34
35

Amtrak Is Stupid (youtube.com)

Kuldebar が 投稿

全 86 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]snex00 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Wouldn't it be great if America were more like Socialist Europe or Japan with their high speed bullet trains?

Oh, those train systems are privately owned? Well it's only because those countries are Socialist!

[–]pilotmknAnCap 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (4子コメント)

To be clear, the government usually owns and maintains the tracks overseas and the private operators own the locomotives and rolling stock. But then again, Amtrak doesn't own most of the track it operates over and still can't earn a profit so it's still a good example.

[–]NouberNou 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That actually makes it a bad example... If Amtrak had the ability to build and own its own infrastructure then they could compete much more capably with automobiles, bus, and airlines in commuter situations. The fact that they do not own the right of way (except for in some limited areas, like the NEC, where low and behold they are actually a capable and well used commuting system) is a major factor in why their service is not profitable. They are often not given priority on BNSF/UP lines in the west, and can be delayed for hours at a time to let priority freight through.

Again though, like I was arguing with the parent comment author, rail systems tend to not earn profit from their operations. JR only became profitable after the private companies that were formed after the state corporation split up invested in real estate. Does that mean that JR should ditch their non-profitable rail sector and just do real estate? No, of course not. Rail is an essential service, and their real estate investments would lose money if the rail system faltered.

Profit should not be the only motive, and there are some projects, commuter rail systems being one of them, that only make sense as government projects because there will never be a profit return, but the marked good they do for the society as a whole is clear.

If an-cap philosophy wants to argue that these systems can be built and somehow make profit I'd love to see a thesis on that, but I think the ideology itself is one that generally needs to accept that these sorts of things can not and would not be built under an anarchist system because they are not profit producing, especially in the short term. You would have to deplete massive capital reserves to get any initial return on that investment.

Even the United States, where private rail roads have always been dominate only were successful because the government granted them land rights on either side of the track that they built, essentially turning them into massive land owners. The actual rail road operations didn't become profitable until much much much later when capital investment costs decreased substantially (initial investment versus maintaining that investment). The US rail system, although 100% private, would not exist today with out the land rights guaranteed by the government to make the investment worthwhile for the private companies that built them.

[–]pilotmknAnCap 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Bullshit

Track is extremely expensive and labor intensive to maintain. Anybody who lives near a busy mainline can attest to how many workers and specialized equipment are constantly moving around to maintain the track. So, the fact that Amtrak gets to use freight track essentially for free, that they don't pay to maintain and STILL cant turn a profit is insane.

[–]NouberNou 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hard to turn a profit when you are sometimes averaging 24 hour delays due to being sided with no control over your priority what so ever. The fact is that UP/BNSF do not give two fucks about passenger service, so they shit can Amtrak trains regularly. I am not saying Amtrak would be profitable, but they'd close the gap to a significant degree and they'd require less subsidization than they do now.

[–]pilotmknAnCap 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You get what you pay for. Amtrak pays like 2 cents/mile trackage rights. I'd get pissy too if you were allowed to beat up my property by law and then I had to pay for the majority of the upkeep while you contributed pennies

[–]NouberNou 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (20子コメント)

You do realize that the Japanese bullet train system (and most of it's traditional rail system) was state owned up until the 1980s right? The only way that the system was built was through massive public investment. When they privatized the system due to the scale of this investment the private companies took it on themselves to increase spending on infrastructure even more and also began to heavily invest in real estate to fund it.

The fact of the matter is that the Japanese system, the best system in the world, having moved over 6 billion people since it's inception with out a single train related fatality, would never have been built by a private company because it would have sunk them. These are systems that can only realistically be built with public money because there is no inherent profit motive. The fact that the private companies continued to improve is also more a testament to Japanese business culture than anything else too. You'd not see that in the US in this day and age (look at our private rail companies, their capital improvement projects are a joke, they maintain at the bare minimum an ever dwindling system of trackage).

Please do a little research before you make broad sweeping comments about systems you do not understand.

[–]snex00 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You do realize that the Japanese bullet train system (and most of it's traditional rail system) was state owned up until the 1980s right?

1980s.. why does that seem so familiar? Oh, it's when their train system became the modern marvel that it is today!

The fact of the matter is that the Japanese system, the best system in the world, having moved over 6 billion people since it's inception with out a single train related fatality, would never have been built by a private company because it would have sunk them.

The train system that is now profitable would have sunk the initial investors? I think you need to retake 2nd grade mathematics.

[–]NouberNou 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

The only reason it is profitable now is because of the real estate business that the JR companies also run. It subsidizes a large amount of their operations. This is something that JR couldn't do when it was a state company.

The initial investment was incredibly significant. It operated at a loss for 30 years while the infrastructure grew, and while private JR has expanded lines, the main lines, the Tokaido, Tohoku, and Sanyo lines were all built under the state run corporation.

Show me a private company or an investor that can operate at a loss for 30 years and invest the capital needed to build out the infrastructure for something like that. They didn't know at the start if it'd ever be profitable, hell they didn't know when they privatized it if it'd be profitable either. The system was built for the common good, bar none, and profit was never the major motivator.

[–]snex00 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Show me a private company or an investor that can operate at a loss for 30 years and invest the capital needed to build out the infrastructure for something like that.

Governments do not magically bring wealth into existence. If a government can take a 30 year loss on existing wealth in order to generate a profit later, so can private industry. That wealth was already there to invest. If your investment plan is so harebrained that it can only be funded with theft, instead of by convincing investors that they can start profiting in 30 years, then that means people don't actually believe it will be profitable 30 years later, or their time preference simply isn't that long - and that's their right.

No doubt you just sweep under the rug all of those government-funded projects that lost money not just for 30 years, but for hundreds, and will never generate any profit for anybody. But that one time they got lucky? Yeah, you'll never shut the fuck up about that one.

[–]NouberNou -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

My point is that government can invest in projects that will never have a monetary return on that investment and they can do that because of how they are funded, and if those projects serve some sort of common benefit then they are worth it.

I honestly do not know what you are trying to argue though so I am going to just let you ramble. I proved my point, and you seem to just be spouting random gibberish back.

[–]snex00 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

My point is that government can invest in projects that will never have a monetary return on that investment

No they can't. Such projects are unsustainable and will eventually collapse one way or the other. Governments are not immune from the laws of economics.

and if those projects serve some sort of common benefit then they are worth it.

If those projects served some sort of common benefit, then they would be voluntarily funded without governments.

[–]NouberNou 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wow you let your ideology get in the way of reality, and not even a biased interpretation of reality, but like what actually happens in economics.

Lets say government always makes $100 every year. Lets say trains cost the government $10 every year. Lets say that the trains only make $5 every year on their own. Therefore the government has to pay the other $5. That is a basic description of a subsidy. If the government is making money in some other place it can afford to cover the costs of something not making money in another.

This also works in private industry, like I demonstrated with the Japanese Rail companies. The trains operate at a loss still. They are funded by JR's real estate investment holdings (hotels, shopping malls, apartments, etc). As long as the total amount of money coming in is greater than the amount going out then they can subsidize portions of their operations that operate a loss.

Your laws of economics seem to not include some pretty basic parts, so again, you can keep rambling because I am done.

[–]snex00 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lets say government always makes $100 every year. Lets say trains cost the government $10 every year. Lets say that the trains only make $5 every year on their own.

Let's say reality worked like in your fantasyland and upkeep and depreciation costs were constant every year. Let's say there is no such thing as inflation - which the government also causes. Let's say nobody ever invents a new technology that renders those trains obsolete, which could only be researched by saving that money instead of spending it on trains. Let's say your Keynesian bullshit is really true - aren't we better off spending that money on consumption?

Maybe this is why "mainstream economics" is so full of shit? You guys don't get how things actually work.

[–]YesYesLibertariansIgnorance of The Law is no excuse 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lets say government always makes $100 every year. Lets say trains cost the government $10 every year. Lets say that the trains only make $5 every year on their own. Therefore the government has to pay the other $5. That is a basic description of a subsidy. If the government is making money in some other place it can afford to cover the costs of something not making money in another. This also works in private industry...

Yes, the nature of a subsidy is that it is something consumers aren't willing to support enough for it to stand on its own, so the program survives on the largess of the proprietor.

The difference between a subsidy in the market, like say Amazon practically giving away their high-powered mobile devices, and a subsidy by government ala Amtrak, is this: The former is funded by ventures consumers demand so highly that they'll pay enough to support them plus some other experiment they might not even know about. The latter is funded either by the excess grift from some other state boondoggle nobody wants, or the literal raiding of non-customers.

[–]HamsterPants522Anarcho-Capitalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My point is that government can invest in projects that will never have a monetary return on that investment and they can do that because of how they are funded, and if those projects serve some sort of common benefit then they are worth it.

The value of those services is subjective, varying from individual to individual, so forcing everyone to pay for it is horrible if you happen to believe that stealing is wrong. It's also harmful to the economy, because that money could be going to things that the previous owners of it would have voluntarily invested in that were more valuable to them.

[–]PhrenicoAncap 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

These are systems that can only realistically be built with public money because there is no inherent profit motive

Last I checked, transportation is a private good. Thus, if people value it, it will be built.

[–]NouberNou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

You actually believe someone will be willing to invest tens of billions, even hundreds of billions of dollars for a return that they will not see in their life time?

[–]snex00 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You actually believe that unless one company builds an entire national railway system in one of the largest countries on earth, no such system can ever get built?

[–]NouberNou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

No one is stopping them from doing it now... So why haven't they?

[–]snex00 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You obviously missed the point of my post, which was that nobody would invest tens of billions in building an entire national transit system in America, but people would invest tens of millions in local and regional systems, which could then be linked together.

But with respect to your irrelevant question, you already know the answer. Governments either straight up disallow such things, or they put up insane barriers to entry which are equivalent to disallowing them. Whenever open competition is allowed, even despite the fact that governments can offer lower prices at point-of-use since they can extort the rest from taxpayers and subsidize it, free market alternatives blow them out of the fucking water. It's no wonder they instead choose to simply disallow competition. They can't handle the embarrassment.

[–]strayadviceBe free in the realization that there are no states 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The reason Amtrak was setup was because the private companies could not keep up with providing passenger rail service, not the other way. The reason was the passenger rail lost demand. It shouldn't matter then, it should be left to die, just like any industry attempting to provide a service that lacks demand. However, the problem is that the demand for transportation exists, and is largely met by excessive spending on roads.

[–]Waxy473 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes and no just prior to Amtrak the U.S. Had an amazingly fast, developed and modern rail system that make current high speed rail talks laughable. We had several of the worlds fastest scheduled passenger trains including the fastest the Hiawathata, then the Cold War building projects began interstates and airports both subsidized or just completely on the governments dime which wouldn't have hurt the passenger train much on its own, but at the same time safety regs to continue to operate at the speeds they were going were increased with out subsidization. This lead the railroads to allow speed limits to drop and shift away from passenger and express services and go towards bulk goods with higher profit margins.

[–]snex00 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The reason was the passenger rail lost demand.

Passenger rail lost demand because the government decided to spend our resources and our population who would otherwise demand things on WW2. When the war was over, the demand for all sorts of transportation returned, but the government was not about to let go of these cash cows it had seized.

[–]Waxy473 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The regional transit systems is a good idea and the trend that rail service is going toward. However it presents logistical nightmares vs just using a national carrier. Source I'm a conductor who believes that it is the freight road obligation to provide passenger service under their charters as common carriers.

[–]snex00 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Logistical nightmares" - sounds like job creation to me. When you look at some logistical problem and say "This is too hard for me, therefore it must be too hard for everyone, therefore the government should point guns at people and just take their money by force to 'solve' it." it says more about you than it says about the underlying problem that needs solving.

[–]PhrenicoAncap 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

even hundreds of billions of dollars for a return that they will not see in their life time?

Of course. I can half-build a business for the next 10 years of my life and then sell it for a large profit to someone who will finish building it (or sell it to the next guy).

It's the same reason why stocks have value in between dividend payments.

This is basic stuff, dude.

[–]Somalia_Bot 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

EnoughLibertarianSpam loves this subreddit so much they crosslinked us again. Keep up the great work!

[–]TotesMessenger -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)

[–]YesYesLibertariansIgnorance of The Law is no excuse 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

neo-confederate