# Rail nationalisations may be coming down the track



## caravanman (Sep 18, 2020)

Our former British Rail public ownership of the UK rail system was broken up and sold off to several train operating companies, as well as track maintenance being performed by a different company.
Due to the Covid-19 fall in passenger numbers, it seems that once the UK Govt. financial support finishes in a few days, some train operating companies might just walk away...

BBC story about UK train Covid-19 situation...


----------



## mcropod (Sep 18, 2020)

caravanman said:


> Our former British Rail public ownership of the UK rail system was broken up and sold off to several train operating companies, as well as track maintenance being performed by a different company.
> Due to the Covid-19 fall in passenger numbers, it seems that once the UK Govt. financial support finishes in a few days, some train operating companies might just walk away...
> 
> BBC story about UK train Covid-19 situation...



Which is the capitalists' preferred economic model: privatise the profits, socialise the losses!


----------



## caravanman (Sep 18, 2020)

mcropod said:


> Which is the capitalists' preferred economic model: privatise the profits, socialise the losses!


I couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 18, 2020)

mcropod said:


> Which is the capitalists' preferred economic model: privatise the profits, socialise the losses!


No, capitalists believe in a free market. They believe that if something is losing money it deserves to go out of business. They view money losing operations as inefficient and therefore a drain on the overall economy.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 18, 2020)

Dunno, some capitalists seem happy to take public money, run essential businesses and take a profit, but run a mile when the going gets tough. There probably is a different description for them, beginning with Bas*****


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 18, 2020)

caravanman said:


> Dunno, some capitalists seem happy to take public money, run essential businesses and take a profit, but run a mile when the going gets tough. There probably is a different description for them, beginning with Bas*****


You are confusing crony capitalism for actual capitalism.

Your example is used by capitalists as an argument for why government should stay out of the private market. Capitalists do not believe that government should prop up private enterprises. They believe that the economy is best served by letting the inefficient businesses fall to the wayside. Businesses that are actually profitable in a capitalist system are profitable because they are providing something that people actually want - which is exactly the type of business that you want to encourage.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 18, 2020)

I am sure you are right, making a "profit" is all that matters in a capitalist society, no need to have a social conscience. I guess that's why America thinks that Global Warming is not it's concern, not much profit in saving the world?


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 18, 2020)

caravanman said:


> I am sure you are right, making a "profit" is all that matters in a capitalist society, no need to have a social conscience. I guess that's why America thinks that Global Warming is not it's concern, not much profit in saving the world?


Woah! Relax!

All I was pointing out was that you were incorrect as to what capitalism actually is. I was not commenting in the slightest on my personal viewpoints and, regardless, even the most diehard capitalist understands that government must provide certain functions.

That said, one of the most successful ice cream companies on the planet, Ben and Jerry's, became successful because they openly touted their social conscience. (There is some compelling research that they made a determination that their social programs were cheaper than advertising.) Many other companies have followed their lead. Profits and a social conscience can co-exist given the right circumstances.

There is also a reason why communist countries made inferior products compared to capitalist countries. Again, a company can only achieve a profit in a capitalist system if it provides something that people actually want to exchange their hard earned money for. In a communist system... not so much. You take the crap and like it!

If you look at modern day society, the countries that seem to have things figured out the best are countries that fully embrace capitalism but also offer a robust social safety net.

And before you argue that the nordic countries are socialist, please take the time to read this: Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist


----------



## jis (Sep 18, 2020)

In the modern worlds, privately run companies do not run in a vacuum. They run within a framework provided by the government for them to run in. In the process of setting up this framework decisions have to be made about which part of the total costs is born by the framework provided by the government and which part is the responsibility of the private company. Then the private company is set free to recover its part of the cost and make money by earning more than the costs allocated to it.

Just because something is run by a private company does not mean that there are no public costs, both monetary and social (unmonetized) that are implicitly involved in its successful operation. I believe the statement about socializing losses and capitalizing profits is a glib statement of this fact. Even in the wildest of laissez-faire days government (and via it, the society at large) underwrote all sorts of risks, sometimes recovering those costs through increased taxation or imputed contract payments, and sometimes not.

Even the East India Company, which was a company chartered by the Parliament to manage an entire subcontinent in effect, managed to enrich a lot of people by milking the subcontinent it was supposed to manage and even the British Government that gave it the franchise. But when things went south in 1857, it fully expected to be rescued by the British Government, and of course the government extracted its own pound of flesh by essentially "nationalizing" it, much to their own detriment eventually, when the government itself went bankrupt due to various reasons, and defaulted viz-a-ciz that subcontinent.

Now specifically the discussion about whether a service for the common good should be provided by the government IMHO is better carried out without getting enmeshed in the capitalism vs. socialism argument. It is better to discuss how the responsibilities are to be divided between the government and private entities for most efficient operation.

IMHO the British went quite a bit overboard without thinking things through based on a doctrinaire approach alone (a hope and a prayer) when they decided to franchise away everything including the infrastructure. The latter failed quite spectacularly, causing the decision to be reversed. Right now what the rail setup is in the UK resembles what the road setup is in both the UK and the US.

The infrastructure is built and maintained by the government, albeit using contracted private companies in many cases. The services using the infrastructure are provided by either private companies with no specific relation to the government or they are actually managed through grants of franchise by the government. The British rail setup at present is mostly the latter. There are bits like the ECML service (LNER) that is sort of like Amtrak in the US - a quasi in house franchisee.

When one talks of nationalizing in that context it is mostly about taking those franchises back from private companies and giving those to government subsidiaries instead. In the US Amtrak is an example of that. Typically this is done when private companies fail to meet their obligations for providing the service that the society desires to receive. As for whether things will improve as a result of this change is yet to be seen. Arguably the amount of service available today in the UK is vastly greater than was available in the waning days of British Railways, and many routes that had been discontinued have had service restored. A lot of additional money both from the government and from the private sector has also become available for deployment in support of such. In taking things back in house the question will remain as to whether the government will still be willing to continue its investment and whether and how it will cover the investments that are being made by private sources due to the stake they are given in the overall scheme of things. So as always there is now a lot of wishful thinking on the other side with no clear answers as to what will actually happen.

OK, now I am off the soap box.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 18, 2020)

The current "Conservative" govt. here in the UK have no wish to "nationalise" anything, quite the opposite of course. Funny then how "the public purse" has to step in when private businesses fail. Shareholders have had a good pay out when profits are rich, but just throw in the towel when asked to back their business in hard times?

I doubt if I will ever get off my soap box, the truth matters too much...


----------



## Asher (Sep 18, 2020)

caravanman said:


> I am sure you are right, making a "profit" is all that matters in a capitalist society, no need to have a social conscience. I guess that's why America thinks that Global Warming is not it's concern, not much profit in saving the world?


Where did you get the idea Global Warming is not a concern for Americans. You know better than that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 19, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> No, capitalists believe in a free market.


If you go by what they say maybe, but if you go by the laws they write capitalists believe in a highly regulated market that heavily favors the investor class over the needs of the poor and working class.



Exvalley said:


> You are confusing crony capitalism for actual capitalism.


Just like our actual leaders and lobbyists then. Capitalism is as capitalism does.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 19, 2020)

anumberone said:


> Where did you get the idea Global Warming is not a concern for Americans. You know better than that.



Well there is a clue when America withdrew from the Paris Climate agreement... Presidential promotion of coal use, etc, etc...

The point is that, imho, the way capitalism is all about making money, selling stuff at a profit, inventing new things to sell, using up finite resources is not actually a great plan for everyone on the planet, nor the planet itself.


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 19, 2020)

In 2019, the USA had the most significant CO2 reduction in the world on a country basis.


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 19, 2020)

caravanman said:


> The point is that, imho, the way capitalism is all about making money, selling stuff at a profit, inventing new things to sell, using up finite resources is not actually a great plan for everyone on the planet, nor the planet itself.


It’s a much more complicated issue than you are suggesting. 

The improvement in the quality of life is what motivates the desire for continued economic growth. Simply put, capitalism, for all of its faults, has improved more lives than any other economic system. And it’s not as if the communist systems have proven to be respectful of the environment. Quite the opposite. 

I agree with you that our “disposal” consumerism culture is very concerning from an environmental perspective. But as for resources, there are two ways in which value can be affected. One is what critics of economic growth tend to focus on: an increase in the quantity of production. The other way, however, is to increase the quality of what is produced.

GDP doesn’t just measure the production of goods, but also services. With increases in education, health care and other services, economic growth expands without large quantities of the Earth’s resources being consumed or the environment being harmed.

In fact, some economic growth can be good for the environment and reduce our dependence on natural resources. That includes expanding public transportation and making it more efficient, improving the energy efficiency of homes and businesses, producing more fuel-efficient vehicles, investing in non-polluting industrial processes, and cleaning up industrial waste sites.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 19, 2020)

The capitalist system is responsible for the pollution, the industrial waste. The price of cleaning up the sites, the oceans, cleaning rivers, is not included when the capitalists are running their "profitable" businesses. To claim that another system is "just as bad" does not elevate capitalism, in my opinion. 

Is the destruction of the world the price we have to pay for a "healthy economy" ?

Anyway, maybe these capitalist train companies in the UK will stick to their contracts, but I don't think they will have much of a conscience if there is no profit in it, after all that's why they are running trains, not because they like trains...


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2020)

caravanman said:


> The capitalist system is responsible for the pollution, the industrial waste. The price of cleaning up the sites, the oceans, cleaning rivers, is not included when the capitalists are running their "profitable" businesses. To claim that another system is "just as bad" does not elevate capitalism, in my opinion.


The real issue at hand is that oirrespective of whatever ism one wants to call the thing being practiced, it appears that what has been operating for the last couple of centuries is evol;ution from feudalism to olygopoly. Socialism, as in Communism in all major practices was at least as bad as capitalism if not worse. All that happened effectively is that a gang managed to get hold of the socialized businesses and combined it with a "control by terror" regime using state powers, and then proceeded to destroy the environment like never seen before.

So I would still maintain that the discussion really needs to be about what is the best governance structure to achieve the goals of clean sustainable growth instead of arguing about capitalism vs. socialism, neither of which has been practiced in pure form for obvious reasons.


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 19, 2020)

caravanman said:


> The capitalist system is responsible for the pollution, the industrial waste.


Capitalist countries began cleaning up the environment WELL before communist countries did. Actually, communist countries never really did. By contrast, Richard Nixon, a Republican, created the EPA in 1970. 

You should really read this: The Grim Pollution Picture in the Former Soviet Union


----------



## v v (Sep 19, 2020)

To help a fellow Brit out here maybe the American understanding of Socialism and the European version are different.

In the US you appear to link Communism and Socialism as very close and similar ideologies, that doesn't happen to so much in Europe, they are seen as different ideas.

It's possible to be a capitalist here with a social conscience, in the US having a social conscience could earn a 'Lefty' label I believe.

Maybe a middle ground is the way to go? Having an elected government creating rules for us all to live within, under which successful capitalists being prepared to pay their fair share of taxes and lefties to stop whinging and objecting to people who have had the gumption to earn more than their neighbour.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 19, 2020)

At the end of the day, with reference to the original topic, it does seem to me that many private companies are awarded contracts to operate "public interest" businesses, like trains, they make money for shareholders, but when things get tough, they just walk away, leaving a mess behind that the public has to then fund.
The whole capitalist v socialist/communist debate is probably a bit beyond my grasp, but come the revolution, I know which side I will be on. Yawn. 

Now, who is up for discussing the private business run shambles that is the UK Covid-19 "Test and Trace" fiasco...


----------



## Asher (Sep 19, 2020)

caravanman said:


> At the end of the day, with reference to the original topic, it does seem to me that many private companies are awarded contracts to operate "public interest" businesses, like trains, they make money for shareholders, but when things get tough, they just walk away, leaving a mess behind that the public has to then fund.
> The whole capitalist v socialist/communist debate is probably a bit beyond my grasp, but come the revolution, I know which side I will be on. Yawn.
> 
> Now, who is up for discussing the private business run shambles that is the UK Covid-19 "Test and Trace" fiasco...



One thing that is not beyond my grasp is the difference in air quality in Los Angeles from the 60s and now. I don't know know if it will continue. It's been trumped by a fool.


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2020)

caravanman said:


> At the end of the day, with reference to the original topic, it does seem to me that many private companies are awarded contracts to operate "public interest" businesses, like trains, they make money for shareholders, but when things get tough, they just walk away, leaving a mess behind that the public has to then fund.
> The whole capitalist v socialist/communist debate is probably a bit beyond my grasp, but come the revolution, I know which side I will be on. Yawn.


I am not so sure having lived through the tyranny of "Goonda Raj" fielded by a bonafide elected "Communist" government in West Bengal. West Bengal is yet to fully recover economically from that piece of tender care that it received from the Reds, while the Chief Minister's son happily went off to the US to get educated and build his career there. I bet he just lied on the visa questionnaire which asked for any Communist associations in the past. 

And trust me, I am no great sympathizer of Capitalists either. But the human beings and their inherent nature remains the same on both side. No side has the inside track on saints.

I think in addition to philosophies spouted by the proponents, I will also pay close attention to the actual track records of the people involved.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 20, 2020)

I don't imagine either system is perfect, but somehow the idea that if an area is not suitable for growing food, you send them food because _they need it, _not sell it to them to improve the economy, that fits better in my mind.

Cuba sends doctors cheaply all over the world to help, yet suffers a blockade, Why?

I am not familiar with the West Bengal situation, but do not folk suffer under the capitalist system too, with places like Detroit throwing thousands of employees out of income when "capitalists" take their capital abroad to create more profit?

It often seems to me that once a leftish govt. is elected, the capitalist interests both within and outside that country determine to bring it to it's knees. 

I don't think most folk need worry about the UK trains becoming "red", as soon as the situation picks up and profits are to be had, the conservative govt. will be happy to sell them off cheaply again to their chums...


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 20, 2020)

caravanman said:


> I don't imagine either system is perfect, but somehow the idea that if an area is not suitable for growing food, you send them food because _they need it, _not sell it to them to improve the economy, that fits better in my mind.


Yes, Venezuela and North Korea are doing a great job with feeding their people. And those poor South Koreans going hungry because they chose capitalism instead...

Capitalism creates competition, which spurs innovation and lowers prices. This has led to the ability to feed more people for much less cost than any other economic system.

I have previously supported greater social safety nets. But proven losing economic systems? I draw the line there.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 20, 2020)

My belief is that there is plenty of food available to feed the world, but it is your adherence to the need for a profit that stops the hungry being fed. I guess blockades don't exactly help either...

I wonder why you feel that folk working together, co-operating, can't spur creativity and innovation? No profit to cream off?


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 20, 2020)

caravanman said:


> My belief is that there is plenty of food available to feed the world, but it is your adherence to the need for a profit that stops the hungry being fed. I guess blockades don't exactly help either...
> 
> I wonder why you feel that folk working together, co-operating, can't spur creativity and innovation? No profit to cream off?


North Korea’s history of famine and death predates the sanctions. You have to be genuinely ignorant of history to believe that communist and (truly) socialist countries have done a better job of feeding their people.

Can cooperating spur innovation? In theory, yes. Does a profit motive lead to a significant increase in innovation? Absolutely. Compare farming productivity in the Soviet Union to that of the United States. There is a reason why grain was being shipped east.

Better agricultural practices and technology, many of them pioneered in the capitalist United States, mean we can grow much more food on a lot less land. This has resulted in people spending a much smaller percentage of their incomes on food, fewer people going hungry, and a smaller environmental footprint for our farms.

You are essentially arguing that a 1925 Ford can consistently beat a modern day F1 car in a race.

But to bring this back on topic, I believe that one reason why you see absolutely no innovation and improvement in Amtrak’s product is because, at the end of the day, they know the government will be there to ensure their survival. I do believe that the government should ensure that we have a healthy and robust passenger rail system. However, you are seeing the results of government not cooking in some motivation for Amtrak to improve their product in order to survive. Perhaps national passenger rail service should be put out to bid every so often.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 20, 2020)

I expect you are right, although it must have been a surprise when the USSR used their 1925 tractor to launch the sputnik?

What started as a humorous jibe about capitalist behaviour in the BR train industry has rather gone beyond my area of expertise.
 

"Perhaps national passenger rail service should be put out to bid every so often". Sounds like a recipe for getting rid of Amtrak? ​


----------



## Skyline (Sep 20, 2020)

anumberone said:


> Where did you get the idea Global Warming is not a concern for Americans. You know better than that.




It most definitely is not a concern for the current White House or the current Senate majority and its leadership. Let's see if the majority of citizens change those on November 3. Otherwise we as a nation will have confirmed the worst -- that indeed, Global Warming is not a concern for Americans. A sad prospect the rest of the world is hoping is just a temporary aberration and not our permanent stance.


----------



## Lana J C (Sep 20, 2020)

Please don't confuse what this president wants or believes with what Americans want or believe.


----------



## Asher (Sep 20, 2020)

Skyline said:


> It most definitely is not a concern for the current White House or the current Senate majority and its leadership. Let's see if the majority of citizens change those on November 3. Otherwise we as a nation will have confirmed the worst -- that indeed, Global Warming is not a concern for Americans. A sad prospect the rest of the world is hoping is just a temporary aberration and not our permanent stance.


America is more than this current bunch.


----------



## jis (Sep 20, 2020)

Look @caravanman, it is you that said that you know which side you would choose. I responded saying I was not sure giving a reason why. Then you apparently proceeded to attack my reason by saying "but the other side does bad stuff too", which is something that I never disagreed with in the first place. As a matter of fact I gavce a hint on how I would analyze which side to support based on all important available information and apparently that was not acceptable to you. So I give up. It is not really a rational discussion anymore.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 20, 2020)

jis said:


> Look @caravanman, it is you that said that you know which side you would choose. I responded saying I was not sure giving a reason why. Then you apparently proceeded to attack my reason by saying "but the other side does bad stuff too", which is something that I never disagreed with in the first place. As a matter of fact I gavce a hint on how I would analyze which side to support based on all important available information and apparently that was not acceptable to you. So I give up. It is not really a rational discussion anymore.




Sorry Jis,
I tend to roll all my replies into one post, I did not specifically mean all the comments to be a reply to your post, although some were. I accept your well thought out stance, and understood your position on one side v the other.
At the end of the day, this is A.U. so a rational discussion?


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 21, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> No, capitalists believe in a free market. They believe that if something is losing money it deserves to go out of business. They view money losing operations as inefficient and therefore a drain on the overall economy.


First of all, there's no such thing as a "free market." In order for markets to work, there have to be some rules.

Secondly, in our business system "losing money" is a very slippery concept, as we all should know from our discussions about the finances of Amtrak food and beverage service.  This is why any Hollywood actor worth his or her salt knows to ask his or her agent to secure a "cut of the gross," not a "cut of the net" out of any project on which they work. Hollywood producers are very talented at making sure that most of their projects make very little profit, even though they seem to be able to continue to make pictures and get financing and pay themselves very well.

In the example of the UK train operating companies, a closer look at their finances might be in order to ensure that these companies are, indeed, really "losing money," and not just skimming cash off to the favored individuals who are in charge. However, I would guess that with the decline in traffic from the COVID epidemic, there's a good chance that these companies really are losing money. But it is also possible that some of the top manager and investors are walking away with a lot of money, and that probably isn't a good idea. It's like certain businessmen who seem to have a talent for running multiple companies (even gambling casinos!) into bankruptcy, but appear to come out of that bankruptcy with more personal wealth than when they started. Again, don't know if that's the case with the UK train operating companies, but someone really should check their books closely before they let the companies walk away.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 21, 2020)

> Better agricultural practices and technology, many of them pioneered in the capitalist United States, mean we can grow much more food on a lot less land. This has resulted in people spending a much smaller percentage of their incomes on food, fewer people going hungry, and a smaller environmental footprint for our farms.



All of the above isn't necessarily a good thing. Partly because food is so cheap, we eat more of it and mu8ch more than we need, thus contributing to our national epidemic of obesity (of which I am a small part) and the attending health costs. And, having spent a good part of my career studying the effect of modern agriculture on water quality, I can assure you that the environmental footprint of our farms is not getting "smaller." And that's just the "water quality" part.


----------



## jis (Sep 21, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> In the example of the UK train operating companies, a closer look at their finances might be in order to ensure that these companies are, indeed, really "losing money," and not just skimming cash off to the favored individuals who are in charge. However, I would guess that with the decline in traffic from the COVID epidemic, there's a good chance that these companies really are losing money. But it is also possible that some of the top manager and investors are walking away with a lot of money, and that probably isn't a good idea. It's like certain businessmen who seem to have a talent for running multiple companies (even gambling casinos!) into bankruptcy, but appear to come out of that bankruptcy with more personal wealth than when they started. Again, don't know if that's the case with the UK train operating companies, but someone really should check their books closely before they let the companies walk away.


Most of the TOCs in UK get an operating subsidy from the government. There are a couple of exceptions. But even those get a different subsidy that is then plowed back into Network Rail (the infrastructure).

The much publicized failures were of a few companies that had agreed to a contract that required significant dividend payments back to the government specially in the tail end of the franchise period. The numbers were pretty absurd to start with based on fantastic traffic projections, which of course did not materialize. Yet it was hard to make a solid case against the actual operations guys in those companies. So much so, that when LNER was taken in house, the operations side was kept intact and asked to continue doing what they were doing. The upper management was lopped off, mostly, but surprisingly again the COO remained as is in the new "nationalized" company. The financial structures of these companies and the flow of money from and to the government are part of a truly Rube Goldberg scheme. One needs to read through many volumes of good magazines like Modern Railway to get a handle on what the structure of these relationships are.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 21, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Perhaps national passenger rail service should be put out to bid every so often.


Are you sure that's a good idea?

There are only a couple existing examples of a similar policy around that I can think of.

The first are the National Park concessionaires. They put them out for bids every few years, so whoever is now running, say, the lodges at Yellowstone is not the same company that was running them when I visited in 2007. Because I don't have any long-term experience of visiting the same park under different concessionaires, I don't know how well the policy works.

However, I do have long experience as a customer of the other example, that of having certain government computer systems put out for bid every so often, and the results are disastrous. I'm thinking of a very nice automated e-requisition system we had that was replaced by a real horrible clunky mess that required multiple day training classes and it was still hard to use and unreliable. Then there was our travel management software. We finally got one that was so easy to use, even a traveler like me could set up travel authorization requests and make our own reservations with few problem, not to mention set up the voucher requests. Naturally, something that good was replaced by a piece of junk that took so much time, we needed to have clerks to do the input work for us, and they would scream in frustration (I know, because one of the clerks sat in a cubicle next to mine.) I always seemed to me that the government should have just hire the IT people and developed the software in-house. With contracting, we're paying the contractor's overhead, the cost of the actual work, and a reasonable profit for the contractor. That's in addition to the salary and overhead costs of the civil servants who manage the contracts.

When I first came to EPA, they gave me a consultant's report to review that cost them half a million dollars. They hired me because nobody in their office had the technical background to understand the report. After reading it, it seemed to me that they could have gotten he same work by hiring a civil servant scientist (or brought one over on a detail) at a fraction of the cost. Who says outsourcing saves money?  I managed enough outside contracts in my career to know that's not true.


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 22, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Are you sure that's a good idea?



My experience is much the same as MARC Rider's.

Re the National Park concessions - at one time it was a somewhat fair process, with some rigid caps on what the concessioners could charge. It is no more: the companies have been allowed to set prices inside the park to match those immediately outside; and the bidding system includes some huge payments from the new concessioner to the old, for improvement to property made by the old, so in effect the same company always gets the contract if it wants it. (The lodges in Yellowstone, in particular, were run by one company from creation to about 1980, and a second since that time. It has had 4 names, TWA -> TW -> Amfac -> Xanterra, as corporate spinoffs and mergers happened - and prices have roughly quintupled in that 40 years, vs. the tripled you'd expect due to inflation.)

Several years ago they also started contracting out campgrounds - same number of sites, similar level of service, prices doubled overnight.

I also worked for some years at a government lab. And will confirm that you, the taxpayer, got charged about 3½ times my salary for every hour of work I did. We only got Energy and Defense department contracts, because we were charging twice as much as a university would for the same work, so we weren't price-competitive for NSF or NIH money.

Replacing the contractors with government employees would be a huge savings to the government. And better for the employees, who right now have to put up with the whims of both the government (no personal use of computers, for instance) and the contractor (much less favorable retirement and vacation benefits than government employees get.)

My rule of thumb: if it is less than 1 FTE, contract it out. If it is more, hire an employee.


