chutton01 ... NB: Lakers still handle Iron Ore shipping, but a bit of interesting news is that a new iron ore concentrator is being built in Reynolds, Indiana - planned opening 2014 - using an all rail routing from Minnesota. It's a fair distance south of Gary, Indiana (Lake Michigan), much closer to Layfayette IN.
...
NB: Lakers still handle Iron Ore shipping, but a bit of interesting news is that a new iron ore concentrator is being built in Reynolds, Indiana - planned opening 2014 - using an all rail routing from Minnesota. It's a fair distance south of Gary, Indiana (Lake Michigan), much closer to Layfayette IN.
The iron ore pellet plant being built at Reynolds, IN was the subject of a thread about a year ago. It involves transporting fine concentrate from Minnesota to Indiana where it would be pelletized. As I recall, powered iron ore is something the the ships are not used to handling. Maybe redore remembers the details.
I imagine that it would be a difficult job for a self-unloader to handle which represents the entire active US laker fleet. But there are two idle American freighters that are still straight deckers that could easily handle it if they were willing to install shoreside equipment like bridge cranes to unload the cargo.
The Edward L. Ryerson would just need a 5 year survey and would be the perfect ship to handle such a cargo. The other, the John Sherwin, would need more work such as the installation of an engine but her owners were in the process of just such work after a now 30+ year layup back in 2008 when the recession hit. They just need a long-term cargo contract when the day hopefully comes that her capacity is needed to restart that project minus the self-unloading conversion.
Would be ironic if what has kept the Sherwin idle since late 1981 and the Ryerson (The most beautiful lake freighter of them all) for most of that time including the past 5 years would end up being their savior.
timz greyhoundsThere was a very real, very stupid, regulatory block to rail containerization. With the removal of that regulatory block rail container movement has grown and grownWhat was blocked, and by who? Until when?
greyhoundsThere was a very real, very stupid, regulatory block to rail containerization. With the removal of that regulatory block rail container movement has grown and grown
What was blocked? Intermodal transportation in the US was blocked.
By who? The Federal Economic regulators of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Until when? The official date of rail intermodal deregulation was March 23, 1981. (Dereg started under Carter, certainly not stopped by Reagan.)
It's important to remember that dereg was not like throwing a light switch. There were a bunch of guys at the railroads who had only worked under regulation. These guys pretty much had to leave before dereg could be fully exploited. I had a frustrating experience with the ICG freight claims folks when I tried to get into the banana business from Gulfport, MS to Chicago. They initially denied that dereg applied to their area. I had to set up a meeting with a bunch of lawyers who told them freight claims were part of the deregulation. Then the freight claims folks went nuts. They had no idea what to do. One of them shook a stack of papers at me proclaiming that "In 1978 (or whenever) the ICC told us how to handle freight claims." The very idea of working out an agreement with a customer just unhinged them.
I think others have answered the bulk Laker economics vs train thing, so I'll try to briefly go over the regulatory block to to rail container movement.
The development of motor transport accelerated the evolution of transportation. It introduced change and altered the role of the railroads. This change to a more efficient transportation system was a normal and beneficial part of economic evolution. An evolution that would produce a better life for the American people by allowing goods and services to be produced and delivered at a lower cost to those people.
At least some of the railroads, lead by the New York Central and its remarkable president Alfred Holland Smith understood that the motor truck did certain things more efficiently than the railroad. They sought to embrace the change by integrating rail and motor transport of freight, using each mode to its best purpose. The NYC began experimenting with intermodal movements of purpose built containers and container cars in 1922. This was about as soon as a truck capable of carrying a decent load of freight, 10,000 pounds, became available. The experiments were successful and the NYC launched regular intermodal container service in 1923. The first regular load was from Chicago to Cleveland. Containerization was very successful and spread to other railroads.
Containerization dropped the New York Central's costs by around 75%. That is not a mistake. What had cost the NYC $1.00 to move in a boxcar cost it only $0.25 to move in an intermodal container. About 2/3 of the costs savings were passed on to the customer through lower rates. But the railroad could hang on to about 1/3. Meaning the railroad made more money while charging the customer less. In addition, the containers provided better, faster, more reliable service to the customer, with no pilferage or loss and damage. So the customer got better service at a lower rate while the railroad made more money. What a wonderful thing.
But change is not with out adverse effects to some folks. Those that were fat and happy with the old way were loosing out. Normally they would have had to adapt or go away. But the unfortunate existence of the Interstate Commerce Commission gave them an avenue to stop the overall beneficial change.
Such a change was given a name by the Czech born economist Joseph Schumpter in 1942 while he was at Harvard. He called it "Creative Destruction."
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/ei/ei0103.pdf
"Creative Destruction" is the process of an old commerce order evolving into a new, more efficient, commerce order. The government needs to stay out of it.
Such a thing was happening in the US after the advent of motor transport. And then the government stuck its nose in. A freaking ICC lawyer, Harry C. Ames, held some hearings and then recommended to the ICC commissioners (Hardworking dolts and political hacks such as Joseph Eastman) that rail container rates be forced higher. The lower rates were causing change. As usual, the commisioners went along with the totally unqualified (he was a lawyer, not an economist.) hearing officer and ordered the railroads to increase their rates on container movements to a non-competitive level. (The Federal Government should never have assumed the power to order rail rates increased. But hey, we don't elect geniuses now do we.)
The dead hand of government fell on rail intermodal transportation for the next 50 years. And we're still suffering from that. The 1931 ICC decision "In the Matter of Container Service" isn't ancient history. Its ill effects are still felt today.
I could go on, but that's more than enough for now. That was the initial block to rail intermodal, but there were many others.
As far as moving containers by vessel vs rail today, we need look no further than the Saint Lawrence Seaway corridor. Even though the foreign containers are already on board ships, both CNR and CPR take over the transportation to places such as Chicago, even though an all-water route is available. It might still require trans-shipment to a smaller seaway sized vessel, but that would be no more difficult than the transfer to rail. But it doesn't happen.
In the past the railroads were less efficient and had a less competitive product, exacerbated by regulatory restrictions. Once the rails were allowed to market unit train rates, the cost differential was considerably reduced, with a significant speed advantage. And time is money, as the old saying goes.
chutton01 OK, I'm coming from a 21st century East Coast viewpoint, where the railroads of the NY Tri-State area dumped their extensive and expensive habor ligtherage and car-float operations as soon as fesible.
OK, I'm coming from a 21st century East Coast viewpoint, where the railroads of the NY Tri-State area dumped their extensive and expensive habor ligtherage and car-float operations as soon as fesible.
As a fan of the New York Central, I'm familiar with the lighterage you're referring to. Moving a few freight cars across a river is nothing like a 1000-foot ore boat carrying ore. 24' ore cars hold about 70 tons of ore, and run in trains around 150 cars. It takes (IIRC) three or four trains to fill an ore boat...which works out to something like 75,000,000 lbs of iron ore. At their peak, an ore dock could load several ore boats a day, every day, all shipping season...and the DMIR and GN operated several ore docks at the same time.
That's a lot of weight - and, on ground transportation, a lot of friction. It takes much less power to move a loaded boat than it would to move the same material on land, because friction is so much less. That's why, even today, the majority of the world's freight travels on water.
BTW, you'd have a lot of mainlines choked with ore trains. If the massive GN ore dock facility in Allouez WI could handle say just 10 ore boats a day (I think it was more), that would require maybe 40 140-50 car ore trains to replace them, all running at the same time at 30 MPH on your mainline...plus that many empty trains coming back.
wjstix That's why, even today, the majority of the world's freight travels on water.
That's why, even today, the majority of the world's freight travels on water.
The fact that 70% of the earth's surface is water might also be a contributing factor to that statement. It's a bit hard to ship a load of pineapples from Honolulu to Kansas City by an all-rail or all-highway route.
greyhoundsThe dead hand of government fell on rail intermodal transportation for the next 50 years. And we're still suffering from that. The 1931 ICC decision "In the Matter of Container Service" isn't ancient history. Its ill effects are still felt today.
Even if all that is assumed to be correct, isn't 30years largely free of that dead hand enough time to pass? Seems like the time to stop using that as an reason for dead thinking has long since passed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
chutton01 So, in that typical period of c.1950, was all-rail routing available? Was it common?
So, in that typical period of c.1950, was all-rail routing available? Was it common?
All-rail iron ore trains were rare to virtually non-existent until the 1960's. I suspect it became much more viable once you had diesels that could 'run through' with the train. With steam, you'd have to change engines several times along the route...plus the railroad(s) would have to have a number of large engines to haul the ore trains.
wjstix chutton01 So, in that typical period of c.1950, was all-rail routing available? Was it common? All-rail iron ore trains were rare to virtually non-existent until the 1960's. I suspect it became much more viable once you had diesels that could 'run through' with the train. With steam, you'd have to change engines several times along the route...plus the railroad(s) would have to have a number of large engines to haul the ore trains.
And the regulators (ICC) would not allow unit train rates, with their lower charges per ton, until the 1960s.
New York Central was hauling lots of iron ore out of the Adirondacks before that time from Benson Mines near Star Lake. I believe that took an all rail routing. A million tons a year being hauled out behind sets of Alco FA's was common back in the 50's.
schlimm greyhoundsThe dead hand of government fell on rail intermodal transportation for the next 50 years. And we're still suffering from that. The 1931 ICC decision "In the Matter of Container Service" isn't ancient history. Its ill effects are still felt today. Even if all that is assumed to be correct, isn't 30years largely free of that dead hand enough time to pass? Seems like the time to stop using that as an reason for dead thinking has long since passed.
No, I don't think so.
Once the government blocks the normal and desirable economic evolution to more efficient methods of production, (In this case for 50 years) it's almost impossible to get back to where we could have been. That's why I maintain that we're still paying the price today for government blockage of intermodal development. "In The Matter of Container Service" certainly wasn't the only adverse ruling. The railroads are still playing catch up on capacity issues that should have, and would have been, addressed years ago absent government strangulation of economic evolution.
We do not have the rail freight system we could have had, nor do we have the integrated transportation system, using train or truck to its best purpose, that we could have had. We'll never get to where we could/should be because of the 50 year choke The real victims of the government here are not the railroad companies. The real victims of the government are the American people who had their economy degraded by arrogant government fools who thought they knew better than the people.
If we don't understand what happened, and the negative consequences of what happened, it will happen again. There's no shortage of power hungry government types who are convinced that if only THEY had the power, THEY could solve all the problems. We have to understand that and keep the power away from them. In other words, "Power To The People."
"Power To The People" is what brought about the Interstate Commerce Commission and various and sundry other regulatory bodies at the Federal and State levels in the first place. Most of the regulatory bodies were established because there was a public outcry over what was perceived to be price-gouging and various other unfair and unreasonable practices.
I also find an amusing irony in greyhounds' use of a term that was pretty much created and popularized by the radical left as opposition to various corporate practices and unregulated capitalism.
Great Northern DID have an all rail route and could have used it; but chose not to. The GN was one of four railroads who had their own lines between Duluth and the Twin Cities. The GN line between Duluth and the Twin Cities was single track and not all that busy. However, in the 1950's, CB&Q certainly would not have wanted slow moving ore trains on its main line. The Zephyrs would have had a much higher priority. I wouldn't think the Milwaukee would have either. I also think the Soo Line between Superior and Chicago wouldn't have worked either for a number of reasons.
Today the BNSF line between Duluth and the Twin Cities is in much better physical shape and is much busier than it was in the 1950's. Ore trains do operate on this line. The CB&Q, Milwaukee and to a lesser extent C&NW and Soo moved a lot of freight between the Twin Cities and Chicago; would any of them welcomed iron ore trains? NO!
I read about an unusual "all rail" winter routing of iron ore from Michigan's Marquette iron range to Ford's steel mill near Detroit, in the recent book Haywire, a history of the Manistique & Lake Superior. It involved the LS&I to Shingleton, M&LS to Manistique, Ann Arbor carferry to Frankford, AA by rail to downstate, and then it think C&O to River Rouge. It was short lived, as it pounded AA's rail structure. I think I remember it was rerouted via C&NW thru their peninsular line.
Aren't we forgetting something? It's not up to the railroads to determine if an all rail or rail-water-rail route would be used, it's up to the shippers/receivers involved. The one paying the bill calls the shots. If the steel companies had wanted the ore to move by a rail only route year round they would have done so.
