23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer Does this mean the STB must let the DM&E build thier PRB extension to provide more competition?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Puckdropper greyhounds, I'm confused. Is that sarcasm or not? Please denote anything questionable like that so to prevent confusion!
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. Didn't I hear somewhere that the RR's have the right to Price there own Freight shipments?
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by Puckdropper greyhounds, I'm confused. Is that sarcasm or not? Please denote anything questionable like that so to prevent confusion! "Puckdropper"? Well, I guess you're out of work. It took a few years, but they did screw up hockey didn't they. Of course, before that, they wrecked the Indianapolis 500, which took some doing, but they did it. Most of my previous post regarding God, cats or dogs is meant as "sarcasm". How would you suggest that I "denote" such. But I do basically believe that "When God made a dog, He made a Greyhound" is true. That's a dog as He intended a dog to be. And I like cats just fine. Like dogs, they're a gift from God that enriches our lives.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Jamie, Given Bush's relationship with corporate America, I doubt this is a politically motivated investigation so much as it is probably a reluctant action due to overwhelming complaints from the captive shipper sector of our economy. When you look at this from the macro-economic viewpoint, you begin to understand the notion that what's good for the railroads isn't necessarily good for the economy on the whole. The U.S. is in heated competition with the rest of the world for manufacturing retainment, and when the means of transportation in the U.S. is more costly than that for other nations, it can be a major contributor to manufacturers relocating overseas. We are all aware that it costs more for captive shippers to get their goods to port than it does in other countries. We are also constrained by our energy costs, and when the price of delivered coal goes up, the cost of energy also goes up, and that's one more factor in whether a company relocates or stays put. No one wants to see the railroads go broke, but neither do we want to see all our manufacturing jobs leave. Since rail shippers represent a far larger portion of the GDP than do the railroads themselves, it makes sense for the feds to take action to prevent or reduce pricing factors for the costs of inputs and the transportation of U.S. goods to port.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Jamie, Given Bush's relationship with corporate America, I doubt this is a politically motivated investigation so much as it is probably a reluctant action due to overwhelming complaints from the captive shipper sector of our economy. When you look at this from the macro-economic viewpoint, you begin to understand the notion that what's good for the railroads isn't necessarily good for the economy on the whole. The U.S. is in heated competition with the rest of the world for manufacturing retainment, and when the means of transportation in the U.S. is more costly than that for other nations, it can be a major contributor to manufacturers relocating overseas. We are all aware that it costs more for captive shippers to get their goods to port than it does in other countries. We are also constrained by our energy costs, and when the price of delivered coal goes up, the cost of energy also goes up, and that's one more factor in whether a company relocates or stays put. No one wants to see the railroads go broke, but neither do we want to see all our manufacturing jobs leave. Since rail shippers represent a far larger portion of the GDP than do the railroads themselves, it makes sense for the feds to take action to prevent or reduce pricing factors for the costs of inputs and the transportation of U.S. goods to port. Dave, If this were about shippers on a branch line serving less-than trainload customers, I might be more convinced; but, don't you think the relationship between Powder River Basin Coal and manufacturing is a bit attenuated to support your "its about keeping manufacturing jobs" argument? I am not sure this administration#8212;or the last three#8212;want to keep such industry in the United States. It seems to me that the economic strategy is to intentionally export as many of these jobs as we can in order to keep inflation in check and transform the American economy into primarily a#8212;non-union#8212;service/technology based economy. I am not saying that is a good or a bad thing; it is just my observation. Also, even assuming the truth of your premise concerning Bush and corporate America, corporate America is not one entity. It is many small entities in competition with one another. Until I see an argument explaining how BNSF or UP's pricing is unfair, I am going to have difficulty seeing how this is anything less than an attempt of lobbyists from corporation Y to get the government to take money out of the hands of corporation X and give it to Y. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Ding
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard I am sure they get about the same volume from the tea sips as we get here on the forum, most likely from the same source... Ed
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.