3 ms·

They don't prefer trains that derail. The just hate the measures which prevent the derailment. I assume the reasons are many, but here's some reasonable guesses

They don't prefer trains that derail. The just hate the measures which prevent the derailment. I assume the reasons are many, but here's some reasonable guesses, based on things I've heard in similar scenarios: * The people that live along the tracks should be grateful that the trains are crashing and spilling stuff on their land because they "create jobs" (hundreds of miles away not affecting anyone associated with the normal land use). * The religion of "regulation is always bad". Usually associated with blame that the existing regulations are really the problem - the increase in accidents after loosening the regs is just coincidence. * The cost of derailments is less than the extra profit of running unsafely. Anyone complaining about their dead overworked family members can be pointed at a different exhuasted worker making a mistake, so it's not like they have any culpability. * Maintenance costs too much and would hurt our bottom line! (also look over here instead: record profits!)

LordDragonfang 4y ago
Though uncharitable, these pretty plainly fit the pattern we've seen over an over again for this sort of crisis, which makes it likely that one or most of those points is in play. Which makes it particularly strange that the author asserts that they are "far removed from laissez faire economics, or the neo liberal model, coming out of the 1980s", since every one of these is a natural consequence of the incentive structure created by that economic model. (Unless I'm misunderstanding and the author is using "far removed" in a sense approximating "left to fester", but laissez faire incentivized those things even when fresh)
- astrange 4y ago
  The author appears to be claiming that they're running gigantic trains because the investors think owning a gigantic train makes them manlier, even though the derailment makes them less profitable. I think some businesses out there do a lot of things because it personally entertains the men who own them, but not sure about freight trains.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

Though uncharitable, these pretty plainly fit the pattern we've seen over an over again for this sort of crisis, which makes it likely that one or most of those points is in play. Which makes it particularly strange that the author asserts that they are "far removed from laissez faire economics, or the neo liberal model, coming out of the 1980s", since every one of these is a natural consequence of the incentive structure created by that economic model. (Unless I'm misunderstanding and the author is using "far removed" in a sense approximating "left to fester", but laissez faire incentivized those things even when fresh)

astrange 4y ago
The author appears to be claiming that they're running gigantic trains because the investors think owning a gigantic train makes them manlier, even though the derailment makes them less profitable. I think some businesses out there do a lot of things because it personally entertains the men who own them, but not sure about freight trains.