Yeah unfortunately I believe the last "good" Economy was under George Bush. You need 3%+ GDP for a healthy economy in my opinion. We really do not know where we stand with unemployment due to bad government statistic gathering.
Whomever the next President is, I hope they fix the stats gathering for the economy, unemployment, and law enforcement agencies. It would fix a lot of the arguing and protesting going on now if we at least had a decent view.
We need to see consistent 250,000+ job growth monthly. Anyhow, we have been running about 1-2% GDP growth and I think that is why the railroads are off on earnings and traffic levels. Some believe that is the new normal. I say with our high immigration levels if that is the new normal than in 20 years we will be a very second rate country with a wide division between rich and poor.
When I worked in support of GM on a EDS contract I remember the railroad marketing folks when they came to call on GM, they would be in the lobby with their nametags and RR heralds on their nametags. Union Pacific was by far the best dressed, with shoes spit-shined, suits pressed and impeccable shirt tie combinations. CSX I never saw anyone there, nor did I ever see NS. BNSF I would rate a close second to UP. Never personally saw their marketing presentations though only how they dressed while in the lobby. This was also back in 1993 so things could have changed since then.
Every thing I see and read sends the image that slow economy is a world wide phenomenom at the present time. With the interconnectedness of economies all over the globe, each affects the other. The times of the US booming and the rest of the world struggling to survive are long past.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Railroads are only one form of transportation. While coal and CBR are down, new oil and gas pipelines are being built. Has trucking's share of general freight gone up? What about waterways? You need to show that all freight transport is down before you cane make conclusions about the overall economy.
MidlandMike Railroads are only one form of transportation. While coal and CBR are down, new oil and gas pipelines are being built. Has trucking's share of general freight gone up? What about waterways? You need to show that all freight transport is down before you cane make conclusions about the overall economy.
Your funny...
I think most of us were referring to how the Federal Reserve reaches it's conclusions on the Economy. I can't guess who taught you the above but generally they are incorrect. They generally use railroad car loads for the Beige Book NOT pipeline anything, NOT barge anything. I am not sure about Trucking it's been over 22 years since I supported PhD Economists on a Economic Analysis staff. That Economics Staff as well used railroad carload reporting as a primary measure of the economy. I don't remember them using trucking either but I could have missed it.
Pipeline plus Waterway combined have less share of transportation than the rails do. Plus I believe the railways reporting on traffic is much more reliable than the above two. So thats why I suspect they exclude pipelines and internal waterways.
You can read the Federal Reserve Beige Book yourself, it is posted online.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/default.htm
Please show me or highlight the areas where it refers to Barge or Pipeline Traffic, if you can find it. I only see Railroad carloads referenced as well as container loads referenced at ports.
Up here in the Great White North, aka Canada, our economy is based on natural resources ( always has been, despite attempts and claims to the contrary). Quite often we call ourselves " haulers of water and hewers of wood". I can tell you things are way way down in the mining industry and forestry products. Many suppliers to the mining and oil and gas industry are hurting, in big trouble or closed. Commodity prices for potash, uranium, iron ore and base metal concentrates are all at very low prices. Exploration is virtually non existent as no one is interested in investing big bucks in high risk. Only one doing OK really is gold which really doesn't use rail.
I teach Mining Engineering and Geology. The graduating class from this past June was the first one ever where not one student was offered employment. One of my grads is working as a garbage man for the town. Yah, the economy is not all that healthy.
Miningman Up here in the Great White North, aka Canada, our economy is based on natural resources ( always has been, despite attempts and claims to the contrary). Quite often we call ourselves " haulers of water and hewers of wood". I can tell you things are way way down in the mining industry and forestry products. Many suppliers to the mining and oil and gas industry are hurting, in big trouble or closed. Commodity prices for potash, uranium, iron ore and base metal concentrates are all at very low prices. Exploration is virtually non existent as no one is interested in investing big bucks in high risk. Only one doing OK really is gold which really doesn't use rail. I teach Mining Engineering and Geology. The graduating class from this past June was the first one ever where not one student was offered employment. One of my grads is working as a garbage man for the town. Yah, the economy is not all that healthy.
When I rode the Skeena, Jasper to Prince Rupert about 6-8 years ago, the VIA rail crew pointed out a Gold Ore mine in which they were loading Gold Ore into Gondolas with yellow covers. Could have been BS because that crew was rather strange in other ways. At the time I wondered how they could secure the ore if it wasn't a secret to the rail crews. Also why they would use covered gondolas instead of ore cars. Strange story and I wonder if it was ever true.
In regards to Canada vs U.S. Would be nice if we finally connected Alaska by rail...#1. Then built a Western line across Alaska to a new deep water port and interchange with Russia / China via sea going barge #2. Improve our border crossings between Canada and Mexico to be a LOT more fluid #3. Get Mexico to expand more into Central America with trade agreements along with the U.S. and Canada #4. Connect Guatamala and Mexico's rail system through Central America to South America #5, likewise with the highway system.
We have a long ways to go with building in this hemisphere, in my opinion. We should be focusing on that along with the trade agreements. It would be really cool to some day see standard guage railcars from Central and South America floating around the United States on the rail system up here. Instead of just the Mexican and Canadian rail cars.
CMStPnP When I rode the Skeena, Jasper to Prince Rupert about 6-8 years ago, the VIA rail crew pointed out a Gold Ore mine in which they were loading Gold Ore into Gondolas with yellow covers. Could have been BS because that crew was rather strange in other ways. At the time I wondered how they could secure the ore if it wasn't a secret to the rail crews. Also why they would use covered gondolas instead of ore cars. Strange story and I wonder if it was ever true.
Just speculating - I suspect Gold Ore is probably 99+% other minerals that are probably a lot lighter than iron ore. As such you probably have to process the entire 80 or 90 tons of the Gold Ore to end up with an ounce of gold with the density of the Gold Ore being much less than iron ore, it cubes out before it weighs out, thus the use of ore jennys would not be appropriate. I could be totally mistaken.
Balt, I cannot lay my hands on any definite numbers, but I agree with you--the amount of gold that is in the ore is very small when compared with the total mass--yet it is profitable to mine, especially with what other desired minerals are found in the mass.
Johnny
Gold bearing rock generally gets processed close to its location as the only way it makes the operation feasible. Otherwise the cost of transport for the remaining 99.9% of material that is waste renders it uneconomic. More likely the gondolas had some other ore, possibly lead-zinc-silver or copper, which is found in much higher concentrations. Traces of gold might be mixed in, which might be extracted later, but that would be a little bonus rather than the primary reason for mining an orebody.
I'm sure the crew was taking advantage of the yellow covers to support a good yarn. Maybe I should start one about using reefers to export permafrost.
Most all Gold mines have a mill on site. Gold can be freed through crushing, grinding and then chemical or gravity methods. Some mines do arrange to have their ore "custom milled" at a different mine site. This is usually in the order of 200 to 1,500 tons per day. It is possible that, were a railroad handy nearby and just happened to be going that way then it could be transported by rail.
I worked at a gold mine in Northern Ontario that received shipment's from a mine in Quebec for "custom milling". It was trucked in. It was a Godsend as for a period of time it was a primary source of income.
If it was what we call "VG" or visible gold then no way it gets shipped unless under armed guard. It woud be milled on site. Those types of deposits are rare and even rarer today as all the easy to find stuff has been mined. Gold mines today are in the order of 4-10 GRAMS per ton. It is not visible gold. That is roughly 1/8 to 1/3 of a ounce per TON.
What you saw was likely a base metal, probably a massive sulphide, concentrate. It would be Ziinc, Lead, Iron, Copper, Cobalt and other metallic elements in a concentrate form. This would definitely contain precious metals of gold, silver and platinum but the whole concentrate needs to go to a smelter and refinery before you get anything.
We do ship and sell our concentrate to China for processing. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting ships concentrate by rail in gondolas. These would have to be covered so the concentrate doesn't go flying out of the gon's in transit. HBM&S shut down their own big smelter in Flin Flon mostly due to the Kyoto Accord ( now expired) but also because the smelter would have to be completely refurbished under today's environmental standards. You can easily see the line of politics throughout this whole thing.
At one of our local stores here in town you can purchase canned pears and fruit cocktail that come from China! Now just 3 or 4 cans makes a bag pretty hefty, imagine gazillions of these things being shipped and all that handling. We grow lots of pears here In many varieties. How is this even remotely feasible? Greater minds than mine I quess.
John Kneiling used to write about oranges from Israel being sold in New York City instead of those from Florida. He used it as an example of dysfunctional surface (rail) transport, even on the East Coast where there were several major north-south lines. Back then he was right, too.
- Paul North.
Miningman The graduating class from this past June was the first one ever where not one student was offered employment. One of my grads is working as a garbage man for the town. Yah, the economy is not all that healthy
Extractive industries are always boom and bust. At least in Canada you have health care.
CMStPnP MidlandMike Railroads are only one form of transportation. While coal and CBR are down, new oil and gas pipelines are being built. Has trucking's share of general freight gone up? What about waterways? You need to show that all freight transport is down before you cane make conclusions about the overall economy. Your funny... I think most of us were referring to how the Federal Reserve reaches it's conclusions on the Economy. I can't guess who taught you the above but generally they are incorrect. They generally use railroad car loads for the Beige Book NOT pipeline anything, NOT barge anything. I am not sure about Trucking it's been over 22 years since I supported PhD Economists on a Economic Analysis staff. That Economics Staff as well used railroad carload reporting as a primary measure of the economy. I don't remember them using trucking either but I could have missed it. Pipeline plus Waterway combined have less share of transportation than the rails do. Plus I believe the railways reporting on traffic is much more reliable than the above two. So thats why I suspect they exclude pipelines and internal waterways. You can read the Federal Reserve Beige Book yourself, it is posted online. http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/default.htm Please show me or highlight the areas where it refers to Barge or Pipeline Traffic, if you can find it. I only see Railroad carloads referenced as well as container loads referenced at ports.
I was replying to Euclid's OP. He seemed to indicate that the economy-railroad connection was "So depending on a person’s viewpoint,...", rather then some specific Fed rail related measure. There were only 2 subsequent replys to him before my post: one which brought up world economics; and the other which was yours, which seemed to support the OP. So I guess when you say "I think most of us...", then you are referring just to yourself. Knowing that railroads have been losing market share for the past 100 years, any economic measure of transportation that relies solely on rail is inadaquate. It is obvious that the Fed does not solely rely on rail as their measure of economic activity in the transportation sector. From the Fed's Beigebook June 2016:
Page IV-3 "Demand for natural gas is rising as gas displaces coal as the fuel of choice. Investment in pipeline projects moved forward. Some of our contacts believe that wellhead prices may have bottomed out and those prices may start to increase slowly during the fourth quarter."
Page V-2 " An executive at a national trucking firm located in the District said business was uneven, but quotes had increased for dedicated service contracts in which trucks, trailers, and rates are locked in. Regional airports reported flat to slightly stronger revenue growth in passenger and cargo."
Extractive industries are always boom and bust. At least in Canada you have health care.-Ouibejumn
Having been in the mining industry for 40 years I am well aware of the boom/bust cycles in the mining industry, however mining programs in colleges and universities that the companies dole out millions to support, ours no exception, with not one grad being offered employment is rather surprising. It's very scary.
