Farmers complain about BNSF rates to STB

[MP173]

I personally like captive customers. It enables me to make good margins. That is the goal.

ed

[Anonymous]

Note to NuclearWinter: You can edit the topic title to get rid of the "Framers" misspelling and replace it with the proper "Farmers" spelling, unless "Framers" really was your intent?

Do it, if for no other reason than to make the subsequent "framers" references look just plain stupid.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

QUOTE: [i] Even so, it is sophomoric and insulting that his response to Montana farmers being gouged by BNSF is to suggest that the entire state be shipped north. If any states should be "shipped north", e.g. cast out from this nation, it should be those that have done the least for this nation.

Yeah, but who in their right mind would want Louisiana?

[:D]

France?[:o)]

[edblysard]

QUOTE: [i] Even so, it is sophomoric and insulting that his response to Montana farmers being gouged by BNSF is to suggest that the entire state be shipped north. If any states should be "shipped north", e.g. cast out from this nation, it should be those that have done the least for this nation.

Yeah, but who in their right mind would want Louisiana?

[:D]

[edblysard]

The supply isn’t tight...I yarded two 125 car unit grain trains today, with two more already entering the metroplex...we called a extra to pull the empties out of Cargill just to have a place to park one of them.
All four of them were from the "evil" monopolistic BNSF.
And all four are overseas shipments; the ships are in the docks right now, waiting for us to spot the plant.

Montana farmers aren’t starving, they do make a profit, just not as much as they would like...the gripe is they don’t want to pay the cost of shipping, no one else wants to build a railroad into the area, or serve small elevators because the railroad cant make a profit, or enough of a profit, to justify running the small trains needed to do so.

BNSF isn’t refusing to serve them, if they want to pay the cost, BN will go and haul the cars...but BNSF is offering a cheaper rate if they bring the grain to the big elevators, which the fine folks of Montana don’t want to do.

And don’t buy into the myth of oil supplies being tight, they aren’t...it’s the refining capacity that’s lacking.
Shell, Mobil/Exxon, Phillips, BP and Chevron are running the Pasadena and Texas City refineries full till, 24/7, and still can’t meet the demand.
No one is going to invest in new refineries, they are tremendously expensive, and with all the EPA regs now in place, if they did, what they would have to charge for the products would price them beyond anyone’s ability to pay.
Katrinia didn’t hurt the crude supply one bit, it hammered the ability to make the finished product…so in that instance, yes, the “supply” of finished product, gasoline, is smaller, which drives the price up.

Ed

[edbenton]

Fine let the farmers stop growing grain and see how long our standard of living remains the same. We are the worlds breadbasket we supply over 60% of the worlds grain supply. Yet farmers have seen the prices drop and demand grow. I thought if supply was tight prices go up the oil companys think that way.

[edblysard]

Never said there were no captive shippers, but then again, they all do have choices.
Know all about “captive” shippers, most of the PTRA customers would fall into your skewed definition of captive.

They aren’t, they could truck it out, but that would cost more.

The rub is the wheat farmers don’t like the alternatives, and the cost, regardless of what mode is used.
What they want is a break on their shipping cost, which it would appear that you have a vested interest in.
I notice you don’t carry on near as much about the poor coal mines, or the fruit growers, or the captive General Motors plants, most of which are served by only one railroad.

That and it's just easier to gripe about the railroads, which the farmers, and you, seem to heartily wish would somehow turn into a public utility.

They are not, but you guys seem to think that if you repeat the same nonsense over and over again, by simple rote and repetition the rest of the world will agree, if only to make you be quite.

Add in the fact that you need a villain to make your pseudo economics appear to make sense, and the fact that the wheat growers in Montana somehow seem to think that because they grow their crop out in the middle of nowhere, they should get a break on shipping cost....

You just willing ignore the free market place forces at play...one of which is if you build your product far away from the transportation center, then it will cost you more to ship your product, regardless of the product, or it’s supposed public value, and regardless of how many carriers serve your area...not a hard concept to grasp, but then again, you seem to think "fair" is a business concept due "the people", and profit is a dirty word....

Yup, railroads cut deals with some big shippers, almost every business in the world does so, and they cut deals with their suppliers, shippers, buyers and retailers, its part of doing business.

Get it…business, not “public utility”….

If the Montana farmers can’t make living growing crops, maybe they should change business, or move….