There's a John Crosby article from the early to mid 1970s (Extra Board Diaries) in Trains that mentions the navigation season ending and ore movements going to the PC. The rise in traffic caused him to be set up as an engineer on the extra board instead of working as a fireman on a passenger assignment.
Jeff
There were all rail ore trains routed from Superior to Chicago and east off and on over the years, as well as to East St Louis, since around WWII. There were published tariffs for doing this. GN, Soo, Milwaukee, CNW, and for all I know, NP, participated in these moves over the years. They were on the order of twice as expensive per ton as the water route. They were mainly used in high demand years.
Magnetation's concentrate would be difficult at best to ship in a self unloader. They also likely got a very good deal on unit trains from BNSF/CSX. I don 't know why they are building the pellet plant in Indiana but I suspect it had something to do with Minnesota's poor business climate.
The ore dock in Superior (not docks, Dock 5 is the only active one left) only handles two or three boats a day at best. Larger boats, longer shipping seasons, all rail moves, and only 13 million tons a year of pellet production online to begin with keep that number down. Pretty much the same thing, though with bigger numbers, with CN at Duluth and Two Harbors.
CSSHEGEWISCH "Power To The People" is what brought about the Interstate Commerce Commission and various and sundry other regulatory bodies at the Federal and State levels in the first place. Most of the regulatory bodies were established because there was a public outcry over what was perceived to be price-gouging and various other unfair and unreasonable practices. I also find an amusing irony in greyhounds' use of a term that was pretty much created and popularized by the radical left as opposition to various corporate practices and unregulated capitalism.
Now does this make sense? A regulatory body, in this case the ICC, that was supposedly (but not, in fact) established due to a "Public Outcry" over perceived price-gouging responded to that "Public Outcry" by ordering railroad rates increased? Because that's what they did. And it killed off rail intermodal for decades.
Not only did the regulators order the rates increased, but they also effectively ordered the railroads' costs increased (the railroads couldn't use the most efficient method of moving the freight), and the railroads' service quality decreased. (the railroads couldn't provide the more reliable, faster, virtually loss and damage free container service). The regulators certainly didn't make these choices in response to a "Public Outcry".
The regulators made these choices to placate special interest groups with political pull that were being disadvantaged by the economic evolution/revolution occurring in transportation. To the detriment of the American economy and the American people.
The silly, corrupt, ICC decision killing containerization effectively removed a choice from the freight consumer. A government body restricting consumer choice is certainly not giving "Power to the People." It is giving "Power to the governing classes."
greyhounds CSSHEGEWISCH "Power To The People" is what brought about the Interstate Commerce Commission and various and sundry other regulatory bodies at the Federal and State levels in the first place. Most of the regulatory bodies were established because there was a public outcry over what was perceived to be price-gouging and various other unfair and unreasonable practices. I also find an amusing irony in greyhounds' use of a term that was pretty much created and popularized by the radical left as opposition to various corporate practices and unregulated capitalism. Now does this make sense? A regulatory body, in this case the ICC, that was supposedly (but not, in fact) established due to a "Public Outcry" over perceived price-gouging responded to that "Public Outcry" by ordering railroad rates increased? Because that's what they did. And it killed off rail intermodal for decades. Not only did the regulators order the rates increased, but they also effectively ordered the railroads' costs increased (the railroads couldn't use the most efficient method of moving the freight), and the railroads' service quality decreased. (the railroads couldn't provide the more reliable, faster, virtually loss and damage free container service). The regulators certainly didn't make these choices in response to a "Public Outcry". The regulators made these choices to placate special interest groups with political pull that were being disadvantaged by the economic evolution/revolution occurring in transportation. To the detriment of the American economy and the American people. The silly, corrupt, ICC decision killing containerization effectively removed a choice from the freight consumer. A government body restricting consumer choice is certainly not giving "Power to the People." It is giving "Power to the governing classes."
schlimm greyhounds CSSHEGEWISCH "Power To The People" is what brought about the Interstate Commerce Commission and various and sundry other regulatory bodies at the Federal and State levels in the first place. Most of the regulatory bodies were established because there was a public outcry over what was perceived to be price-gouging and various other unfair and unreasonable practices. I also find an amusing irony in greyhounds' use of a term that was pretty much created and popularized by the radical left as opposition to various corporate practices and unregulated capitalism. Now does this make sense? A regulatory body, in this case the ICC, that was supposedly (but not, in fact) established due to a "Public Outcry" over perceived price-gouging responded to that "Public Outcry" by ordering railroad rates increased? Because that's what they did. And it killed off rail intermodal for decades. Not only did the regulators order the rates increased, but they also effectively ordered the railroads' costs increased (the railroads couldn't use the most efficient method of moving the freight), and the railroads' service quality decreased. (the railroads couldn't provide the more reliable, faster, virtually loss and damage free container service). The regulators certainly didn't make these choices in response to a "Public Outcry". The regulators made these choices to placate special interest groups with political pull that were being disadvantaged by the economic evolution/revolution occurring in transportation. To the detriment of the American economy and the American people. The silly, corrupt, ICC decision killing containerization effectively removed a choice from the freight consumer. A government body restricting consumer choice is certainly not giving "Power to the People." It is giving "Power to the governing classes." The latter is an example of revisionist history driven by ken's "one note Johnny" repeating meme concerning that evil ogre, aka, the ICC. The ICC was, of course, a consequence of the 19th century populist movement and the Granger groups as a reaction to the perceived excesses of the unregulated railroads, largely owned by a powerful few. But to hear greyhounds, it was always some stupid, even corrupt cabal bent on stifling progress and benefiting a small clique of the favored. As CSS stated, greyhound's appropriation of the term "People Power" is true, if unintended irony.
OK, then just why did the ICC order the railroads to increase their charges?
Now I'll have to dig out "Railroads, Rates, and Regulation" by Ripley. He's another Harvard guy and the book is from 1912. He goes into the formation and early years of the ICC. It had nothing to do with the Granger movement.
Ripley documents what really happened with rail rates (they fell like a rock and stayed low). I'll dig it out and quote from it.
People just love their myths, especially the myth of a heroic selfless governing elite.
Dig if you wish. The Granger laws were passed in the midwestern states to regulate the railroads. The Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Case (Wabash Case) involved a railroad company, Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Company, serving the upper Midwest and the state of Illinois, which in 1886 resulted in the overturning of the Munn v. Illinois case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that Illinois’ granger laws were unconstitutional because they attempted to control interstate commerce, which had been deemed a responsibility of the federal government by Gibbons v Ogden (1824). Following the Wabash Case, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) , the first federal regulation of business in the United States. This act forced railroad companies to publish their rates with the government and banned railroads from charging different rates for short and long hauls. This 1887 act also created the ICC which regulated the rates of railroads and ensured the rates remained “reasonable and just.” (from the Wiki)
The ICC was created in response to serious real problems. The fact that much later it made some decisions which in hindsight were wrong-headed does not negate the original concept at its formation. As is the case with most things in the real world, simplistic viewing them as all bad or all good serves no useful purpose.
schlimm Dig if you wish. The Granger laws were passed in the midwestern states to regulate the railroads. The Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Case (Wabash Case) involved a railroad company, Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Company, serving the upper Midwest and the state of Illinois, which in 1886 resulted in the overturning of the Munn v. Illinois case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that Illinois’ granger laws were unconstitutional because they attempted to control interstate commerce, which had been deemed a responsibility of the federal government by Gibbons v Ogden (1824). Following the Wabash Case, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) , the first federal regulation of business in the United States. This act forced railroad companies to publish their rates with the government and banned railroads from charging different rates for short and long hauls. This 1887 act also created the ICC which regulated the rates of railroads and ensured the rates remained “reasonable and just.” (from the Wiki) The ICC was created in response to serious real problems. The fact that much later it made some decisions which in hindsight were wrong-headed does not negate the original concept at its formation. As is the case with most things in the real world, simplistic viewing them as all bad or all good serves no useful purpose.
Wiki, oh come on, Wiki? You say I'm viewing things simplistically and then you cite Wiki as your source of information? Well, at least this gave me something to do on a cold Sunday afternoon.
The book I'm going to cite is "Railroads, Rates and Regulation" by William Z Ripley (1867 - 1941). Ripley was a professor of economics at Harvard. He had a particular interest in railroading: its rates, rate structures and regulation. The book was published in 1912 and reprinted in 1999. I believe it's available free online if anyone wants to read it. I bought a hard copy.
