4 ms·

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:

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.
      - jhgjgjfjhgjh 4y ago
        The USPS loses money heavily delivering to remote areas.
    - dgoldstein0 4y ago
      Most interaction with USPS is at (residential) mailboxes. Sure, post office service is not great but they do a decent job of moving letters, post cards, and packages in a relatively timely manner - and the service for letters and postcards is damn cheap. In now remote / rural areas of the US, no for profit company would bother providing service, as it is wouldn't be profitably - but USPS serves everyone.
      - jhghgfhgf 4y ago
        It's "damn cheap" because it's being subsidized heavily by US taxpayers. "The United States Postal Service (USPS) on Wednesday reported a net loss of $4.9 billion for the year ending Sept. 30."
        msrenee 4y ago
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Historically (pre-1900ish), the US Post Office was the quintessential American government sinecure. The qualifications for postmaster general had more to do with campaign contributions than talent or interest. Thankfully, largely reformed with the merit based civil service changes, but passing those was a struggle! So I'd be hesitant to assume than anything lucrative and government-run won't face substantial corruption pressures.
  - musicale 4y ago
    > successful and self-sustaining There was a Postal Service Reform Act of 2022[1], which apparently allows USPS to avoid funding pensions in advance, which had led to billions of dollars of debt. It also shifts new retiree health insurance to Medicare, which may be a zero sum game of sorts but good for the USPS budget. Then there's that ongoing reliance on fees for delivering junk mail... I am somewhat disappointed that there isn't a junk mail non-delivery option. At least FedEx and UPS don't deliver junk mail. Yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Reform_Act_of_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Reform_Act_of_2...
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  > US federal government certainly is not known for providing high quality service at low cost, quite the opposite in fact. Medicare is a great example to the contrary. They provide healthcare to the sickest groups, and do so with roughly 3x less overhead than the private healthcare industry.
  - jhghgfhgf 4y ago
    Medicare has a $768 billion budget per year. No US healthcare company comes close.
    - bobkazamakis 4y ago
      No other country pays more per capita for healthcare -- ofcourse it has a huge budget...
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      that's because Medicare covers all the old people that actually need healthcare while all the private companies cover much younger and therefore healthier populations
IIAOPSW 4y ago
We have an answer to that question. The answer is "Conrail" and "Amtrak". You can fairly argue that those were both very half-assed attempts to socialize the services, and were honestly both expected to fail from the start, but you can't say it hasn't been tried. The results were neither a failure nor a panacea. There is something more than a simple primary driving force like private/public interest needed to explain whats going on.
kortilla 4y ago
> But there's a recurring theme here: public money enabling private growth Not in the US. The railroad industry is built on a mountain of bankruptcies, failed mergers, etc. Look up the history of the railroad boom and busts in the US if you aren’t familiar.

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.
    - jhgjgjfjhgjh 4y ago
      The USPS loses money heavily delivering to remote areas.
  - dgoldstein0 4y ago
    Most interaction with USPS is at (residential) mailboxes. Sure, post office service is not great but they do a decent job of moving letters, post cards, and packages in a relatively timely manner - and the service for letters and postcards is damn cheap. In now remote / rural areas of the US, no for profit company would bother providing service, as it is wouldn't be profitably - but USPS serves everyone.
    - jhghgfhgf 4y ago
      It's "damn cheap" because it's being subsidized heavily by US taxpayers. "The United States Postal Service (USPS) on Wednesday reported a net loss of $4.9 billion for the year ending Sept. 30."
      - msrenee 4y ago
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Historically (pre-1900ish), the US Post Office was the quintessential American government sinecure. The qualifications for postmaster general had more to do with campaign contributions than talent or interest. Thankfully, largely reformed with the merit based civil service changes, but passing those was a struggle! So I'd be hesitant to assume than anything lucrative and government-run won't face substantial corruption pressures.
- musicale 4y ago
  > successful and self-sustaining There was a Postal Service Reform Act of 2022[1], which apparently allows USPS to avoid funding pensions in advance, which had led to billions of dollars of debt. It also shifts new retiree health insurance to Medicare, which may be a zero sum game of sorts but good for the USPS budget. Then there's that ongoing reliance on fees for delivering junk mail... I am somewhat disappointed that there isn't a junk mail non-delivery option. At least FedEx and UPS don't deliver junk mail. Yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Reform_Act_of_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Reform_Act_of_2...
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
> US federal government certainly is not known for providing high quality service at low cost, quite the opposite in fact. Medicare is a great example to the contrary. They provide healthcare to the sickest groups, and do so with roughly 3x less overhead than the private healthcare industry.
- jhghgfhgf 4y ago
  Medicare has a $768 billion budget per year. No US healthcare company comes close.
  - bobkazamakis 4y ago
    No other country pays more per capita for healthcare -- ofcourse it has a huge budget...
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    that's because Medicare covers all the old people that actually need healthcare while all the private companies cover much younger and therefore healthier populations

IIAOPSW 4y ago

We have an answer to that question. The answer is "Conrail" and "Amtrak". You can fairly argue that those were both very half-assed attempts to socialize the services, and were honestly both expected to fail from the start, but you can't say it hasn't been tried. The results were neither a failure nor a panacea. There is something more than a simple primary driving force like private/public interest needed to explain whats going on.

kortilla 4y ago

> But there's a recurring theme here: public money enabling private growth Not in the US. The railroad industry is built on a mountain of bankruptcies, failed mergers, etc. Look up the history of the railroad boom and busts in the US if you aren’t familiar.