Yes we do have health care. In a fully developed mature economy with only 35 million people on the second largest land mass in the world with 60% of the worlds known natural resources it's easy for governments to afford but yet it's far from ideal for the individual.
Give it all another twenty years and there will be only one guy going to work to push a button and everything happens. What do we do? The machines will figure that out as well.
MiningmanAt one of our local stores here in town you can purchase canned pears and fruit cocktail that come from China! Now just 3 or 4 cans makes a bag pretty hefty, imagine gazillions of these things being shipped and all that handling. We grow lots of pears here In many varieties. How is this even remotely feasible?
It's feasible because ocean transportation costs approach zero.
Consider this ship:
https://www.cma-cgm.com/news/1030/the-cma-cgm-benjamin-franklin-exceptional-dimensions-for-the-largest-vessel-ever-to-call-at-a-u-s-port
It can carry 18,000 TEU (9,000 forty foot containers). With only 26 total crew members! Including the cooks! This ship type is amazingly efficient.
I'll estimate the charge for moving a container from China to North America at $2,000 US. If there are 40,000 pounds of canned pears in the container that works out to five cents per pound. It's next to nothing.
This makes the Chinese cannary "Virtually" in North America. I checked, Del Monte canned pears go for $1.81/pound at Walmart. Five cents per pound for transportation across the Pacific is but 2.8% of the retail sale price. As I said, the transportation cost from China is next to nothing. The Chinese production is virtually in North America because of the efficiency in transporting the pears.
Greyhounds- ....well heck!
Nice analysis. Kudo's to you.
greyhounds Miningman At one of our local stores here in town you can purchase canned pears and fruit cocktail that come from China! Now just 3 or 4 cans makes a bag pretty hefty, imagine gazillions of these things being shipped and all that handling. We grow lots of pears here In many varieties. How is this even remotely feasible? It's feasible because ocean transportation costs approach zero. Consider this ship: https://www.cma-cgm.com/news/1030/the-cma-cgm-benjamin-franklin-exceptional-dimensions-for-the-largest-vessel-ever-to-call-at-a-u-s-port It can carry 18,000 TEU (9,000 forty foot containers). With only 26 total crew members! Including the cooks! This ship type is amazingly efficient. I'll estimate the charge for moving a container from China to North America at $2,000 US. If there are 40,000 pounds of canned pears in the container that works out to five cents per pound. It's next to nothing. This makes the Chinese cannary "Virtually" in North America. I checked, Del Monte canned pears go for $1.81/pound at Walmart. Five cents per pound for transportation across the Pacific is but 2.8% of the retail sale price. As I said, the transportation cost from China is next to nothing. The Chinese production is virtually in North America because of the efficiency in transporting the pears.
Miningman At one of our local stores here in town you can purchase canned pears and fruit cocktail that come from China! Now just 3 or 4 cans makes a bag pretty hefty, imagine gazillions of these things being shipped and all that handling. We grow lots of pears here In many varieties. How is this even remotely feasible?
One might well think 2.8% is miniscule, but it's significant in the world of retail. For example, while Wal-Mart's gross profit margin (markup) was 25.33%, the net profit margin was only 2.66% for the quarter ending 4/30/2016. Pennies do count.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MidlandMike CMStPnP MidlandMike Railroads are only one form of transportation. While coal and CBR are down, new oil and gas pipelines are being built. Has trucking's share of general freight gone up? What about waterways? You need to show that all freight transport is down before you cane make conclusions about the overall economy. Your funny... I think most of us were referring to how the Federal Reserve reaches it's conclusions on the Economy. I can't guess who taught you the above but generally they are incorrect. They generally use railroad car loads for the Beige Book NOT pipeline anything, NOT barge anything. I am not sure about Trucking it's been over 22 years since I supported PhD Economists on a Economic Analysis staff. That Economics Staff as well used railroad carload reporting as a primary measure of the economy. I don't remember them using trucking either but I could have missed it. Pipeline plus Waterway combined have less share of transportation than the rails do. Plus I believe the railways reporting on traffic is much more reliable than the above two. So thats why I suspect they exclude pipelines and internal waterways. You can read the Federal Reserve Beige Book yourself, it is posted online. http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/default.htm Please show me or highlight the areas where it refers to Barge or Pipeline Traffic, if you can find it. I only see Railroad carloads referenced as well as container loads referenced at ports. I was replying to Euclid's OP. He seemed to indicate that the economy-railroad connection was "So depending on a person’s viewpoint,...", rather then some specific Fed rail related measure. There were only 2 subsequent replys to him before my post: one which brought up world economics; and the other which was yours, which seemed to support the OP. So I guess when you say "I think most of us...", then you are referring just to yourself. Knowing that railroads have been losing market share for the past 100 years, any economic measure of transportation that relies solely on rail is inadaquate. It is obvious that the Fed does not solely rely on rail as their measure of economic activity in the transportation sector. From the Fed's Beigebook June 2016: Page IV-3 "Demand for natural gas is rising as gas displaces coal as the fuel of choice. Investment in pipeline projects moved forward. Some of our contacts believe that wellhead prices may have bottomed out and those prices may start to increase slowly during the fourth quarter." Page V-2 " An executive at a national trucking firm located in the District said business was uneven, but quotes had increased for dedicated service contracts in which trucks, trailers, and rates are locked in. Regional airports reported flat to slightly stronger revenue growth in passenger and cargo."
In this case, I tend to agree somewhat with Euclid. Forget coal and crude, it's the rest of railroading's car loads that are down that has me wondering. Especially the "raw materials" type of loads. Much of that can't easily be lost to trucks. Now, that could just mean that the trend for manufacturing to move to other countries is growing. However, it's been reported that international trade has been down. That the growth in railroad intermodal has been domestic rather than international boxes. (Even if the reduced car loadings are a sign of increased manufacturing overseas, IMO it's still a bad sign for our economy.)
Media coverage of the economy seems to be bi-polar, for want of a better expression. One day I read a story of how great things are. Then a day or two later I read a story of how slow things are and the worry of a recession is growing. Often some of the same data is referenced.
As observed, how a person's view of the economy is doing does depend on where one's viewing from. As observed by someone in the state wide paper, "We've gone from an economy that produced full time $18 hr jobs with benefits to one that produces part-time $10 hr jobs with no benefits." Obviously someone who's view is not from the top looking down.
Jeff
schlimmOne might well think 2.8% is miniscule, but it's significant in the world of retail. For example, while Wal-Mart's gross profit margin (markup) was 25.33%, the net profit margin was only 2.66% for the quarter ending 4/30/2016. Pennies do count.
I fully agree that grocery retail is a penny business. Walmart's margin may be 25.33% overall, but I'd wager (and I do wager) that it's much less on groceries.
But! My point was, and remains, that the transportation cost for moving the canned pears across the wide Pacific approaches zero. The Chinese producer only needs to make up for a very slight ($0.05/pound) amount to be price competitive with domestically grown canned pears.
The Chinese obviously can do this little thing. As a result their production of canned pears is competitive with our production of canned pears. It's feasible to import canned pears because of the transportation efficiencies of ocean shipping. That was the point.
BaltACDEvery thing I see and read sends the image that slow economy is a world wide phenomenom at the present time. With the interconnectedness of economies all over the globe, each affects the other. The times of the US booming and the rest of the world struggling to survive are long past.
You might be partially right with the above,
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fiscal-stimulus-economists-gdp-growth-000000335.html
However, I still believe the United States can lead the world as the foremost consumer of goods with a 3-4% GDP Growth rate.....if we try.
One candidate is promising to attempt the 3-4% GDP Growth rate. The other is settling for 2% growth rates or less for their term........which just pizzes me off to no end. The gleeful forecast of 10.4 million jobs over 4 years is an average of 216k a month.......very weak and a cop out in my view. Happy I am not retired yet myself but I feel the folks that are retired are getting royally screwed with the 2% is the new normal philosophy.
The real issue here is that 1-2% additional GDP growth and increased tax reciepts can fix a lot of issues such as the imbalanced budget and the National Debt level. Thats where the anger comes from we are prolonging the pain by not even trying to hit the higher level......it seems the goal is never set that high to begin with. And the attitude seems to be thats OK BUT at some point we are headed for a serious fiscal crisis unless we increase GDP Growth or cut spending much more deeply.
greyhounds schlimm One might well think 2.8% is miniscule, but it's significant in the world of retail. For example, while Wal-Mart's gross profit margin (markup) was 25.33%, the net profit margin was only 2.66% for the quarter ending 4/30/2016. Pennies do count. I fully agree that grocery retail is a penny business. Walmart's margin may be 25.33% overall, but I'd wager (and I do wager) that it's much less on groceries. But! My point was, and remains, that the transportation cost for moving the canned pears across the wide Pacific approaches zero. The Chinese producer only needs to make up for a very slight ($0.05/pound) amount to be price competitive with domestically grown canned pears. The Chinese obviously can do this little thing. As a result their production of canned pears is competitive with our production of canned pears. It's feasible to import canned pears because of the transportation efficiencies of ocean shipping. That was the point.
schlimm One might well think 2.8% is miniscule, but it's significant in the world of retail. For example, while Wal-Mart's gross profit margin (markup) was 25.33%, the net profit margin was only 2.66% for the quarter ending 4/30/2016. Pennies do count.
Understood. I'm pretty sure the sustained average markup on the grocery segment is even less. It's also Wal-Mart's biggest segment.
On a related note, what ever happened to the rails' share of canned fruits, etc. from growing areas in the US? I recall your making a strong case for rails recapturing a share of several other food categories through creative/aggressive marketing. Any thoughts on canned goods?
MidlandMike You need to show that all freight transport is down before you cane make conclusions about the overall economy.
You have posted that more than once and I was pointing out it is incorrect.
If loose comments about natural gas prices and trucking rates represent a unit of measure equal to rail carloads broken down monthly by frieght category......then more power to you. When you see automobiles and furniture transported down a pipeline in a slurry, let me know.......I want to see pictures of that. I would even settle for new automobiles delivered via barge. So maybe you could also conclude because of the consumer basket of goods carried by the rails they are included as a unit of measure of the economy? They do not look at pipeline or waterway traffic, as I stated before.
Also rail's market share on a ton-mile basis year over year currently is increasing not decreasing and rail is still the most dominant part of the pie. Forecasts of increase of rail freight of up to 35 percent by 2050 over today's figures, given current population growth patterns.
jeffhergert "We've gone from an economy that produced full time $18 hr jobs with benefits to one that produces part-time $10 hr jobs with no benefits."
Yes I have seen that quote before as well. It's true for unskilled jobs. Is manufacturing a unskilled job? My Father used to be an Exec at a $40-50 million a year plastic molding firm. I watched the factory floor positions evolve over 15 years from simple press operator (family run business and union shop)........opening and closing the door of a press and remove a part from a injection mold. To finisher, person who scrapes off the plastic flash and polishes the part and then packs it. The press operation part became fully automated with robots and computers. The press operator had two choices. Evolve or get layed-off. When I last saw that plastic firm they were starting to automate some of the finishing and packaging of products as well.
It's not just plastic molding where that is happening. In the 1980's General Motors bought FANUC robotics and started a spree of factory automation. So that is one point, the manufacturing jobs that are staying in the United States are evolving into ones involving more skill. The jobs we are shipping out are by a large percentage unskilled.
Now lets look over in the White Collar area at IT or Computer Programming. When I started you really needed to know your math and your machine language which required a college degree, in my view. Over time, improvements to programming and graphically representing programming languages has made Computer Programming less and less of a "College Degree Required" field. As a consequence a lot of the Computer Programming jobs have shifted over to India or China and have been outsourced as well. So the white collar side of the fence is being hit as well as blue collar and it is one reason for stagnant wages. Any kid these days can learn how to program in Java or a Smartphone application. The salaries for both reflect that.
The Computer programming jobs that have stayed largely in this country require more skill and business knowledge (education and training). So most Computer Progammers have adapted or they work at sub par salaries for the Indian firms. Hot Topic today in IT is the use of outsourcing and the H1b VISA program. A lot of Americans think they are stealing our jobs. In my view they are making the workplace more competitive. Never once have I lost a good job to a H1b VISA or Indian Firm. Even when I interview head to head against them, I usually land the job. Not because of discrimination but because I market better than they do and my skills are more tailored to the job I am applying for. So in my view, yes they hold Salaries down but as far as finding a job.......little to no impact with the H1b VISA holders.
Bottom line is, I think because of our educational system, the quality and requirements of jobs as far as skills are increasing.........Salary is increasing with those jobs. Where you see salary stagnant or falling is with the jobs that do not require as much knowledge.
I don't think we will ever get back the unskilled jobs but I think we can increase the blue collar part of the economy by emphasizing trade school more (2 years after High School). And it seems like our government is going to cover the cost of that soon so, we'll see if it increases the blue collar ranks in which you do not need a college degree but you will need to attend a trade school. You pretty much have to do the same internally to become a railway crew member.....BTW. They don't hire people off the streets with no training and put them in a Locomotive. I am sure that job is evolving with computers and automation as well. If it looks like your being marginalized as a person in the Locomotive cab......time to start thinking about a new profession because full automation is not that far behind.
We are always going to need the Homer Simpson's.
Miningman Give it all another twenty years and there will be only one guy going to work to push a button and everything happens. What do we do? The machines will figure that out as well.
I'll say this, MM. I heard 50 years ago already how the big problem of the future was how all of us were going to spend our leisure time, what with 15-hour workweeks and retirement at 46. No word, of course, on how this was to be financed.
Instead, we find ourselves in a more realistic situation: Workers knocking themselves out, working harder than ever -- only 55 hours a week at a decent salary, if they're lucky -- while everybody else, up to 40 percent, lives off of them. (Not off "the government," which has no money of its own.)
In twenty years? Glad I won't be around for that ugliness. (I suspect it will look a lot like Venezuela and Brazil.)
dakotafredIn twenty years? Glad I won't be around for that ugliness
The idea that you already know how much longer you'll be on this earth surprises me, but hey plan ahead I guess ;).
dakotafred...what with 15-hour workweeks and retirement at 46. No word, of course, on how this was to be financed.
I read some time back about a company that went to a 12 hour day and a 36 hour workweek. Apparently the work was such that such a schedule was possible.
All was good until people discovered that they couldn't afford the time off. After all, if you have four days off, you're more tempted to take a trip, or something of the sort.
They went back to a more conventional schedule.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Here in Northern Saskatchewan our mines all work at 2 weeks in, 2 weeks out, 12 hour shifts. A person has to pace themselves as 14 days of 12 hour shifts is pretty tough. They are all fly inn sites.
The CNR should have ( still could actually) put in a switch where the tracks cross the N. Saskatchewan River in Prince Albert right at the point where they swing west to Alberta. This "switch" ( I suppose a junction is a better term), would allow a route north into Northern Saskatchewan and the uranium mines in the Athabasca Basin. Railroads built lines all the way north on either side of us, in Manitoba up to Churchill on Hudsons Bay and in Alberta all the way up to Pine Point in the North West Territories. Alternatively they could build due west from Flin Flon to the centre of the province and then swing north. Yah, we could use a bullet train straight up to our trading post.
tree68 dakotafred I read some time back about a company that went to a 12 hour day and a 36 hour workweek. Apparently the work was such that such a schedule was possible. All was good until people discovered that they couldn't afford the time off. After all, if you have four days off, you're more tempted to take a trip, or something of the sort. They went back to a more conventional schedule.
dakotafred
I am familiar with the three 12 hour days - in a 24/7 enviornment - which is actually a 48 hours in 7 days schedule.
There was a time when I worked a 12 hour shift--three days one week and four days the next week. The pay evened outto a little over forty hours a week. Thus, with four shifts, the work went on twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. There were some processes which would be begun on one shift and finished on the next shift.
BaltACDI am familiar with the three 12 hour days - in a 24/7 enviornment - which is actually a 48 hours in 7 days schedule.
While I don't have any specifics, I got the feeling that this was attempted in a 9-5, 40 hour week environment - maybe a warehouse, or administrative setting.
The fire service has a wide variety of work schedules ranging from 8 hour shifts to 24 on - 24 off, to multi-days on followed by multi-days off, and myriad other arrangements. Most end up with a greater than 40 hour week, but that is addressed in their contracts so doesn't always mean overtime.
I also have worked a "3 & 3", three 12 hour days, three days off, three 12 hour nights, three days off or a three on - three off straight days or straight nights. Very efficient, takes 4 people to cover 24x7 (plus another .5 FTE to be vacation relief). I liked it, my family hated it.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
CMStPnP MidlandMike You need to show that all freight transport is down before you cane make conclusions about the overall economy. You have posted that more than once and I was pointing out it is incorrect. If loose comments about natural gas prices and trucking rates represent a unit of measure equal to rail carloads broken down monthly by frieght category......then more power to you. When you see automobiles and furniture transported down a pipeline in a slurry, let me know.......I want to see pictures of that. I would even settle for new automobiles delivered via barge. So maybe you could also conclude because of the consumer basket of goods carried by the rails they are included as a unit of measure of the economy? They do not look at pipeline or waterway traffic, as I stated before. Also rail's market share on a ton-mile basis year over year currently is increasing not decreasing and rail is still the most dominant part of the pie. Forecasts of increase of rail freight of up to 35 percent by 2050 over today's figures, given current population growth patterns.
By "loose comments" you are apparently referring the quotes from the Fed's BeigeBook (the reference you suggested). If they put it in their "Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions" I am going to take it as meaningful. They preface the summary with "Commonly known as the Beige Book, this report is published eight times per year. Each Federal Reserve Bank gathers anecdotal information on current economic conditions in its District through reports from Bank and Branch directors and interviews with key business contacts, economists, market experts, and other sources." the key word being anecdotal.
In my posts I mention trucking as well as pipelines & waterways, so your comment about sending autos down a pipeline just moves your arguing from trivializing to ridiculous. Additionally, while the Commodity Flow Survey 2012 (latest available) shows that both rail and truck market share ton-miles at about equal at 40% each, the value of what trucks haul is multiple times the value of what rail hauls. (Table 1a.) Warning, the PDF is over 300 pages long:
https://www.census.gov/econ/cfs/2012/ec12tcf-us.pdf
But rather than argue about what modes are predictive of economic activity, I will circle back to the original thesis of the thread, does rail activity=economic activity? Despite car loadings being off, if we listen to the Federal Reserve in their latest July 2016 BeigeBook, "Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts indicate that economic activity continued to expand at a modest pace across most regions from mid-May through the end of June. "
MidlandMikeAdditionally, while the Commodity Flow Survey 2012 (latest available) shows that both rail and truck market share ton-miles at about equal at 40% each, the value of what trucks haul is multiple times the value of what rail hauls. (Table 1a.) Warning, the PDF is over 300 pages long:
It shows really useful information. As you say, in ton-miles, the shares for rail and truck are very similar: 40.8% vs 42%. But based on value of what is shipped, rail's share is only 3.4% vs truck's 73.1%. Pipeline and air both have similar shares: 3.9% and 3.3%. And the value trend is worse for rail, comparing 2007 with 2012: up 21.6% vs truck's growth of 7.3%.
If coal continues to decline, unless the rails can find a way to recapture more of higher value freight, growth will be more limited or even negative, even in a modestly growing but changing economy. They clearly need more marketing folks like greyhounds, who has a creative vision.
.
MidlandMike But rather than argue about what modes are predictive of economic activity, I will circle back to the original thesis of the thread, does rail activity=economic activity? Despite car loadings being off, if we listen to the Federal Reserve in their latest July 2016 BeigeBook, "Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts indicate that economic activity continued to expand at a modest pace across most regions from mid-May through the end of June. "
I believe that rail activity does equal economic activity as I stated in my original thesis. I also said this:
“Which of these is true [good or bad economy] depends on each person’s individual point of view. It can be fact checked, but there are enough published facts to support either viewpoint. So I see it as a personal choice.”
The question of the state of the economy cannot possibly be neutral. You can look out the window and tell if it is raining, but you cannot look out the window and see the state of the economy. The state of the economy is mostly a matter of personal perception just like the state of joy. But unlike the perception of joy, the perception of the economy is subject to powerful forces that want to influence peoples’ perception of the economy. People in power gain or lose power according to the public’s mere perception of the health of the economy. Elections are won or lost according to that simple perception. So there are powerful reasons to “spin” the economic news.
In forming a personal perception of the economy, one can listen to the always nebulous statistics that may or may not be spin. Or one can look at the world around them and observe what happens when they look for jobs, or observe 292 expensive Union Pacific locomotives parked dead because there is nothing for them to haul. In my opinion, the message the park locomotives send is not spin.
For the first time in a very long time something unusual happened in the intermodal sector: total quarterly volume dropped for the first time after 25 quarters of consecutive growth.
That is the word from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) in its Intermodal Market Trends & Statistics Report that was released yesterday.....
Intermodal Marketing Companies (IMC) saw strong gains on the highway side, with highway loads up 17.0 percent to 432,239, and highway revenue up 3.8 percent to $599,722,060, although average highway revenue per load was down 11.3 percent to $1,369. Conversely, intermodal loads dropped 18.1 percent to 408,868, and revenue was down 8.9 percent to $1,044,624,006, while average per intermodal load was up 11.3 percent to $2,555.
IMC highway gains continue to benefit from excess trucking capacity and low fuel prices. When asked if this trend has staying power for the coming quarters, Casey said that may not necessarily be the case, as over-the-road capacity pressures are expected to increase due to regulations, through 2017 and fuel prices have started to move upward, albeit slightly, with both of these factors point to increased opportunities for domestic intermodal services.
http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/iana_reports_first_quarterly_decline_in_25_quarters/railfreight
MidlandMikeBy "loose comments" you are apparently referring the quotes from the Fed's BeigeBook (the reference you suggested). If they put it in their "Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions" I am going to take it as meaningful. They preface the summary with "Commonly known as the Beige Book, this report is published eight times per year. Each Federal Reserve Bank gathers anecdotal information on current economic conditions in its District through reports from Bank and Branch directors and interviews with key business contacts, economists, market experts, and other sources." the key word being anecdotal. In my posts I mention trucking as well as pipelines & waterways, so your comment about sending autos down a pipeline just moves your arguing from trivializing to ridiculous. Additionally, while the Commodity Flow Survey 2012 (latest available) shows that both rail and truck market share ton-miles at about equal at 40% each, the value of what trucks haul is multiple times the value of what rail hauls. (Table 1a.) Warning, the PDF is over 300 pages long: https://www.census.gov/econ/cfs/2012/ec12tcf-us.pdf But rather than argue about what modes are predictive of economic activity, I will circle back to the original thesis of the thread, does rail activity=economic activity? Despite car loadings being off, if we listen to the Federal Reserve in their latest July 2016 BeigeBook, "Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts indicate that economic activity continued to expand at a modest pace across most regions from mid-May through the end of June. "
Census surveys are used to measure long term demographics and demographic shifts not Economic activity. Further the use of census tracts has to be verified against a secondary source because they are based on a partial survey even though they try to reach everyone......usually they do not. So it is also an extrapolation based on whatever someone writes down on a form and mails in.
This particular census is only performed every 5 years and is extrapolated from a sampling vs a comprehensive reporting as is the AAR freight carloads. It does not admit to cover every shipment or every establishment that ships. Further, it is not audited that I can see. AAR shipments are based on what the Frieght railroads report on their Balance sheets and is audited. So lets see one a week vs once every 5 years (with 2 years additional to compile). Gee I think I will stick with the AAR reporting..........and the Fed does as well for a measure of the economy.
As for your truck and rail market share.......pretty sure the rails still have the trucks beat on ton miles carried. For one, a huge chunck of rail freight share in the commodity survey is discarded as they throw out all rail freight that is carried from border to border or coast to coast and not bound for the United States (or so they presume......shipment destinations are sometimes switched in transit by the shipper). Thats just one portion of the frieght shipments they throw out that the rails carry with their comparisons.
So much of the figures you stated are open to question or are misleading including the split between truck and rail. I stand by the market share percentages I posed earlier as the census likely has garbage in it and more so than the AAR stats as I know it is what the Fed uses. You can Google the internet and find other sources to contradict but none of them are as reliable, as frequent, and probably also not audited like the AAR figures are.
BTW, in regards to: "Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts indicate that economic activity continued to expand at a modest pace across most regions from mid-May through the end of June. "
Adjusting for a seasonal dip (thats called seasonal adjustment ), doesn't that prognosis also match frieght car loadings as well?.....
https://www.aar.org/pages/freight-rail-traffic-data.aspx
Note the quote is not comparing this year vs last year, it is just commenting on month to month.
EuclidI believe that rail activity does equal economic activity as I stated in my original thesis. I also said this: “Which of these is true [good or bad economy] depends on each person’s individual point of view. It can be fact checked, but there are enough published facts to support either viewpoint. So I see it as a personal choice.”
I would agree. Some feel 1-2% GDP Growth is the new normal and they think it is just great. However, in their mind.......that is where it ends. When you look more in depth at it, you can see there are downstream issues to that approach.
* Much reduced retirement savings across the board for the same amount of years money saved. Downstream this means a far less wealthier United States.....massive loss of the middle class to lower income groups.
* Job growth half of what it really should be with a structural unemployment rate built in that is viewed as acceptable.
* Inability to service the National Debt or pay it down meaningfully, also the risk when Interest rates do rise that further deep cuts in other parts of the budget will be needed to service the debt (increased interest payment). Major fiscal crisis or day of reckoning with no bail out money or stimulus because there is no money left.
Thats where the "new normal" of GDP growth is leading us all at some point.
BTW, American Trucking Association claim they haul approx 70% of all frieght in the United States...........which if it was true, we would be having a much larger issue with worn out infrastructure.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
CMStPnP, you make a good case for the reliability of the AAR stats. Nevertheless, the CFS is a joint project between the Census Bureau and DOT. DOT uses those stats in some of their publications, along with AAR stats. Since they handle all modes of transportation, they are in a position to give market share info. Whereas AAR gives only the rail side of the story, whose stats do you use to reference market share. Also you mention that you gave market share percentages in an earlier post, but the only reference I can find is " rail is still the most dominant part of the pie." Can you post a link to your preferred modal market share breakdown.
MidlandMike CMStPnP, you make a good case for the reliability of the AAR stats. Nevertheless, the CFS is a joint project between the Census Bureau and DOT. DOT uses those stats in some of their publications, along with AAR stats. Since they handle all modes of transportation, they are in a position to give market share info. Whereas AAR gives only the rail side of the story, whose stats do you use to reference market share. Also you mention that you gave market share percentages in an earlier post, but the only reference I can find is " rail is still the most dominant part of the pie." Can you post a link to your preferred modal market share breakdown.
Right here. FRA of course.....which the internet domain indicates is part of the DOT.
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0362
CMStPnP Euclid I believe that rail activity does equal economic activity as I stated in my original thesis. I also said this: “Which of these is true [good or bad economy] depends on each person’s individual point of view. It can be fact checked, but there are enough published facts to support either viewpoint. So I see it as a personal choice.” * Much reduced retirement savings across the board for the same amount of years money saved. Downstream this means a far less wealthier United States.....massive loss of the middle class to lower income groups. * Job growth half of what it really should be with a structural unemployment rate built in that is viewed as acceptable. * Inability to service the National Debt or pay it down meaningfully, also the risk when Interest rates do rise that further deep cuts in other parts of the budget will be needed to service the debt (increased interest payment). Major fiscal crisis or day of reckoning with no bail out money or stimulus because there is no money left. Thats where the "new normal" of GDP growth is leading us all at some point.
Euclid I believe that rail activity does equal economic activity as I stated in my original thesis. I also said this: “Which of these is true [good or bad economy] depends on each person’s individual point of view. It can be fact checked, but there are enough published facts to support either viewpoint. So I see it as a personal choice.”
Some people seem to believe that the state of the economy is just a natural phenomenon. Others believe the economy is guided by economic policies. So if the economy is poor, it must mean that the policies reflect incompetence.
It has to be incompetence because it cannot be intentional. Very few would conclude that a poor economy is intentionally caused. Why would anybody actually want a sluggish economy and apply policies that lead to that result?
Therefore, it raises the question of why there should be a so-called “new normal” of economic growth limited to 1-2%. What would cause a permanently repressed economy? Is the new normal due to the anticipation of a permanent progression of incompetent economic policies? Or does it mean that economic policy makers have discovered a harm in too much economic growth?
In the past, we have only been concerned if the economy is not growing enough. Nobody ever thought there could be too much growth. Who couldn’t use a little more prosperity? Yet, what is notable about the new normal is that its rate is significantly lower than typical economic performance of the past.
If the economy is truly on its own to vary as it naturally does, why should there be any normal? An economic “normal” implies that there is a proper amount of economic growth. That is precisely what is behind the emerging tendency to refer to the very limited economic growth that we have had for the last eight years as the “new normal.”
One of the greatest buzzwords today is sustainability. It refers to living within the boundaries of a supposed limit of the earth and other natural systems to replenish themselves.
Just as burning fossil a fuel is unsustainable for the planet, so is economic growth. Hence we have the emerging umbrella economic-ideological movement known as DEGROWTH. It aims to correct the sin of living beyond the limits of sustainability.
http://clubfordegrowth.org/our_philosophy/
Quote from the link:
Degrowth is the intentional redirection of economies away from the perpetual pursuit of growth.For economies beyond the limits of their ecological systems–which includes not just the United States but all “developed” countries–this will mean a planned and controlled contraction to get back in line with planetary boundaries, with the eventual creation of a steady-state economic system that is in balance with Earth’s limits, once the degrowth process finishes and a stable population level is achieved.
CMStPnPBTW, American Trucking Association claim they haul approx 70% of all frieght in the United States...........which if it was true, we would be having a much larger issue with worn out infrastructure.
How you measure freight hauled can change conclusions dramatically. While ton-miles is probably the most standard measure, value of freight originated, revenue due to freight haulage, and tonnage initiated all give different perspectives. The ATA figure represents tonnage originated, and is correct. This reflects the fact that the vast majority of loads in the US travel very short distances. Since rail is not competive until length of haulage gets to at least several hundred miles, trucks get the vast majority of loads.
Euclid- These people need to go outside and get some fresh air. Come up here to get some perspective on things. Not a clue.
This kind of thinking is against human nature.
I scanned thru the Fed's latest (July) BeigeBook to see if I could find the answer to the question of whether they use truck traffic volumes. Some but not all Districts mention the rail volume changes, but fewer mention trucks, and sometimes more anecdotally. I did find one (Dallas) that was more specific: "Cargo volumes were mixed over the reporting period. Chemical plant expansion along the Gulf Coast boosted truck cargo volumes, while declines in courier and air cargo were reported. Overall rail cargo dipped as well; however, grain shipments rose strongly, leading to increased optimism in outlooks. Airline passenger demand was stable over the reporting period but slightly lower than a year ago."
I also realize why they do not use pipeline volumes. They use the more appropriate production and refinery utilization as economic measurements. They also use rig counts which is really more a traditional (but less useful) oil field fixture that we in the industry have always kept track of.
Miningman Euclid- These people need to go outside and get some fresh air. Come up here to get some perspective on things. Not a clue. This kind of thinking is against human nature.
Miningman,
Yes, degrowth is indeed against human nature. But the people who promote it have a strong need to control others. Unfortunately, that is part of human nature.
Totalitarianism has many branches that all have their roots in evil.
Thanks Euclid. I'm sure we all have fears, worries and doubts about the future yet it is always the positive advancements that astound us all and we keep on keeping on!
Sorry to sound a religious-flavored note, since I hate religious fundamentalism in all its forms. (If there's one thing there's no excuse for being dogmatic about, in my opinion, it's the Great Mysteries.) But I think we are in the Last Days of First Worldism, if you will.
240 years of government have finally succeeded in strangling us in law and regulation, and in bankrupting us with raids on the public treasury for this interest and that. There's no turning back, short of revolution, and talk of that will land you in jail in the U.S. as surely as it does in any Third World country.
In November, we're getting ready to do it to ourselves again. Our excuse will be that Trump is too crude for polite palates. When we have rejected Republican alternatives to more socialism along with Trump -- thrown out the baby with the bathwater -- we will have just about sealed our fate.
Railroads? An incidental casualty.
dakotafred Sorry to sound a religious-flavored note, since I hate religious fundamentalism in all its forms. (If there's one thing there's no excuse for being dogmatic about, in my opinion, it's the Great Mysteries.) But I think we are in the Last Days of First Worldism, if you will. 240 years of government have finally succeeded in strangling us in law and regulation, and in bankrupting us with raids on the public treasury for this interest and that. There's no turning back, short of revolution, and talk of that will land you in jail in the U.S. as surely as it does in any Third World country. In November, we're getting ready to do it to ourselves again. Our excuse will be that Trump is too crude for polite palates. When we have rejected Republican alternatives to more socialism along with Trump -- thrown out the baby with the bathwater -- we will have just about sealed our fate. Railroads? An incidental casualty.
Good Lord! Are you fixin' to shoot yourself?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I don't think dakotafred is overstating the problem at all. Once you lose it, it won't come back. It's a tipping point.
Here is another article that was embedded in the one I linked to the original post. It concerns the two opposing economic perceptions that I mentioned.
http://wolfstreet.com/2016/04/29/per-capita-gdp-falls-in-first-quarter-why-economy-feels-lousier-than-gdp/
Euclid I don't think dakotafred is overstating the problem at all. Once you lose it, it won't come back. It's a tipping point.
I've been hearing the same crap for the past two decades (and I'm sure some older members for far longer than that). Amazing any of us are here at all. 8 years of Obama, and the sun still rises and we are still here. Many thought that wouldn't be the case.
Drama queens.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Oh we will all still be here. That is not the problem.
Ahh, Where is Henny Penny when we need her. The sky is falling isn't it?