But this is all a waste of time; you refuse to concede any part of any concept that doesn’t fit your narrow view of the world, or your personal vendetta against railroads and railroaders…and, like most trolls, when someone doesn’t agree with you, or your view point, you insult them…

Many people here have looked very hard at your concepts, asked very clear, concise question, and those that fail to jump on your bandwagon you rant on about, almost rabid in your derogatory insults towards them…even those that tentatively agree with you get slapped, if they fail to agree 100% in short order.

Like I said, what a waste….and the really funny part of all of this is this thread started with people having fun with a posters dyslexic moment…

[Anonymous]

Aw, crap, here we go again. Why is it so hard for pro-railroad types to just admit that there are captive rail shippers, most rail captivity is foisted upon U.S. producers and exporters to the benefit of importers, and this one sided captivity hurts the U.S. position in the world trade game, not to mention causing undo hardship on their fellow Americans? Geez, you can still be a pro-rail bigot even if you make such an admission. Or are you afraid of losing your membership to the cult of ilks if you dare to be truthful?

It is a stark form of traitorism when many pro-rail bigots would rather stroke the collective egos of overseas producers (who oft times make no secret as to their anti-American attitudes) than to lend a helping hand to their fellow citizens.

BTW, all this talk of "giving away" certain states to Canada is done tounge in cheek, at least on my part. Not to sure about Bob Wilcox, but at this point I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing the same. Even so, it is sophomoric and insulting that his response to Montana farmers being gouged by BNSF is to suggest that the entire state be shipped north. If any states should be "shipped north", e.g. cast out from this nation, it should be those that have done the least for this nation.

Subtle traitorism, that's what it seems to suggest.......

[edblysard]

"The moral of the story being that you can single out just about any idiocy, and by careful ignorance, proclaim just about anything about anything. "

See below....

“But,” explains the Times, “the definition of manufacturing includes movies, software, oil and gas refining and engineering services. That means the beneficiaries would also include Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft and giant engineering companies like Bechtel and Fluor.”

"Oddly enough, farmers don't ask for income tax relief from their 24%-38% income tax bracket.

They pay their taxes and send their kids to war. "

Seems you practice what you preach against, and very well, I might add...

As if Time Warner, or Disney employees, up to and including company officers don’t pay their taxes, or send their kids off to war...

Pretty cheap shot, but then, considering the source....

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

If farmers can take our money through taxes, how about a government subsidy for every local Ace Hardware put out of business by Lowes or Home Depot? On the other hand why don't we ask farmers to face the same risks as any other business.

Those poor corporations. Montana farmers pay the usual income tax rate on their income.

However, * According to the Oct. 24 [2003] New York Times, House Republican leaders are close to offering yet another tax cut aimed at US multinational corporations. The proposal, estimates the Times, will provide an additional $60 billion in tax cuts to US companies over the next 10 years.

House Republicans claim the beneficiaries will be US manufacturers and small businesses [including Ace Hardware]. “But,” explains the Times, “the definition of manufacturing includes movies, software, oil and gas refining and engineering services. That means the beneficiaries would also include Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft and giant engineering companies like Bechtel and Fluor.”
...
* But they’re not paying any taxes now: Recent estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office show that corporate income tax revenue to the federal government fell 36% between 2000 and 2003. In 2000, corporations paid $207 billion in income taxes; in 2003, those taxes were $132 billion.

According to the CBO, corporate taxes represented just 7.4% of all federal tax dollars in 2003. “With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level since 1934, the first year the data was collected,” said the non-partisan Center on Budget & Policy Priorities."

Oddly enough, farmers don't ask for income tax relief from their 24%-38% income tax bracket.

They pay their taxes and send their kids to war.

All they ask for is fairness, while Bob Wilcox not only disparages their livelihoods and their sacrifices, but he wants business to get more government help and tax breaks above what they already have which are already ridiculous.

The rail industry has enough public relations problems without spokesmen like these, who hurt this industry far more than they help it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Cris Helt

So the history of railroads vs. farmers continues to repeat itself. CN and CP stiff the farmers in Alberta, C&NW angers the farmers in Iowa, and UP overcharges the farming folk in Nebraska. Now it's BNSF's turn. Would it help if the railroad assigned enough sales reps to an area and actually have them live there so the rep could get to know the people and the way things are done in their assigned area? It's a throwback to the "good old days," and the railroad (in this case BNSF) may balk at the extra cost, but it's better than having to play phone tag with a railroad employee stationed a thousand miles away who has no idea what's going on, aside from some stats on a piece of paper.

We did just that on the C&NW in Iowa for over 100 years. It did not pay off.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox
... why don't we ask farmers to face the same risks as any other business.

I think "same risks" is the key phrase. That's exactly what they are asking for.

