9 ms·
> why Wall Street greed would prefer trains that derail to ones that don’t? Because they can offload most of the costs of the derailments as externalities whil
by shkkmo 5y ago
> why Wall Street greed would prefer trains that derail to ones that don’t?
Because they can offload most of the costs of the derailments as externalities while pocketing the money from larger trains.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> they can offload most of the costs of the derailments as externalities while pocketing the money from larger trains Are derailments cash-flow neutral? (Honest question. Could be, if the public foots clean-up and insurance the train and lost revenue.)
- shkkmo 5y agoEven if not "cash-flow neutral", if any significant portion of the cost of a derailment is externalized, then carrier's appetite for derailment risk will be higher and there will be larger trains. The solution here would seem to be penalizing derailments using a large fine that is proportional or progressive to weight or length.
- throwawayboise 5y agoI'm not sure what portion of derailment costs are externalized. I've seen a few in town, none that involved hazmat spills thankfully, mostly coal trains. But the repair of the rail and track bed, hiring of services to lift the derailed cars back onto the track, repair of damaged cars, etc. is all going to be on the railroad. Loss or damage to the cargo would be on the owner of the cargo as in any shipping scenario, but they should be insured for that. If there was damage to private property, a hazmat spill contaminating private land, or injury or loss of life, the railroad is going to get sued.
- shkkmo 5y agoThe major specific externality called out in the letter is engineer burnout. I would be surprised if other costs are not significantly externalized, but I don't have data to back this up. Not all the externalities mentioned are specific to derailments, but also apply to the general difficulty of our infrastructure in supporting such long trains.
- refurb 5y agoYour reasons are unconvincing. A rail company that burns out its engineers now has to either deal with a low performing engineer or come up with the costs and delays of retraining another engineer. And a derailment sounds like a massive cost to a rail company. You need to clear the tracks (which can't be used until you do), probably pay higher insurance costs for the material you are transporting that is lost, etc, etc
- Invictus0 5y agoI don't see this as a Wall Street problem though; they should be able to optimize for their incentives within the rules structure. It's the regulators fault for allowing trains to be this long.
- Swenrekcah 5y agoIt's both a Wall Street problem and incompetent/corrupt government problem.
- Invictus0 5y agoWhy is it a Wall Street problem?
- dredmorbius 5y agoPublicly-held corporations, and earnings.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Swenrekcah 5y agoBecause you cant do unethical and societally harmful things and say it’s not your fault cause it’s not illegal. I mean, sure you can legally, but you’re still a harmful entity with a problem.
- Invictus0 5y agoDo you want wishful thinking or solutions? Wall St has no conscience, it never has and it never will. Let's move past that and build a structure of laws that enforces the ethics we care about.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago