Posted on 11/02/2013 11:02:24 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Do you call this the “Railroad Unification Act”?
1- probably not
2- It’s definitely not conservative or “free market”
The Railroad Unification Board would oversee this I guess?
That’s one of the controversies with antitrust legislation, because the government gets involved, nominally to stop a large concern from smothering potential competition; but what happens is that the competition they claim to be fostering does not materialize.
With regard to Conrail, it looks like you've completely missed the key point I made previously about the establishment of that company in the 1970s. Those areas in the Northeast that no longer have rail service today weren't going to have rail service anyway. Most of those railroads were going to be out of business anyway, and their assets were going to be sold off in bankruptcy. Blaming the loss of rail service in the Northeast on Conrail is like blaming the loss of Studebaker on General Motors.
The government is not a bank. If it makes economic sense, the banks would be happy to give them a loan.
2. Maybe you're right, but then you can probably make the same case about all of this country's anti-trust law.
That’s a distorted picture. The overregulation and taxation combined with government-instituted highway competition is what hurt the railroads in the northeast the most. There was absolutely no reason for either Amtrak or Conrail to come into existence when repealing of both of those aforementioned onerous burdens (as well as the government stepping back from their “investment” in highways, which they’ve turned into an entitlement program when they advertised that it would become no such thing) would have helped them return to competitiveness, and even to profitability.
That’s certainly correct.
I can’t think of too many cases where a bank would give a loan for a project where the collateral is basically a piece of publicly-owned infrastructure. What recourse does a bank have if the owner of the Tappan Zee Bridge defaults on a $1.6B loan?
exactly
Government is not a piggy bank nor is it a bank.
If the railroads want a bridge, let them build it.
That’s also a distorted picture. With the “overregulation” came a very important concession to the railroad industry: the government has the authority to prohibit railroad unions from going on strike. Can you imagine a scenario where a president would call out Federal troops to quell a strike at a newspaper or an auto plant, for example, like you had in the past with railroad strikes?
A railroad would float its own bonds. In the case of the Tappen Zee Bridge, it’s a highway bridge.
I'll check in tomorrow morning before heading off to work.
Good night, fellas!
The history of railroad unionization is certainly a messy scenario. But take note that some railroads in the past that never unionized (IIRC the PRR), were forced to unionize by the federal government.
But are you sure you aren’t getting things mixed up with New York state’s Taylor Act, which applies to public sector unions? Over in San Francisco, SEIU recently went on strike against BART.
I just do not think that subsidizing private industry in any way is something that government should be doing.
Why a “loan”? Why bother? Just make it a grant and be done with it, the facade is annoying
Total cost for new bridge is in excess of 7 Billion
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.