Government apologists often falsely conflate the Granger Movement with the creation of Federal rail regulation. They do this to legitimize regulation by erroneously linking it with a populist movement that wasn't much of anything but sour grapes from farmers suffering through tough economic times With regards to railroads, the Grangers wanted laws to force rail rates lower. There was no real justification for forcing the rates lower, they just wanted the rates lower, period..
Ripley drives a stake through the heart of this fallacy on page 443. "No widespread demand for a general reduction in railroad rates seems to have existed in 1887." (the year Federal regulation was created.) "In this regard the situation was in striking contrast with that which prevailed in the panic of 1873." (The height of the Granger movement.) "The popular war cry in this agitation (the Granger movement) was lower freight rates."
In other words, the goals of the Granger movement and Federal economic regulation of the railroads were in striking contrast and not related. But the Granger movement is erroneously used to justify Federal economic regulation by government apologists (some of them on this forum) to this day.
Ripley produces graphs and charts (pp. 413, 415) which show the average ton mile charge for rail freight in the US from 1867 through 1911. The unregulated rates consistently and rapidly declined through the end of the 19th century. (the 1887 act didn't give the ICC power to set or approve rates.) In 1867 the average charge per ton mile was 1.92 cents. By 1890 it had fallen to 0.941 cents. In just 33 years the cost to the customers of moving freight by railroad in the US had been cut in half! By 1911 the cost was down to 0.757 cents per ton mile. (p. 412) Now why would the government want to mess with something working that well? Good question. And Ripley provides the answer, but he doesn't realize it.
The quoted post states that: "The ICC was created in response to serious real problems." Oh, really? Whose problems? I mean this seriously. Whose problems were being solved? The law now required the railroad companies to publish and file their rates. Who benefited from that? Contrary to what the quoted post says, railroads were not prevented from charging more for a shorter haul than a longer haul. They just had to show a "special circumstance" for doing so. (p. 453) Hey dude, no problem. The railroad wouldn't be considering such a rate in the first place if there wasn't a special circumstance.
There don't seem to have been very many "serious real problems" for the rail customers. In 1892, five years after the creation of the ICC, there were only 39 formal complaints filed. For the entire United States!. There doesn't seem to have been a widespread "serious real problem" for the railroad customers. After all, their costs of using rail freight had been cut in half.
Ripley unknowingly answers the question of whose problems were being solved on page 456: "The first response to the new Federal law by the railroads was entirely favorable. They sought to obey its mandates both in letter an spirit "
Say what?
Not only did they obey the new law, they actually sought to obey its mandates both in letter and spirit. (Has a light bulb gone on in your mind yet as to who actually benefited from the regulation? Hint: It wasn't the consumers of rail transportation. They were doing just fine without the regulation.)
Let's take a look at just two things required by the new law. 1) Rail freight rates be filed in a written format with the ICC, and 2) Rebates were prohibited. Who benefited from these stipulations? It was the railroad corporations that benefited, not their customers.
Railroads had tried to set up cartels to limit competition. These didn't work well. The economics of railroading demand volume. So some member of a cartel would cheat by giving shippers secret rebates to get more volume. But it was a secret that could not be kept. Once freight started to gravitate to the line offering the rebates the other members of the cartel would notice their own loss of business and realize what was going on. They basically had two choices. They could just let the business go away. This would drive up their average cost per load and eventually run them out of business. Or, they could lower their own charges. They pretty much always chose to stay in business by lowering their own charges. And that is a very big part of why rail freight charges in 1890 were half of what they were in 1867. (Technology improvements were another big part of the decline.)
There was no way for the railroad corporations to enforce their cartel agreements among themselves. So they got a Federal law that enforced the cartel agreements. By requiring written tariffs and prohibiting charging less than the tariff. Benefit railroad, detriment customer.
The 1887 Act to Regulate Interstate Commerce was a classic example of what is known as "Predatory Regulation." That would be regulation enacted to protect a corporation from competition, not to protect consumer interest. A consumer's economic best interest is always best served by competition, not regulation.
Of course, this destroys the "Heroic Bureaucrat" image many government apologists cherish. But then, many government apologists are, or were, government bureaucrats. (No intent to slight to government employees here. Government has a role and needs people to perform that role. But price regulation is not something the government should ever do absent a war emergency. It's just the dolts that think there is no limit to what government should do that I have a problem with.)
And, honestly, Ripley was a big fan of government regulation. The value of the cited book is in its historical recounting. Ripley was an elitist and felt he and his cohorts could make decisions for the American people better than those people could make decisions for themselves. I hate that.
Attacking by belittling the source is the refuge of someone who is not dealing with the issue at hand, as any historian recognizes. Nothing you said at length changes the historical reasons and sequence of why the ICC was created. The indirect Granger connection was also explained in my response, which you ignored, by oversight I will assume. You use the logical fallacy of citing later developments as proof the the ICC was conceived as yet another example of "predatory regulation." I realize this is a pet peeve/theory of yours and the developments you have cited elsewhere concerning intermodal regulation were useful. But here you are letting your political views overstep historical accuracy.
If you watch Fox News a lot, you believe that free enterprise was always good for everyone, and a tiny "elite" of liberals tried to destroy it through unnecessary regulation just to make themselves happy. Reality is different.
In the case of railroad rates, the railroads in the 19th century had a great situation - they were given land for free by the government via land grants, which they then sold for a profit to farmers. Once the farmers' crops were harvested, the railroads were the only way to get the crops to market - and the railroads could charge whatever they wanted to haul it.
The Grange was an organization of farmers who wanted the government to ensure the railroads didn't gouge them for shipping their grain and other crops. They were very successful in passing state laws regulating shipping rates, the grading of crops (which determined their value) etc., and had an effect on national legislation. Of course not everyone wanted lower shipping rates for crops, as it meant less profit for the railroads. However, it was better for farmers and consumers.
wjstix If you watch Fox News a lot, you believe that free enterprise was always good for everyone, and a tiny "elite" of liberals tried to destroy it through unnecessary regulation just to make themselves happy. Reality is different. In the case of railroad rates, the railroads in the 19th century had a great situation - they were given land for free by the government via land grants, which they then sold for a profit to farmers. Once the farmers' crops were harvested, the railroads were the only way to get the crops to market - and the railroads could charge whatever they wanted to haul it. The Grange was an organization of farmers who wanted the government to ensure the railroads didn't gouge them for shipping their grain and other crops. They were very successful in passing state laws regulating shipping rates, the grading of crops (which determined their value) etc., and had an effect on national legislation. Of course not everyone wanted lower shipping rates for crops, as it meant less profit for the railroads. However, it was better for farmers and consumers.
If it wasn't 15 below zero here, this would have caused me to go out and have a martini. I'd be sitting there slowly sipping it while contemplating the upcoming end of civilization as we know it. (I like mine up, made with gin, and served with blue cheese stuffed olives.)
The quoted post seems similar to someone from North Korea chanting unthinking tribute to Dear Leader. The quoted poster is chanting the myth and he's clearly not putting any thought into the chant.
For an example, he falsely chants "...and the railroads could charge whatever they wanted to haul it." No they could not. But that doesn't fit the myth. Faced with a conflict between myth and fact, the poster chooses to go with the myth. I guess it's easier than thinking.
In a previous post I thoroughly went through the behavior of rail freight rates in the US from 1867 through the end of the 19th Century. I provided a reputable source for my numbers, cited specifics, and gave page numbers so my writing could be checked. Clearly the unregulated rates declined by half in 33 years.
Now, does it make sense to anyone that if "the railroads could charge whatever they wanted to haul it.", as he said, their rates would have been cut in half? No, that doesn't make any sense. The railroads were in a very competitive situation and that competition was obviously driving rates down. I mean it's indisputable that the rates declined. And there was no effective regulation of the rates.
No, the railroads couldn't charge what they wanted. They were limited by competition, and that competition drove the rates consistently downward.
But for some folks, it's much more satisfying to chant the myth than to deal with actual facts.
The Fox News slap was childish and gratuitous. It was meant to demean and discredit without providing anything of substance. I don't watch much TV aside from sports and good movies that are on from time to time. I'm convinced that Bill O'Riley of Fox News is a loud mouth, ignorant, jerk.
But Fox News has nothing to do with this. Including it was simply an attempt to smear by false association.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.