic point of introductory economics and bolster support for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, otherwise known as Amtrak.
Maybe they've changed the introductory economics curriculum since I went to college (Greg Mankiw, call your office!), but as I recall it, the idea that supply meets demand applies to a private, free market, not to public demand for a subsidized government service whose provision is constrained by the willingness of elected representatives to fund it by taxing, borrowing, printing money (and thus debasing the currency, which is a kind of tax itself), or reducing spending on other projects that are also in high demand. If there were more conservatives on campus they might be able to talk some sense into the Crimson editorialists on these matters, but, alas, the Crimson editorialists seem to be doing their best to prevent any from even enrolling at the college.