Euclid, one's view on the economy certainly may depend on one's personal economic circumstances. However, that will probably result in a very subjective conclusion. I look for more of a deliberative view as might be found in the Fed's publication discussed in this thread. The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, whose officers are picked in staggered sessions that overlap political terms, so that each party in power has had a chance to appoint some of the Fed's members. You were concerned about spin, and the Fed's make-up containing people from different political spectrums would tend to somewhat cancel the worst spin. However, you quote the Club for Growth, which is a libertarian billionaires PAC, where the spin is so far out, that you lose credibility for anti-spin.
[quote user="CMStPnP"]
"BTW, American Trucking Association claim they haul approx 70% of all frieght in the United States...........which if it was true, we would be having a much larger issue with worn out infrastructure."
Hmmm, so the AAR's (an industry trade group) numbers are totally trustworthy but the ATA's (another trade group) numbers are suspect? You just demonstrated the OP's comment about how everyone sees what they want to see in statistics. Good job...
Injuns
MidlandMikeYou were concerned about spin, and the Fed's make-up containing people from different political spectrums would tend to somewhat cancel the worst spin. However, you quote the Club for Growth, which is a libertarian billionaires PAC, where the spin is so far out, that you lose credibility for anti-spin.
Midland Mike,
No, I did not quote the Club for Growth. I quoted the Club for Degrowth. I just wanted to illustrate this relatively new ideology that finds a solid new reason for the well-established resentment in some circles, of competition, success, achievement, and prosperity, through hard work and economic growth. Their new reason to reject those things is that the planet and its natural systems cannot replenish fast enough to sustain an expanding economy.
I just wanted to show that there actually are reasons why public officials might embrace economic policies that intentionally hold the economy down. Such policies might explain why some are referring to this last eight years of stagnant economy as the “new normal.” That is music to the ears of the Degrowthers.
From the link:
“As part of the degrowth movement, we believe that through a voluntary reduction of the economy, we can work less, consume less and live better, fuller, and most importantly sustainable lives.”
They also believe that the “voluntary reduction” should be coerced by regulation.
On the "natural" side: Boomers have aged or are aging past their highest earning years. That's a concentrated 70 million person impact in the US that made profits great in the '80s and '90s. Have been fizzling since. 10,000 are supposedly retiring each day now.
Maybe oddly, I have confidence in the railroad industry. Tough as shoe leather.
As for our economy and country, I think one place to look is the many quotes of Thomas Jefferson:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEViYqibJXXVwAJq0nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Thomas+Jefferson+Quotes+On+Government&fr=yhs-mozilla-003&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
I hope enough citizens wake up!
I am afraid the tipping point has passed. One law put us over the cliff towards full blown socialism. In my book the ACA, aka Obamacare, was it, the sheep bought the "hope and change" line about it being about healthcare while the wolves hid the fact it was about control and power.
The premium for my family of four; me, my wife, and two teenage daughters was just under $500 a month pre-ACA while post-ACA the premium went to $1300 for the same exact deductible and copay. That is a major reason the economy is stalled and will remain so.
Jay
Euclid,
Thanks for the deGrowth link.
New Age Left Banc "thinkers". How many millions of people were murdered during the last century out of such stinkin' thinkin'!!!
Gramp,
You're welcome.
Euclid quotes " Voluntary reduction through coerced legislation"
...now that is big brother "double speak" ...very scary.
Our newly minted Prime Minister admires Mao. Erected a statue of him for our Chinese businessman to admire. Mao is the #1 murderer of all time. Keep pushing back against this garbage fellows.
Miningman Euclid quotes " Voluntary reduction through coerced legislation" ...now that is big brother "double speak" ...very scary. Our newly minted Prime Minister admires Mao. Erected a statue of him for our Chinese businessman to admire. Mao is the #1 murderer of all time. Keep pushing back against this garbage fellows.
To be honest, I think Mao is up there with Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler (and Hirohito?) but I'm not sure he gets the title. Hirohito must have accounted for nearly as many Chinese as Mao. Even the relatively benign current regime in China executes a lot of people without much publicity.
Our not quite so recent Prime Minister isn't noted for much other than one of the narrowest election victories on record after dismissing the Senate in hope of getting a better one and he seems to have failed at that.
But I don't think any national government has the sort of control they once had. They are all just corks bobbing along in a sea of international trade, influenced by financiers gambling on world markets.
I can go to the supermarket and buy Californian oranges for less than it costs the local growers to produce them. The huge container ships can ship anything anywhere for almost nothing and make a profit doing it.
Automobiles can be made in Thailand and shipped anywhere for a price less than it costs to make them in the USA. But you probably can't sell a USA made car in Thailand because it doesn't meet local regulations. But because Thailand is a poor country, it is granted tariff free status nearly everywhere. They make Fords, Hondas, Toyotas, anything you want. Not Korean cars like Hyundai and Kia yet, I think.
But nobody wants to pay extra for an automobile because it is built in the USA or Germany. A lot of Mercedes come from South Africa. It doesnt matter, the shipping is cheap.
There is no going back. But is not the USA government that is responsible for globalisation. It is the free market. No government, not even China, can stop the free market, as much as they'd probably like to. They depend on it as much as anyone else.
M636C
Also, Chairman Mao had an inclination to stick with a single color with his pant suits instead of the color of the day approach.
Euclid Midland Mike, No, I did not quote the Club for Growth. I quoted the Club for Degrowth. ... http://clubfordegrowth.org/our_philosophy/ ...
No, I did not quote the Club for Growth. I quoted the Club for Degrowth. ...
...
Oops! My eye doctor gave me a new prescription for glasses, and maybe I should buy those new glasses.
I think you were indicating that the degrowth people were out in left field, and I agree with that. I don't think that many mainstream elected officials buy into degrowth.
Here is an article that lists the stored, out of service locomotives on a variety of railroads. The piece I linked to the original post cited the 292 U.P. locomotives in storage. Apparently they have other storage sites as well. This article says that about April of this year, the U.P. had 1,400 stored locomotives. One year earlier, they had 475 locomotives in storage. Other railroads show that same slowing economic pattern.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_pacific/article/Fleet-Stats-2016-Class-I-railroads-stored-more-locomotives-cars-in-Q2--48748
carknocker1I have always noticed when the economy is good trains are longer and my more frequent and these days as you have noticed the trains are shorter and less frequent
Not always, at least in my area. Less frequent yes, shorter usually no. When things slow down, manifest train lengths seem to grow. There still can be a slow day, especially towards the beginning of the week in my area, when manifest lengths might be shorter. Usually ours seem to be 10000' or more. For a couple of our symbols, 9000' is short compared to better times when that would be long.
Those same symbols also in good times rarely do work at intermediate yards. In tighter times they do, which also accounts for some of the longer train lengths and less frequent trains. Part of the reason is when there is a lot of traffic, they may run a regular symbol to the intermediate point that can completely clear the main. They can't afford to tie up a main track for an hour or two while a train picks up and/or sets out. With traffic down, tying up a main track isn't so important and it means using one less crew.
Euclid Here is an article that lists the stored, out of service locomotives on a variety of railroads. The piece I linked to the original post cited the 292 U.P. locomotives in storage. Apparently they have other storage sites as well. This article says that about April of this year, the U.P. had 1,400 stored locomotives. One year earlier, they had 475 locomotives in storage. Other railroads show that same slowing economic pattern. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_pacific/article/Fleet-Stats-2016-Class-I-railroads-stored-more-locomotives-cars-in-Q2--48748
MidlandMike Euclid Midland Mike, No, I did not quote the Club for Growth. I quoted the Club for Degrowth. ... http://clubfordegrowth.org/our_philosophy/ ... Oops! My eye doctor gave me a new prescription for glasses, and maybe I should buy those new glasses. I think you were indicating that the degrowth people were out in left field, and I agree with that. I don't think that many mainstream elected officials buy into degrowth.
I understand. I have gotten those two organizations confused too. I assume that the Club for Degrowth is presenting itself as the alternative for the Club for Growth.
Regarding your speculation that not many mainstream elected officials buy into it, I think far more elected officials buy into it than the ones who don’t. Degrowth may not yet be a well-known term, but there are many references available that clearly define it. If you read about its stated goals and principles, you are sure to find them instantly recognizable and well established. Degrowth puts them under one heading for the first time, and it is remarkably unambiguous, as opposed to other familiar “Utopianism” banners that never call for sacrifice.
Degrowth is empowered by the moral authority of the earth much like the right to prevent climate change by demanding whatever sacrifice is necessary. But Degrowth is the umbrella or capsulation of the entire range of philosophy that includes all of the sacrifice presumed necessary to reorganize the world, protecting it not only from carbon dioxide, but from capitalism as well. Degrowth takes this mission to the highest level of detail. It is bitter medicine framed in the most perfect sugar coating for our times.
http://theconversation.com/life-in-a-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it-32224
But again, my only point in bringing up the Degrowth movement is to show that, incompetent policies notwithstanding, there is a large and respected set of reasons why leaders might actually be trying to slow down the economy.
Rail traffic data for the weekending 8-13-16.
https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Freight-Rail-Traffic/Documents/2016-08-17-railtraffic.pdf
All I can say is what my boss just told me. He told me to cancel all our major purchases for the next 18 months at a minimum. Why our market that we are in has dropped to about nothing and we have 2 choices cut cuts or go out of Business. He survived the recession in 2008 by doing what he is doing now back then and knows he can get thru another one by doing the same thing. Hoping I still have a job in 2 years. I am under a contract for 2 years at a time and I just signed one that would require payment in full so I am not to worried.
Euclid ... Regarding your speculation that not many mainstream elected officials buy into it, I think far more elected officials buy into it than the ones who don’t. ...
Regarding your speculation that not many mainstream elected officials buy into it, I think far more elected officials buy into it than the ones who don’t. ...
Politicians are adept at expressing their concerns for the variety of their constituents problems, but they can only act on one set of solutions. Sometimes legislators will introduce bills that have no chance at passing, seemingly to show their base that they are trying. My thoughts on whether elected officials buy into degrowth, is based less on speculation, and more on observation that they don't pass laws that are actually directed at economic contraction.
Here is an article in the mainstream press as to why degrowth does not work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-without-growth.html?_r=0
Victrola1 Rail traffic data for the weekending 8-13-16. https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Freight-Rail-Traffic/Documents/2016-08-17-railtraffic.pdf
Do you have to be an AAR member to get this information?
chicagorailsthe economy grew at a terrible 1 percent this last qtr. week 32 railroad traffic -last week- down 10 percent. worst recovery since 1949. better stock up on food and water.........
Railroads have historically been a leading economic indicator. With that being said and with rail traffic having been in serious decline for the past year - I think one can safely say 'the recovery' is over. While this may have been the worst recovery since 1949, it followed what may have been the worst recession to have happened since that same year. With companies announcing bankruptcies, store closings and layoffs - the next recession is now underway. What the future will hold????
It is also necessary to consider the current economic conditions in other nations. Many are stagnant or slumping. The US economy, like it or not, is very much a part of the global economy. And the rails are not immune.
The ten components of The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® for the U.S. include:
Average weekly hours, manufacturingAverage weekly initial claims for unemployment insuranceManufacturers’ new orders, consumer goods and materialsISM® Index of New Orders Manufacturers' new orders, nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft ordersBuilding permits, new private housing unitsStock prices, 500 common stocksLeading Credit Index™Interest rate spread, 10-year Treasury bonds less federal fundsAverage consumer expectations for business conditions
Railroad caroadings are NOT a leading, lagging or coincident indicator.
schlimm The ten components of The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® for the U.S. include: Average weekly hours, manufacturingAverage weekly initial claims for unemployment insuranceManufacturers’ new orders, consumer goods and materialsISM® Index of New Orders Manufacturers' new orders, nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft ordersBuilding permits, new private housing unitsStock prices, 500 common stocksLeading Credit Index™Interest rate spread, 10-year Treasury bonds less federal fundsAverage consumer expectations for business conditions Railroad caroadings are NOT a leading, lagging or coincident indicator.
While they may not be on your The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® they are still considered at leading economic indicator in that most raw materials that underpin the items listed in the conference board are shipped by rail. If building products aren't being shipped, nobody is securing building permits. The manufacture of consumer products requires raw materials for their manufacture and many of those materials move by rail.
It's not my choice. I was simply pointing out a fact. The Conference Board sets the criteria for what is included in the accepted definition. Carloadings are important indicators also, but are not one of the accepted leading economic indicators.
I agree with BaltACD...that the next recession is underway. It can be seen and felt, just look around and believe your eyes and ears. Civil unrest rising with some pretty pathetic excuses as well another indicator. It's going to be rough for a while. These days though it just seems far more manipulated and deliberate rather than a natural market force.
MidlandMike Euclid ... Regarding your speculation that not many mainstream elected officials buy into it, I think far more elected officials buy into it than the ones who don’t. ... Politicians are adept at expressing their concerns for the variety of their constituents problems, but they can only act on one set of solutions. Sometimes legislators will introduce bills that have no chance at passing, seemingly to show their base that they are trying. My thoughts on whether elected officials buy into degrowth, is based less on speculation, and more on observation that they don't pass laws that are actually directed at economic contraction. Here is an article in the mainstream press as to why degrowth does not work: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-without-growth.html?_r=0
As I understand it, the article that you linked above analyses two different methods to prevent the destruction of the planet. One is Degrowth and the other is to replace fossil fuels as advocated by the Green Movement. The article concludes that the former is too extreme to work in the developed world, and so the reasonable and workable method is to replace fossil fuels.
As to the conclusion that Degrowth won’t work, I completely agree. I hope you did not perceive that I was advocating Degrowth when I brought it up. In any case, unlike the article, I believe that just replacing the use of fossil fuels will also cause substantial slowdown of growth, although maybe not as extreme as full Degrowth ideology.
Initially at least, the development of renewable energy will be raising the cost of living. The cost increase will then force a rationing of energy, and together these effects will impose a huge drag on the economy. There seems to be a naiveté in the Green Movement that if we just “invest” in new technology we will acquire it. In other words, if we want it, we can have it if only we invest. Yet there are plenty of technological development fronts that are at an impasse and do not yield just because you throw money at them.
But the article seems to ignore this impediment, concluding that Degrowth will not solve the climate problem but renewable energy will. I don’t think either one of them will solve the problem as it is defined. I also disagree that the problem actually exists in the first place.
And just because Degrowth is thought to be unworkable by the article, that does not mean that elected officials will not pursue it. Degrowth can be an objective that is approached gradually. Actually, it includes the Green Movement which advocates the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy. Degrowth is just the next stage higher than the Green Movement. They have far more in common than what separates them. One main difference is that Degrowth admits that it opposes capitalism.
Definitions:
Green Movement:
A popular movement urging production and use of environmentally harmless consumer goods. Green politicians would curb economic and population growth and protect the natural environment.
Degrowth:
A political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas.
Euclid, for historical perspective, I look at the environmental protection record of the last 50 years. Industries said it would wreck the economy, and yet the economy went chugging along to new highs. Clean energy may well go the same pattern. If it doesn't, then I see an historical precedent in the recent PTC saga. The PTC law was passed with the thought that it could be implemented by the deadline. When it was obvious that the goal was too ambitious, the law was changed to a more pratical schedule.
Yes, Mike, but don't neglect the cumulative effect as reg is added to reg over 40 years and standards are tightened, often unrealistically. A good example is Washington's attempted expansion of its Waters of the United States jurisdiction to include practically every farmer's stock pond.
Here's some information on how trucking is doing:
http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/truckload_and_intermodal_pricing_declines_remain_in_effect_for_july_says_ca
The truck rates are being forced down due to lack of demand for trucking services. This, in turn, is forcing intermodal rates down.
Grim.
greyhoundsThe truck rates are being forced down due to lack of demand for trucking services. This, in turn, is forcing intermodal rates down.
Definitely lack of demand. I'm seeing gravel trains being pulled by tractors with sleeper cabs. That tells me those truckers are hurting for work.
Norm
dakotafred Yes, Mike, but don't neglect the cumulative effect as reg is added to reg over 40 years and standards are tightened, often unrealistically. A good example is Washington's attempted expansion of its Waters of the United States jurisdiction to include practically every farmer's stock pond.
Or if you wanted to be more topical to this Magazine Forum look at the sheer number of Federal Regulations in regards to what is allowed on a Passenger Car in daily operation that were passed between 1968 and 1980. Mentioned it before on why the Milwaukee Road's passenger fleet was quickly retired by Amtrak. I am sure the non-standard trucks also played a role but it had more to do with how the cars were engineered as well. Apparently OK for 110 mph operation in the 1940's and 1950's but unsafe for 55-70 mph operation in the 1970's without a significant and costly upgrade per car.
I have heard those clames by ag interests, and I have also heard the regulators say that the law won't do that (it's hard to enforce a regulation that you are on record saying it won't happen). In my career (oil industry) I have seen the ebb and flow of regulation as it responds to the political process.
MidlandMike dakotafred Yes, Mike, but don't neglect the cumulative effect as reg is added to reg over 40 years and standards are tightened, often unrealistically. A good example is Washington's attempted expansion of its Waters of the United States jurisdiction to include practically every farmer's stock pond. I have heard those clames by ag interests, and I have also heard the regulators say that the law won't do that (it's hard to enforce a regulation that you are on record saying it won't happen). In my career (oil industry) I have seen the ebb and flow of regulation as it responds to the political process.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2016/08/19/dow-transports-dark-signal-economy/88988736/
dakotafredMore than laws, the problem is mission creep by ambitious agencies to whom a lazy Congress leaves the details.
It's not just federal agencies. And many times the mission creep is because the need for the original mission has fallen off. So a few new regulations create a new mission.
As a non-railroad example, many fire departments now provide some level of emergency medical services. Why? Because fires are off and there is the fear that the powers that be will look at all those firefighters and and all that equipment sitting idle much of the time and decide maybe they aren't needed, at least not at the level they currently exist.
It hasn't always gone well. In many places fire and EMS are like oil and water.
This from a longtime firefighter/EMT.
schlimmRailroad caroadings are NOT a leading, lagging or coincident indicator.
Rather interesting declaration because....
Federal Reserve treats them as a leading indicator.
All Big Three automotive Companies treat them as a leading indicator.
Most of the larger banks treat them as a leading economic indicator.
As I said before, they are not THE leading economic indicator but are treated as one in a basket of leading economic indicators. It is rather surprising to me in a forum that should be supportive of the railroad industry so many people doubt that it is still a MAJOR industry in the United States. If you were to ask to rank in importance the list of leading economic indicators, rail carloadings would not be at the top but they would still be in the basket.
We can debate this issue until the cows come home but Sorry folks, I supported the GM Economics Staff, attended more than one lunch at the Detroit Economic Club as well as lunched with one of the producers of the Chicago Fed's Beige book. Worked in support of PhD Economists for three years on the GM Economics and Market Analysis Staff. BTDT and seen the indicator myself.
As much as everyone wants to prove the fact wrong......it's a fact and well beyond the preponderance of the evidence presented, in my opinion. Railroad carloadings are one of the leading economic indicators used by most Economists today. Now if you want to really disprove it then get a significant Economist with credentials to match to back you up. Versus, "this is how I think the world should work."
Other measures were also used such as money supply, projected interest rates, exchange rates forecasting, consumer sentiment surveys from University of Michigan, Demographics from the Census Bureau, Housing starts, and more.
However, if railroad carloadings were as unimportant as people here seem to think, GM never would have paid for them in a data subscription, they would never appear in appendices of the Beige Book, nobody would mention them at the Detroit Economic Club.
BaltACDWhile they may not be on your The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® they are still considered at leading economic indicator in that most raw materials that underpin the items listed in the conference board are shipped by rail. If building products aren't being shipped, nobody is securing building permits. The manufacture of consumer products requires raw materials for their manufacture and many of those materials move by rail.
Yup
schlimm It's not my choice. I was simply pointing out a fact. The Conference Board sets the criteria for what is included in the accepted definition. Carloadings are important indicators also, but are not one of the accepted leading economic indicators.
First time I ever heard of the Conference Board and I seriously doubt they are the keepers of an "official definition", they may think they are but you might ask yourself what they have to do with managing the U.S. Economy and if the answer is nothing...........there is your larger answer as well as to legitimacy.
General Motors was the largest manufacturer in the United States in the 1990's and it had top talent working for it at the time. Members of it's Economics Staff as well as other Big Three.......routinely testify in front of Congress as an expert witness on automotive issues and automotive outlook issues. Such as EPA rulings on CAFE for example.
The Conference Board Leading Economic Index is an American economic leading indicator intended to forecast future economic activity. It is calculated by The Conference Board, a non-governmental organization, which determines the value of the index from the values of ten key variables. These variables have historically turned downward before a recession and upward before an expansion. The single index value composed from these ten variables has generally proved capable of predicting recessions over the past 50 years, but in most cases it has been known to falsely predict recessions which did not occur
OK they are telling you above what they believe and what makes up their index NOT the official definition as there really is not one. There are a lot of Economic Indexes to choose from and follow........each of course is sold on a data subscription basis so they all want to say they are more accurate than others as well. A lot of the Conference Boards components to their index overlap what GM used in the 1990's but it's not a 100% overlap from my memory.
CMStPnPFirst time I ever heard of the Conference Board and I seriously doubt they are the keepers of an "official definition", they may think they are but you might ask yourself what they have to do with managing the U.S. Economy and if the answer is nothing...........there is your larger answer as well as to legitimacy.
Just because YOU are not aware of it does not mean it is not important. I never said it was the only index, but it is the one most investors watch.
"There is one economic- and consumer-research organization that traders rely on to gauge the health of the U.S. economy: the Conference Board (CB), which is, of course, responsible for widely followed benchmarks such as the Index of Leading Indicators (now released for nine countries) and the Consumer Confidence Index, among others." Investopedia
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadephia publishes state indexes for each of the 50 states, which use a blend of coincident components and some leading (i.e., future trends) components. State Leading Index
Another good source is the National Bureau for Economic Research.
dakotafred How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor?
Relax old man, you'll still get your Medicare, courtesy of us taxpayers.
ouibejamn dakotafred How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor? Relax old man, you'll still get your Medicare, courtesy of us taxpayers.
dakotafredSure; and how many of you "taxpayers" will I also carry thru my own taxes?
I understand your anger, your name is Fred, and you live in Dakota, I think you have suffered enough.
CMStPnPFederal Reserve treats them as a leading indicator.
Evidence, other than your opinions? Show us on an official Federal Reserve site that they use rail carloadings as a leading economic indicator. If so, I would stand corrected. They might just use it as a coincident or trailing indicator, however. Dunno.
Conference Board Inex is widely used by investors, BTW. In a prior post I gave the link to the Philadelphia Fed Reserve site. They calculate the 50 Monthly State Leading Indices, which include the following, but not carloadings:
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces leading indexes for each of the 50 states. The indexes are calculated monthly and are usually released a week after the release of the coincident indexes. The Bank issues a release each month describing the current and future economic situation of the 50 states with special coverage of the Third District: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
The leading index for each state predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.
A time-series model (vector autoregression) is used to construct the leading index. Current and prior values of the forecast variables are used to determine the future values of the index.
dakotafred More flow than ebb, I'd say. And the regulatory era got under a real head of steam, with Teddy Roosevelt, only 100 years ago. Imagine the cobweb of regulation with which we'll be contending in another few hundred years (if the U.S. is so lucky as to still be in business). More than laws, the problem is mission creep by ambitious agencies to whom a lazy Congress leaves the details. As when the EPA decided carbon dioxide, the very staff of life on this planet, is a pollutant and subject to the Clean Air Act.
In the Teddy Roosevelt era, the Standard Oil Case (settled after he left office) resulted in the breaking up of the vertual monopoly. Nevertheless, in the intervening century, the largest of those resulting companies, Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) and Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil) re-merged, and Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco) and Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) were merged into BP.
While the carbon cycle is important for life, gelogic history shows when it gets out of balance, it's disasterous for life.
dakotafred Hard to enforce when you've said it won't happen? How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor?
Hard to enforce when you've said it won't happen? How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor?
Well you got me there in the literal sense. When they said if you liked your (health insurance) plan, you could keep your plan, they should have added the qualfier "providing it meets minimum standards". I believe the Supreme Court ruled on what the intent of the ACA was, so it was not sunk by the imprecise talk of the regulator.
Concerning the jurisdiction over the Waters of the US regulations, the "lazy Congress" should exercise their checks and balances, and insist that the agency spells out what waters are covered, so the intent is clear.
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffetts-railcar-desert-island-indicator-is-accurate-2015-6
"Warren Buffett once said that if he were stuck on a desert island and allowed only one number to know how the economy was doing, he would pick railcar traffic."
An "expensive model collector"
schlimm Conference Board
Conference Board
https://www.conference-board.org/data/bcicountry.cfm?cid=1
https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/2016_08_10.pdf
“Economic growth in the first half of 2016 was weaker than expected as output growth was held back by a large inventory run off. Business investment in capital equipment continued to be very sluggish. Business seems to think demand is likely to remain soft for some time. The new wrinkle is higher short term uncertainty. While some of the uncertainty may go away, there are structural reasons for the weakness in business investment to remain. It is also unlikely that inventory building will strongly rebound and be much of a growth source in a slow growing economy. Consumer spending then remains the main source of growth -- expected to grow at a moderate 2% rate in the second half of this year and perhaps continuing into the early months of 2017. Sustained job growth, modest wage acceleration, even improving housing market conditions, all support consumer demand. But higher labor costs are negative for corporate margins. Nonetheless, with tightening labor market conditions, there is at least the possibility of the Federal Reserve raising short-term interest rates, conceivably even as early as September. A post-election hike is more likely, or even putting it off until the first half of 2017. Raising rates almost certainly would lead to some dollar appreciation, increasing the burden on making and shipping goods abroad. For the moment at least, post-Brexit, financial markets, the dollar, even nonenergy commodity prices all remained relatively quiet.”
CMStPnPIt is rather surprising to me in a forum that should be supportive of the railroad industry so many people doubt that it is still a MAJOR industry in the United States.
Most folks (including social democrats) believe in the validity of a market economy. Stock markets are an important determinant of the capitalization of a given corporation in a capitalist system, as it represents what investors believe a company is worth.
So, looking at that metric:
NSC = $26.88 billion
CSX = $27.12 B
UP = $79.38 B
GM = $50.05 B
Netflix = $40.97 B
Tesla = $33.53 B
PayPal = $45.43 B
Exxon Mobil = $356.13 B
Microsoft = $447.17 B
Apple = $588.42 B
So, based on a key figure of a market economy, the rails are a pretty modest component.
At one time, the oldest stock index, the Dow Jones Transportation Index, was 9 rails plus Western Union and a steamship line. Now it is four rails and 16 others.
schlimmMost folks (including social democrats) believe in the validity of a market economy. Stock markets are an important determinant of the capitalization of a given corporation in a capitalist system, as it represents what investors believe a company is worth. So, looking at that metric: NSC = $26.88 billion CSX = $27.12 B UP = $79.38 B GM = $50.05 B Netflix = $40.97 B Tesla = $33.53 B PayPal = $45.43 B Exxon Mobil = $356.13 B Microsoft = $447.17 B Apple = $588.42 B So, based on a key figure of a market economy, the rails are a pretty modest component. At one time, the oldest stock index, the Dow Jones Transportation Index, was 9 rails plus Western Union and a steamship line. Now it is four rails and 16 others.
You would first have to deflate the stock prices to remove expected future earnings, which is a significant part of a technical stocks value but less of a part of a transportation stocks value due to one stock being more heavy in fixed assets than the other. Bottom line is you can't compare Technical Stock A against Railroad Stock B and get anything meaningful economically or for that matter investor wise because the two have different asset structures and accounting systems. Goodwill weighs heavily on a Tech Stocks Balance Sheet..........not so much on a Railroads Balance sheet. It's why they always show a stock as compared to it's INDUSTRY group and even that is not really a good comparison in some instances.
Also, if your talking commodity inputs into economic output you would measure the value and volume of the commodity carried and the distance carried vs just posting the value of the infrastructure it is carried on. Value of the infrastructure is unrelated to any measure of economic output that I am aware of.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/bank-of-america-rail-traffic-is-saying-something-worrying-about-the-u-s-economy
http://www.tealinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Tealinc_Press-Release_Waste-Management_OCTOBER-2012.pdf
I thought investors use the conference board.....
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/26/time-to-rethink-warren-buffetts-favorite-industria.aspx
http://www.yardeni.com/pub/ecoindrailcar.pdf
http://press.ihs.com/press-release/country-industry-forecasting-media/north-american-railroad-carload-volumes-end-year-lo
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-rail-traffic-for-june-ongoing.html
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/northeast-pa-rail-industry-picking-up-1.1627182
http://community.xe.com/blog/xe-market-analysis/weekly-indicators-and-rail-goes-back-negative-edition
Just a few references where Rail Carloadings are called either a leading economic indicator or are used to see where the economy stands.
CMStPnPJust a few references where Rail Carloadings are called either a leading economic indicator or are used to see where the economy stands.
You claimed it was part of the Federal Reserve's Leading Economic Indicators. Still waiting.
Market cap is not at all the same as assets. Apples and oranges. Basic accounting. It's a reflection of what investors think of a corporation, much of it forward thinking. You might not like that, but it is what it is.
As I mentioned earlier, we currently have two diametrically opposed assessments that make up the popular perception of the current U.S. economy. So apparently, the accepted economic indexes are not sufficient to settle the issue.
The average person judges the economy based on their own personal experience involving that availability of jobs, whether their pay is keeping up with costs, the perception of their upward mobility, their ability to pay for their healthcare, and whether their employer is keeping their job duties consistent or is demanding that they do more and more. A slow growing economy will produce negative effects in all of these metrics whereas they all tend to be positive during a prosperous economy. So a lot of people reach their conclusions with these practical personal experiences rather than an intellectual analysis of official measures.
Some people are not subject to any of these factors, so they assess the economy based on what the news media tells them. I doubt that very many people overall continuously review the official indexes to maintain an assessment of the economy unless they are actually in that business. I find that well informed technical articles about what the economy is doing are typically composed of a number of relative statements that are impossible to assimilate into any specific meaning. The announcement of quarterly GDP is always accompanied with a barrage of such articles.
So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy.
Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy.
So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection.
Irrespective of anyones view -
Does rail activity (however you want to measure it) lead, follow or trail the overall level of economic activity in the country.
MidlandMike Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy. So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection.
A lot of the thread has been a debate over which economic metrics are officially credible, with the underlying implication that slow rail traffic is not a credible metric. I assume that debate represents a deeper debate over what the current condition of the economy actually is now.
I agree that economics is as much (or more) about art than science. But I do not understand what you mean when you say I want to wrap my theory in science. I am not trying to prove anything. I began offering my opinion that each person's assessment of the economy is nothing but their opinion. When I speak of slow rail traffic as being empirical evidence, I just mean I take it as evidence that is tangible. So, as evidence, it works for me whether or not it is an officially acceptable metric. But I am certainly not presenting it as scientific proof that I expect to stand the test of everyone else's economic opinions. I have no need to back up my conclusions beyond what they simply are. They are just my opinion.
You seem to challenge every assertion I make on this topic. What exactly is the point of your challenge. Are you disagreeing with the method I use to form my opinion about the economy. Do you disagree with the premise that the a massive number of out of service locomotives indicates a slow economy? Do you disagree with the premise that the economy is very slow now?
BaltACD Irrespective of anyones view - Does rail activity (however you want to measure it) lead, follow or trail the overall level of economic activity in the country.
From what I was reading, it would be either coincident or trailing, not sure which.
EuclidAs I mentioned earlier, we currently have two diametrically opposed assessments that make up the popular perception of the current U.S. economy. So apparently, the accepted economic indexes are not sufficient to settle the issue.
"accepted economic indexes", good luck with that, it's not one size fits all or one index fits all, it is what question your trying to answer and which indexes fit the analysis the best. It's hard for folks to understand but there is a basket of measurements available to select from and each is prejudiced in it's own way via weighting one way or another. The question was asked earlier what the leading indicators or predictors of the economy were and it was answered by myself and a few others.
And this to me also explains why most Americans 401(k)'s are in such bad shape, in my view. I've had that conversation more than once on the Internet. You think the approaches to looking at the Economy are divergent, wait until you ask about investing. Everything from crazy loon to halfway respectable. Very few people have a clue on how to invest or what is the best way to invest. It changes over time with the type of economy your in but most people just check off the deduction to the 401(k) and select a few mutual funds and thats that. Never looking at what the mutual fund invests in or % of investments or fees charged or growth rates.
I think I said it before in another thread. Not much if any classes in High School on Economics, Investing or for that matter critical thinking. If the majority of the U.S. population does not go further than high school, how can we expect them to understand a 401(k) plan without any education? Lack of critical thinking skills, plenty of evidence of that each Presidential election cycle on both sides of the current partisan divide.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy. So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection. Midland Mike, A lot of the thread has been a debate over which economic metrics are officially credible, with the underlying implication that slow rail traffic is not a credible metric. I assume that debate represents a deeper debate over what the current condition of the economy actually is now. I agree that economics is as much (or more) about art than science. But I do not understand what you mean when you say I want to wrap my theory in science. I am not trying to prove anything. I began offering my opinion that each person's assessment of the economy is nothing but their opinion. When I speak of slow rail traffic as being empirical evidence, I just mean I take it as evidence that is tangible. So, as evidence, it works for me whether or not it is an officially acceptable metric. But I am certainly not presenting it as scientific proof that I expect to stand the test of everyone else's economic opinions. I have no need to back up my conclusions beyond what they simply are. They are just my opinion. You seem to challenge every assertion I make on this topic. What exactly is the point of your challenge. Are you disagreeing with the method I use to form my opinion about the economy. Do you disagree with the premise that the a massive number of out of service locomotives indicates a slow economy? Do you disagree with the premise that the economy is very slow now?
Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness."
MidlandMike Euclid MidlandMike Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy. So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection. Midland Mike, A lot of the thread has been a debate over which economic metrics are officially credible, with the underlying implication that slow rail traffic is not a credible metric. I assume that debate represents a deeper debate over what the current condition of the economy actually is now. I agree that economics is as much (or more) about art than science. But I do not understand what you mean when you say I want to wrap my theory in science. I am not trying to prove anything. I began offering my opinion that each person's assessment of the economy is nothing but their opinion. When I speak of slow rail traffic as being empirical evidence, I just mean I take it as evidence that is tangible. So, as evidence, it works for me whether or not it is an officially acceptable metric. But I am certainly not presenting it as scientific proof that I expect to stand the test of everyone else's economic opinions. I have no need to back up my conclusions beyond what they simply are. They are just my opinion. You seem to challenge every assertion I make on this topic. What exactly is the point of your challenge. Are you disagreeing with the method I use to form my opinion about the economy. Do you disagree with the premise that the a massive number of out of service locomotives indicates a slow economy? Do you disagree with the premise that the economy is very slow now? Euclid, Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness."
Pockets of weakness? I would say there are oceans of weakness, and pockets of hope. The economy was growing at 1.2% at the end of last quarter and slowing. I expect it to be negative territory by the end of this quarter, and it may be there now. The fourth quarter is a major wild card. It will either signal recovery, or sharp decline into a second dip of recession.
I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me. Of course that would be impossible. That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment.
On what basis do you isolate the downturn in coal traffic and CBR from the performance of the economy? They may be artificially forced by regulation, but why should that mean that they don’t count when measuring economic performance? Regulations affect many facets of the economy. Also, it may be that some of the downturn in coal and CBR are directly related to a slackening of demand from the rest of the sagging economy rather than being repressed by regulation.
I would certainly not dismiss the decline in rail traffic as being anecdotal evidence as might be considered to be based on small, insufficient sampling or hearsay. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
EuclidI think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me....That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
There is a huge difference between inferences from empirical evidence (inferential statistics) and opinion. Apples and oranges. You conflate the two. You seem to be unaware of that.
Perhaps it would profit you to read a text on scientific methodology (emphasis on correlational studies) for enlightenment on your own, since you dispute almost everything anyone says.
Here's a link to a stat that is more useful than raw GDP growth. It's Real GDP Growth Rate.
Angus Maddison gathered growth rates in earlier decades in the US. He came up with real GDP growth rates per capita (eliminates the impact of immigration) from 1870-2001. Another writer re-calculated decadal averages:
Decadal averages from the lowest to highest:
(1) Average Growth Rate 1921–1930: 1.27%(2) Average Growth Rate 1911–1920: 1.28%**(3) Average Growth Rate 1931–1940: 1.54%(4) Average Growth Rate 1871–1880: 1.64%(5) Average Growth Rate 1881–1890: 1.65%(6) Average Growth Rate 1951–1960: 1.75%(7) Average Growth Rate 1991–2000: 1.94%(8) Average Growth Rate 1891–1900: 2.04%(9) Average Growth Rate 1901–1910: 2.13%(10) Average Growth Rate 1971–1980: 2.16%(11) Average Growth Rate 1981–1990: 2.26%(12) Average Growth Rate 1961–1970: 2.88%(13) Average Growth Rate 1941–1950: 3.87%.**
** = major wars, WWI or WWII.
One can easily make the observation that the growth rates prior to the beginning of Progressivism's regulations were the same or lower than many since, i.e., a statistically insignificant variance.
schlimm Euclid I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me....That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence. There is a huge difference between inferences from empirical evidence (inferential statistics) and opinion. Apples and oranges. You conflate the two. You seem to be unaware of that. Perhaps it would profit you to read a text on scientific methodology (emphasis on correlational studies) for enlightenment on your own, since you dispute almost everything anyone says.
Euclid I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me....That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
I am not conflating the two. It only seems that way if you restrict the meaning of the term, empirical to its role in scientific method.
If I observed that the sky is blue, could I say the sky is blue? I think you and Midland Mike are seeing the word “empirical” and assuming that it automatically triggers the requirement for pursuing scientific method in a quest for scientific proof.
Just because the scientific method begins with empirical evidence does not mean that one cannot witness empirical evidence and stop there with an opinion of what the evidence means. In that case, empirical just means there is observable evidence rather than pure conjecture.
If I was blind and said the sky is blue, that would be conjecture. If I see the blue sky and say it is blue, my evidence for a blue sky is empirical. My opinion is just in how I interpret the empirical evidence. A color blind person may look at the blue sky and form the opinion that the empircal evidence shows the sky to be gray.
The class one railroads will tell you that they have locomotives out of service because business demand is down. Business demand is part of the economy. Are these facts insufficient to conclude that the parked locomotives are “empirical evidence” of a slow economy? I could just use the word evidence if adding empirical causes a distraction.
Old news from January
“We believe rail data may be signaling a warning for the broader economy. Carloads have declined more than 5 percent in each of the past 11 weeks on a year-over-year basis. While one-off volume declines occur occasionally, they are generally followed by a recovery shortly thereafter. The current period of substantial and sustained weakness, including last week’s -10.1 percent decline, has not occurred since 2009.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-01-20/weak-rails-what-to-make-of-train-carload-volume-falling
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid, Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness." Pockets of weakness? I would say there are oceans of weakness, and pockets of hope. The economy was growing at 1.2% at the end of last quarter and slowing. I expect it to be negative territory by the end of this quarter, and it may be there now. The fourth quarter is a major wild card. It will either signal recovery, or sharp decline into a second dip of recession. I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me. Of course that would be impossible. That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. On what basis do you isolate the downturn in coal traffic and CBR from the performance of the economy? They may be artificially forced by regulation, but why should that mean that they don’t count when measuring economic performance? Regulations affect many facets of the economy. Also, it may be that some of the downturn in coal and CBR are directly related to a slackening of demand from the rest of the sagging economy rather than being repressed by regulation. I would certainly not dismiss the decline in rail traffic as being anecdotal evidence as might be considered to be based on small, insufficient sampling or hearsay. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
MidlandMike Euclid, Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness."
MidlandMike
Apparently the Fed does not share your opinion of the economy, as they are indicating they may raise the interest rate sooner than later.
I understand that it is your opinion that rail traffic is directly connected to the economic conditions, but when the meaning of terms such as empirical evidence is now subject to your own opinion, those terms become meaningless.
I did not "isolate the downturn in coal traffic and CBR from the performance of the economy". I said "I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail." I was only talking about aspects of rail traffic. Connecting that traffic to the economy would be a study in itself. The coal that formerly went to electric generation has been replaced by natural gas and renewables that don't go by rail. And looking at the latest data available from EIA (June 2016) total net electrical generation was up 1.7% from that month a year ago; natural gas consumption was up 9.1%; and coal consumption was down by -8.4%. In my opinion that puts a hole in your theory "it may be that some of the downturn in coal and CBR are directly related to a slackening of demand from the rest of the sagging economy"
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/
Finally, you seem to be conflating data and evidence. Figures that show decline in rail traffic are data, and I have no problem with their accuracy. However, using this data to infer a direct correlation with the economy is anecdotal evidence.
It would not surprise me if the Fed disagrees with me on several points.
When I speak of opinions, I do not consider the meaning of the terms, anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence to be subject to my opinion. The definitions of those terms are not my opinion, but the meaning of the evidence is. Say that someone looked out the window and observed that a train had only 78 cars when it usually has over 100 cars; and then concluded it must mean the economy is slowing down. I would consider that to be anecdotal evidence. I explained above my consideration of the thousands of parked locomotives by several companies which are all explaining that the reason is slow economic demand. I consider that to be solid, observable evidence, that is, empirical evidence rather than anecdotal evidence. In my opinion, the evidence means the economy is slowing.
I certainly have not redefined empirical evidence based on my opinion. It appears to me, however, that you have narrowed the definition.
But I don’t need slow railroad business to assess the economy. Just the GDP is sufficient for that. One percent growth rate is pathetic. As I suggested, you seem to be differing with me over something deeper than just the acceptable methods of measuring the economy. I take it that the “something deeper” is that you think the economy is doing well, and you interpret my comments as meaning that I think the economy stinks. This goes back to my original post where I said:
“It seems as if we have two economies these days. One hovers on the verge of recession and hampers consumer spending due a scarcity of jobs and falling wages. The other is experiencing a robust recovery, creating thousands of new, good paying jobs, and boasts the lowest unemployment in many years. Which of these is true depends on each person’s individual point of view. It can be fact checked, but there are enough published facts to support either viewpoint. So I see it as a personal choice.” Anyone choosing which economy to believe in will consider those holding the opposite view to be wrong.”
I think the reason for this “two economies” is obvious. There are many who are not just content to dispense or hear the economic news. Instead, they want to convince others what to conclude by it. There is great power to be had from causing people to believe that the economy is great shape, especially when approaching an election
Another reason is that the economic assessment is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. So telling people that you believe that the economy is weakening causes fear in those people that makes them reduce their economic risk. This then does indeed slow the economy. This is why when you ask a businessman how the business is doing; he will always say it could not be better even if he is having his worst year ever. And you never want to tell a customer that business is slow because it gives them an advantage in dealing on the price.
Therefore, I believe that most economic reporting is affected by self-serving spin.
To your points about coal and oil, I am not sure why you brought this up in the first place. I cited low levels of rail traffic, and you seem to say that rail traffic is not a reliable indicator of the economy. But then you go ahead and add that a significant part of the low rail traffic is due to less traffic of coal and crude oil. I took that to mean that rail traffic is not reflecting the economy as much as it appears to be because a big part of the downturn is coal and oil traffic—as if somehow they don’t count in the low rail traffic affecting the economy.
I checked the forum one last time before turning in for the night. I've got to get up early for my volunteer job tomorrow, at Habitat for Humanity, so I have some idea that there are people out there who are in economic distress. There certainly are pundits who put all different spins on their assessment of the economy. That's why I tend to put more trust in the Fed and other groups that represent varied political and intellectual points of view, and arrive at their conclusions after a more deliberative process. I don't put much credence in bloggers.
Yes, long lines of stored locos are observable evidence. They are evidence of a lot of idle equipment. Only by knowing that there is not an equivalent amount of horsepower to replace it, could we then deduce that traffic was down. We have all seen the data to show that rail traffic is down. However, without plausable arguements to show correlation, that is still anecdotal evidence with relation to economic trends. I bring up coal because that traffic is off about 30%, and crude-by-rail has fallen off the charts, so that must be taken into account as a significant contribution to lower rail traffic. As I have shown before, net coal has been replaced by gas in the power generation economy, and oil goes by pipeline or water, and you have not shown that merely its transportaion mode has some large effect on the economy.
I never said that 1.2% growth in the economy is great, but it is at least positive, and last I heard, was the best in the world. The fact that the economic rate is slightly positive, and the rail traffic totals are down by several %, brings me to the observation that present rail traffic is not a direct indication of economic trend.
The economy has over 300 million inputs (according to census figures). Let's just say that I am skeptical that you, or anyone else, can directly observe that activity.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.