4 ms·

Its long and complicated. Amtrak exists in the first place because once upon a time these freight operators were also the passenger operators. While today they

Its long and complicated. Amtrak exists in the first place because once upon a time these freight operators were also the passenger operators. While today they look like "extracting rent", once upon a time they were forced by regulation to carry the burden of passenger service. The situation with Amtrak was basically the government agreeing to take over that before it killed the companies, but Amtrak would retain certain rights to demand the use of rail lines which an otherwise private operator might not be able to successfully negotiate over. But its more complicated than that even. Because passenger rail was dying in the first place due to the massive subsidy the government gave to competing modes of transit in the form of the interstate highway act and later the subsidized construction of airports. So yeah, Railroads were supported by the government to begin with, but live by the subsidy die by the subsidy. So really the history of railroads isn't at all a clear cut line between private and public interest. The current "massive companies" are a shadow of what they once were. Pennsylvania RR used to have a higher annual revenue than the Federal Government itself. New York Central wasn't far behind. By the 50s, these titans were in such decline they were forced to merge into "Penn Central". By the 60s, Penn Central was dead. Could you imagine Amazon having to merge with Walmart to survive by the 2030s, and going bankrupt anyway by the 2040s? This was more extreme than that.

woodruffw 4y ago
This is all important context, and I thank you for including it. I agree it's not as clear cut as "public versus private." But there's a recurring theme here: public money enabling private growth, followed by public money softening private decline. Railroads are just one instantiation of this pattern: it shows up in agriculture, industrial manufacturing, medical and materials research, &c. At some point, it should make us stop and think about why we're transferring public money to private institutions and also paying for their mistakes, rather than just having the public institutions do the work themselves. One wonders what the US's rail infrastructure would look like had the US Government bought (and continued to operate) it outright, rather than merely socializing the losses in passenger sales.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  The railroads were sure funded by public money, but it most certainly has not been taxpayer money. Instead, it was money invested by private individuals. Government did help the railroads with vast grants of lands, but most of the value of the granted land stemmed from the railroads that were built nearby. It was in fact a great deal for taxpayers, a win-win situation. > One wonders what the US's rail infrastructure would look like had the US Government bought (and continued to operate) it outright, US federal government certainly is not known for providing high quality service at low cost, quite the opposite in fact.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    > US federal government certainly is not known for providing high quality service at low cost, quite the opposite in fact. The Post Office stands as a prime example of an extremely high quality service provided at a comparatively tiny price, and one that's successful and self-sustaining even while dealing with the immense costs of reliable delivery to extremely rural areas.
    - WillPostForFood 4y ago
      extremely high quality service Really? When's the last time you had to go do something at the post office? It is a nightmare. Dirty building with disinterested workers, and long slow lines. The bulk of the mail I receive is junk mail, and multiple times a week I get my neighbor's mail.
      - Mistletoe 4y ago
        Ok send a letter by UPS and FedEx for 60 cents to anywhere in the USA.
        kortilla 4y ago
        The thread you are replying to is complaining about the quality, not the cost.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Which begat Donald Trumps entry into speculative projects. Ladies and Gentleman! May I present to you TELEVISION CITY! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan (Now playing "Living in America" by James Brown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5BL4RNFr58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5BL4RNFr58 )
dwighttk 4y ago
> used to have a higher annual revenue than the Federal Government I’d be interested to know how much of the switch was the company shrinking and how much was government revenue going up.

woodruffw 4y ago

This is all important context, and I thank you for including it. I agree it's not as clear cut as "public versus private." But there's a recurring theme here: public money enabling private growth, followed by public money softening private decline. Railroads are just one instantiation of this pattern: it shows up in agriculture, industrial manufacturing, medical and materials research, &c. At some point, it should make us stop and think about why we're transferring public money to private institutions and also paying for their mistakes, rather than just having the public institutions do the work themselves. One wonders what the US's rail infrastructure would look like had the US Government bought (and continued to operate) it outright, rather than merely socializing the losses in passenger sales.

xyzzyz 4y ago
The railroads were sure funded by public money, but it most certainly has not been taxpayer money. Instead, it was money invested by private individuals. Government did help the railroads with vast grants of lands, but most of the value of the granted land stemmed from the railroads that were built nearby. It was in fact a great deal for taxpayers, a win-win situation. > One wonders what the US's rail infrastructure would look like had the US Government bought (and continued to operate) it outright, US federal government certainly is not known for providing high quality service at low cost, quite the opposite in fact.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > US federal government certainly is not known for providing high quality service at low cost, quite the opposite in fact. The Post Office stands as a prime example of an extremely high quality service provided at a comparatively tiny price, and one that's successful and self-sustaining even while dealing with the immense costs of reliable delivery to extremely rural areas.
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    extremely high quality service Really? When's the last time you had to go do something at the post office? It is a nightmare. Dirty building with disinterested workers, and long slow lines. The bulk of the mail I receive is junk mail, and multiple times a week I get my neighbor's mail.
    - Mistletoe 4y ago
      Ok send a letter by UPS and FedEx for 60 cents to anywhere in the USA.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        The thread you are replying to is complaining about the quality, not the cost.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

Which begat Donald Trumps entry into speculative projects. Ladies and Gentleman! May I present to you TELEVISION CITY! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan (Now playing "Living in America" by James Brown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5BL4RNFr58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5BL4RNFr58 )

dwighttk 4y ago

> used to have a higher annual revenue than the Federal Government I’d be interested to know how much of the switch was the company shrinking and how much was government revenue going up.