----------



## toddinde (Sep 22, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Are you sure that's a good idea?
> 
> There are only a couple existing examples of a similar policy around that I can think of.
> 
> ...


This outsourcing concept is just a recipe for disaster and represents slavish devotion to markets based on ideology rather than common sense. These purely emotional, religious like devotions to privatization cause fiascos like in Mexico with no passenger service at all, and Britain, with hopelessly overcrowded trains and extremely high fares.


----------



## v v (Sep 22, 2020)

toddinde said:


> and Britain, with hopelessly overcrowded trains and extremely high fares.



May I add to that a very dislocated network that used to be run as a connected whole. One of the UK's problems was poor working practices but dedicated workforce, with the main problem being massively underfunded for far too long due to ideology.

Look what happens when government fully funds a national railway aimed at success centred on the paying passenger ie: Spain, France, Germany, Holland and a few more.


----------



## jiml (Sep 23, 2020)

I'm selfishly worried about my "bucket list" tour of UK railways to knock off the ones I haven't travelled yet.


----------



## jis (Sep 23, 2020)

v v said:


> May I add to that a very dislocated network that used to be run as a connected whole. One of the UK's problems was poor working practices but dedicated workforce, with the main problem being massively underfunded for far too long due to ideology.
> 
> Look what happens when government fully funds a national railway aimed at success centred on the paying passenger ie: Spain, France, Germany, Holland and a few more.


There is nothing wrong with freight cross subsidizing passenger in a planned way as is done in India. Both thrive, and India is busy bulding an exclusive freight infrastructure get freight trains off of passenger train routes to make it better for both.


----------



## jiml (Sep 23, 2020)

jis said:


> Thereis nothing wrong with freight cross subsidizing passenger in a planned way as is done in India. Both thrive, and India is busy bulding an exclusive freight infrastructure get freight trains off of passenger train routes to make it better for both.


If only that were the case elsewhere.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 23, 2020)

It seems to me that the owners of private capital are very demanding about the rates of return they think they're entitled to in exchange for financing some enterprise. I suspect that there are a lot of business enterprises (not just passenger railway companies) that could provide a very high quality product and be financially sustainable, yet perhaps not yield the profit that the capitalists believe they deserve to skim off. As there are really no alternative sources of financing business enterprises, this probably explains why nearly everything we can buy in the "free market" nowadays is junk.

Thus, there probably is a definite role for governments to play in providing financing for stuff deemed an essential public service, even if the government doesn't operate it directly. Of course, there's no reason to think that government can't run enterprises perfectly well. After all, we don't contract with "Mercenaries-R-Us" to provide defense for our country, our government directly operates something called the "U.S. Army," and this organization is considered one of the best of its kind in the world.

Our problem is that we're blinded by ideology, mostly working in the service of the owners of private capital.


----------



## Skyline (Sep 23, 2020)

anumberone said:


> America is more than this current bunch.


I want to believe that. The truth will be told when and if all the votes are counted on or after November 3.


----------



## v v (Sep 23, 2020)

jis said:


> Thereis nothing wrong with freight cross subsidizing passenger in a planned way as is done in India. Both thrive, and India is busy bulding an exclusive freight infrastructure get freight trains off of passenger train routes to make it better for both.



Couldn't agree with you more providing we don't end up with a situation such as Amtrak's, second class citizens of the US rail world.

I do think that in general Asian countries are far more forward thinking than other regions in respect to future transport. Europe is old and extremely established/set in it's ways, perhaps part of it's charm? The UK tries harder than most to cling to the past and is currently very reactionary, much more than other countries in Europe.
The EU is trying to push forward thinking in all areas but the restrictions are often cost and lack of space, also it's not politically possible to destroy long established communities for a major project.


----------



## caravanman (Sep 24, 2020)

There is a big difference when comparing India to other places. In India all the trains are well used, often fully booked months in advance for the cheaper fares. It seems capacity, rather than fare price and lack of popularity hold back the passenger rail growth there.
I am always astonished that private companies can be expected to provide a "better" product than a public service provider, and yet make a worthwhile profit for shareholders out of the contract too? There must be somewhere that profit comes from? Efficiencies is always the magic explanation, but lower wages, conditions, of employees, etc, often create that profit instead.


