Germany is the size of New Mexico, with the Worlds 4th laregst economy.
France is the size of Texas, with teh Worlds 5th largest economy.
Japan is the size of California, with half the entire U.S. Population (127 million or so), and the World 3rd largest economy.
China, lol Communists and High-Speed Train Disasters. Having High-Speed is easy if you want it in a country with no freedom or work laws and the 2nd largest economy on Earth.
And the U.S. has a high-speed train too, in the best area to have one (highly dense East Coast cities), you simply chose to represent the slow one in the picture.
Overcoming the massive nature of the United States, the nature of our Nation (large Cities spread far far apart in different States in a State-Manages-Infrastructure system, in a system where all States want the same level of service despite not having the same need, and have the power via representation to make that happen), and the limited usefulness of High-Speed Rail in a Country such as ours (with Air Travel, the need of High-Speed for most areas is almost non-existant, and rail costs the end user just as much) all count against the development of High-Speed rail.
Comparing tiny countries, with massive economies, with us is apples and oranges. High-Speed makes sense in small rich countries, nations who did not invest in highways to the same degree we did, and who don't have to cover teh same amount of space we do. For the U.S., rail makes the mopst sense as a lower-cost-but slower long-distance alternative to air, and (even more) as the local transit services brinign people in from the burbs into the cities (a la LIRR). These servcies are much cheaper and easier to manage, and serve vastly more people than any U.S. HSR system would under any projection.
TLDR: Spend rail money on Amtrak (for long-haul, Nation-wide), and on local commuter rail, lihgt-rail and the like for cities that warrant it.