Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I'll make this simple so that even the lefties can understand: Import intermodal < revenue adequacy captive domestic production > revenue adequacy [/quote] I find it funny that a so called "conservative" doesn't understand the concept of a company making money, even after using the term "revenue" after the less than and more than signs. The key word is "Revenue" as in "the company making money" (wow, you'd almost think we had an economic system that encourages such a thing). Like it or not, the powers that be in DC have pushed us into the trade with China, and the freight will have to be moved (IIRC that's what the BNSF does). Do you honestly think that them turning down the business will suddenly make your world all rosy again? A small business reality: another transportation company will take the business of moving the freight. If the money is there to pay the transportation bill, it will be moved. BNSF sounds like they're going after the business first. [/quote] Tom, Do you even have a clue as to the reference to "revenue adequacy"? And who said anything about BNSF turning down business? Certainly in past threads I have provided evidence of such. No, what we're talking about here is the fact that the lowest ratios of revenues to variable costs occur in the import intermodal business. They are barely covering their variable costs with this import "business", which means under STB definitions import intermodal actually loses money for the railroads. That's probably why they have to use revenues from captive grain and coal shippers to further expand this money losing import intermodal business. We all know that they could never use the *revenues* from import intermodal to pay for the capacity expansions of these corridors. Also, it might shock you to learn that we are not engaged in "trade" with China, so much as we are engaged in a permanent act of trade deficit expansion with China. That doesn't mean China wouldn't gladly accept our grain exports if it was the most price competitive, but because of US rail captivity the price of US grain overseas is higher than the prices of Canadian and Australian wheat. Canada addresses rail captivity by subsidizing grain exports, Australia has an open access rail system so grain exports get a competitive rail rate to port, while we in the US get the shaft from the STB with their steadfast refusal to implement the vague dust-covered competition caveats of the Staggers Act. I don't mind Chinese imports being gifted by competitive rail rates, as long as our domestic producers get the same gift. If the railroads are going to give it away, they should give it away to their fellow Americans, not a neo-communist regime.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag