4 ms·

Amtrak are freeloading on privately built and maintained railways. If they want better track alignments, or prioritisation over other users, they should come t

Amtrak are freeloading on privately built and maintained railways. If they want better track alignments, or prioritisation over other users, they should come to a commercial agreement with the infrastructure owners like anyone else. Alternatively, they can build their own infrastructure.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
Railroads in the US run through land donated by the government, on tracks given to the railroads by the government, supported with funds from the government. Despite all that aid, the government has had to step in with additional funding to ensure they don't go bankrupt many times, especially in the 1920s, 1930s, 1970s, 2000s, and during COVID. Fulfilling their legal obligations to Amtrak is the least they could do. It's worth noting that the corridors where Amtrak did build dedicated track have the fewest delays and the best safety in the network.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  It was sold by the government in return for the railroad being built. Every bankruptcy was the direct result of government intervention. The railroads did their part, in spite of being hamstrung at every step by the government.
  - rz2k 3y ago
    I think you’ve misunderstood the arrangement. They were not granted the land where the rails were laid alone. They were granted vast amounts of additional real estate, and the value of that land could have maintained the railways in perpetuity. However, similarly vast fortunes were extracted from the railways instead, and the generational wealth created during these events in the 1800s has proved more durable than the commercial viability of the rails that the country had intended to support.
    - specialist 3y ago
      Yup. Those massive land grants begat timber companies. Which in turn begat real estate and development companies. The story's similar for ranching, mining, power, telecommunications, etc, etc. TLDR: The government is the source of all wealth. Which is terrific. So long as the government's ongoing investments are repaid in kind.
      - rz2k 3y ago
        You could also say that people choose a system that creates an environment for them to thrive and attracts more people who then also thrive.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        >TLDR: The government is the source of all wealth. Which is terrific. So long as the government's ongoing investments are repaid in kind. Governments are important but I think this is terrible logic. The government didn't use magic to create the land out of nothing. It also seems to imply some sort of Perpetual debt, which can never be repaid. Like a parent that claim stuff on everything a child makes or creates. If the government grants or sells land, the obligations end at the terms of sale.
        specialist 3y ago
        I don't understand your objection. You don't like the mental model (worldview)? I gleened it from conservative economist Kevin Phillips' book Wealth & Democracy. I assume it's bog standard economic world building. Nothing I've read since has contradicted Phillips. (I'm noob, not some kind of economist. Though I did get to chat with Phillips one time and I felt like I understood his answers.) What mental model do you prefer? Or maybe you object to the implications ("logic") of this model. That notions like property, wealth, and government are social constructs. Just shared fictions which hopefully make the world a little bit more predictable (legible), without too much extra effort, so we can all muddle thru our daily lives.
        specialist 3y ago

AlotOfReading 3y ago

Railroads in the US run through land donated by the government, on tracks given to the railroads by the government, supported with funds from the government. Despite all that aid, the government has had to step in with additional funding to ensure they don't go bankrupt many times, especially in the 1920s, 1930s, 1970s, 2000s, and during COVID. Fulfilling their legal obligations to Amtrak is the least they could do. It's worth noting that the corridors where Amtrak did build dedicated track have the fewest delays and the best safety in the network.

johngladtj 3y ago
It was sold by the government in return for the railroad being built. Every bankruptcy was the direct result of government intervention. The railroads did their part, in spite of being hamstrung at every step by the government.
- rz2k 3y ago
  I think you’ve misunderstood the arrangement. They were not granted the land where the rails were laid alone. They were granted vast amounts of additional real estate, and the value of that land could have maintained the railways in perpetuity. However, similarly vast fortunes were extracted from the railways instead, and the generational wealth created during these events in the 1800s has proved more durable than the commercial viability of the rails that the country had intended to support.
  - specialist 3y ago
    Yup. Those massive land grants begat timber companies. Which in turn begat real estate and development companies. The story's similar for ranching, mining, power, telecommunications, etc, etc. TLDR: The government is the source of all wealth. Which is terrific. So long as the government's ongoing investments are repaid in kind.
    - rz2k 3y ago
      You could also say that people choose a system that creates an environment for them to thrive and attracts more people who then also thrive.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >TLDR: The government is the source of all wealth. Which is terrific. So long as the government's ongoing investments are repaid in kind. Governments are important but I think this is terrible logic. The government didn't use magic to create the land out of nothing. It also seems to imply some sort of Perpetual debt, which can never be repaid. Like a parent that claim stuff on everything a child makes or creates. If the government grants or sells land, the obligations end at the terms of sale.
      - specialist 3y ago
        I don't understand your objection. You don't like the mental model (worldview)? I gleened it from conservative economist Kevin Phillips' book Wealth & Democracy. I assume it's bog standard economic world building. Nothing I've read since has contradicted Phillips. (I'm noob, not some kind of economist. Though I did get to chat with Phillips one time and I felt like I understood his answers.) What mental model do you prefer? Or maybe you object to the implications ("logic") of this model. That notions like property, wealth, and government are social constructs. Just shared fictions which hopefully make the world a little bit more predictable (legible), without too much extra effort, so we can all muddle thru our daily lives.
      - specialist 3y ago