----------



## jis (Sep 24, 2020)

In India the limited privatization that is being talked about is entirely limited to premium trains, which run at a profit today. Also it is only of OBS mostly, though there is occasional talk about the private companies bringing their own rolling stock. But so far that is just talk. The necessary groundwork for that has not even started yet. IR has to set up the bureaucracy for standards enforcement and certification regime for such to happen.

Freights do not subsidize those. The subsidy is for non premium trains and specially for suburban service, which is intense and is the most intensely used and with almost eye poppingly low fares.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2020)

Wales takes the lead on re-nationalization...









Transport for Wales rail services to be nationalised


Ministers step in to "stabilise the network and keep it running" as income plummets due to Covid.



www.bbc.com


----------



## sttom (Oct 22, 2020)

Who would have guessed trying to run public services for profit wouldn't turn out too well for either the public or the company.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2020)

jis said:


> Wales takes the lead on re-nationalization...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scotland will probably be next, when the current franchise expires in 2022 it will not be renewed and the government has promised to consider public ownership. And the Scottish government *is* cost conscious!

Northern Ireland Railways never managed to get really franchised out because no private company wanted to touch it, what with the potential for terrorist bombings and all. So it's run by a vertically integrated government-owned company.

Two English Franchises are government-run now: Northern Trains and LNER. That's pre-pandemic.

The franchise system is ending.


----------



## jiml (Mar 10, 2021)




----------



## Ziv (Mar 10, 2021)

The amusing thing about the Kyoto Protocols is that the only developed nation that is even close to cutting their emission levels back to the levels they were at in 1990 is the US, famously a non-signer of the agreement. And they did it, in the main, by simply shifting from coal to natural gas for production of electricity, which was possible due to the efficiencies that capitalism (and fracking) brought to the natural gas market. Natural gas is much cheaper of late than it used to be and that has led to a reduction in the use of coal, and in turn to our greenhouse gas emission dropping by much more than the other G-20 nations. Most of whom signed onto the Kyoto Protocol but have failed to make meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.








Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org








caravanman said:


> I am sure you are right, making a "profit" is all that matters in a capitalist society, no need to have a social conscience. I guess that's why America thinks that Global Warming is not it's concern, not much profit in saving the world?


----------



## caravanman (Mar 10, 2021)

I bow to your superior knowledge, it surprises me though, as your recent President was such a fan of digging coal up and building oil pipelines. Maybe the fact that US business men shut their steel works, factories, etc, and transfered the work overseas for cheap labour helped reduce emissions in the US itself?


----------



## neroden (Mar 14, 2021)

Natural gas emissions were underreported; there's a ton of fugitive gas emissions. So it's funny accounting. The only thing which has made a real impact is the shift away from fossil-burning, which is happening worldwide but only really starting to show up in the numbers in the last few years.


----------



## Ziv (Mar 14, 2021)

I don't know about superior knowledge. LOL! 
Trump backed coal because it got him votes, not because it was a good energy source for generating electricity. And the US has actually seen a small renaissance in manufacturing jobs since the price of natural gas has fallen from its "recent" highs between 2003 and 2008. Nat gas averaged more than $8 then but of late it has stayed below $4 most of the time. We lost a ton of manufacturing jobs from 1997 to 2010 but from 2012 to 2019 we actually saw small but steady gains in manufacturing employment. The US has gotten more efficient at production while using less energy which in turn is part of the reason that our GHG emissions have been falling but replacing coal plants with nat gas plants has been crucial.
One interesting aspect of this is that when you look at G-20 nations the US is doing better than almost all of them in reducing GHG emissions. And we are not a part of the Kyoto Agreement, while almost all of them are. So maybe if the rest of the countries would leave the agreement maybe their emissions would fall as much as the US emissions have dropped. ;-)









U.S. enjoys best manufacturing jobs growth of the last 30 years


Some food for thought: the U.S. had as many people working in the manufacturing sector in December as it did 69 years ago.




www.marketwatch.com







caravanman said:


> I bow to your superior knowledge, it surprises me though, as your recent President was such a fan of digging coal up and building oil pipelines. Maybe the fact that US business men shut their steel works, factories, etc, and transfered the work overseas for cheap labour helped reduce emissions in the US itself?


----------

