3 ms·
Definitely no bias in the take you linked... Whatever you wanna say about how regulation worked out for trains in the US, the situation in the early era of US
by kiliantics 9y ago
Definitely no bias in the take you linked...
Whatever you wanna say about how regulation worked out for trains in the US, the situation in the early era of US rail was not a good one. It was one of the worst monopolies we've seen and was terrible for the workers.
- rayiner 9y agoWhat bias? As far as I can tell, the author has no connection to the rail industry.[1] As to your other point, the fact that early rail monopolies were bad doesn't mean that ICC-style regulation was good. You can have labor protections, antitrust enforcement, and safety regulations without having the government be involved in deciding how much a trip from Chicago to Milwaukee should cost. There is a reason there was a bipartisan effort to get rid of those regulatory regimes in the 1960s-1990s, and why Europe copied those reforms in the 1980s-2000s. [1] If you're referring to the fact that the article appears in the American Conservative, merely being conservative is not a "bias." In any event, left-leaning organizations like the Brookings Institute have featured similar coverage: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-success-of-the-staggers-rail-act-of-1980 https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-success-of-the-stagge....
- kiliantics 9y agoI wouldn't call Brookings left-leaning. Centre-right or better neoliberal. I agree with your points though, the rail situation in the US is awful. Good regulation is hard to do, especially in a place where regulators typically do not share the interests of the people they are in the service of. I don't think Europe copying the reforms you mention is necessarily a good endorsement of them. The rail situation in (at least Western) Europe has also become quite bad.