A North Dakota or Montana farmer pays pretty much the same costs for labor, fertilizer, seed, fuel, bank financing, etc. as any other farmer.

The cost that is dramatically different is the 100% or more greater cost they must pay to ship, compared to other farmers shipping the identical product the identical distance over the identical railroad to the identical markets.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

So the history of railroads vs. farmers continues to repeat itself. CN and CP stiff the farmers in Alberta, C&NW angers the farmers in Iowa, and UP overcharges the farming folk in Nebraska. Now it's BNSF's turn. Would it help if the railroad assigned enough sales reps to an area and actually have them live there so the rep could get to know the people and the way things are done in their assigned area? It's a throwback to the "good old days," and the railroad (in this case BNSF) may balk at the extra cost, but it's better than having to play phone tag with a railroad employee stationed a thousand miles away who has no idea what's going on, aside from some stats on a piece of paper.

[bobwilcox]

If farmers can take our money through taxes, how about a government subsidy for every local Ace Hardware put out of business by Lowes or Home Depot? On the other hand why don't we ask farmers to face the same risks as any other business.

[MichaelSol]

"Montana’s low rainfall from 2000 through to July of 2004 contributed to hydrological drought conditions that have been classified from severe to exceptional (See Chart 2).1 Montana holds the third largest acreage of wheat in the nation, and ranks in the top ten in terms of hay and other forage."

"In addition to drought conditions, Montana’s direct government farm subsidies, which represented half of the state’s farm net income during 2003, may be affected by other recent developments "

"For wheat farmers, transportation costs of as much as a third of the value of their crop would be devastating if it weren't for the government subsidies. "We barely meet the costs of production. This year, with low wheat prices and BNSF raising rates by $150 or more per carload, the government is really just subsidizing the rail industry. We don't really get them [the subsidies]. We deposit one check so we can write another.""

Even with subsidies, "net farm income has remained flat for over 25 years."

"I've lost more money in the past five years than I've made in the past 35 years. I have a bumper crop, and I'm going broke doing it." Billings Gazette, 8/28/05, p. 9A.

Interesting, wheat farmers don't know anything about railroading, but railroaders sure act like they know a lot about wheat farming.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edblysard]

[bobwilcox]

Fellow Taxpayers-In 2003 Montana farmers collected $353,351,745 in USDA subsidies. This was an increase of 35% over 2002. See: http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=30000&progcode=total

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I hardly refer to Jeanette Rankin, she had the courage of her convictions. Where is she when we need her the most? I do refer to such types as the Aryan Nation, survivalists, Randy Weaver, etc.

The moral of the story being that you can single out just about any idiocy, and by careful ignorance, proclaim just about anything about anything. If you decided to do a survey of prominent environmental writers, they too would be represented in Montana, or any liberal cause for that matter. From my window, I see the Jeanette Rankin Peace Center, the National Wildlife Federation's national legal counsel office, the National Audubon Society''s national membership office. I also see a nationally ranked School of Business, a "world trade center," "national techology development center," the world's largest fire research center, and the headquarters of Region One, USDA, Forest Service. I also see a railroad, and I see the national headquarters of the Boone & Crockett Society occupying the depot of a former railroad. There is a "presence" but its pretty heavily representive of important national concerns.

I also see a WWII Memorial, and drove past a Vietnam and Korean War Memorial on the way to work.

On their plaques, I see that Montana contributed a higher percentage of its population to fight for America and American ideals in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and currently, than any of the states you gentlemen believe are more deserviing to belong in the "union." Bob Wilcox says he doesn't need'em, nor does he appreciate the sacrifice that farm families in Montana have endured for 80 years, so that people like Bob Wilcox can disparage their state and the many farmers who sent their sons to die. People like this disgust me, and when they do it from the safe confines of a railroad retirement that those sacrifices made possible, I am more than just revolted by these characters and their clever remarks. "Please send your sons to die, but don't you dare complain when your country permits you to be charged the highest shipping rates in the country."

There are probably more survivalists in California than there is population in the combined states of Montana and Idaho, more religious nuts in Texas and more anti-religious nuts in California, than there are farmers, or framers, east of the Rocky Mountain front, and more people in Massachusetts who still think Joseph Stalin was a pretty neat guy than in all of the Rocky Mountain states combined. We still don't have any atheists anxious to blow up federal buildings as they did in Oklahoma. We haven't had any election supervisors trying to jimmy the elections by election fraud to elect Democrats as in Milwaukee, Seattle, or St. Louis. Our staunchly liberal Governor in Montana, a Democrat, got elected the old-fashioned way, by counting real votes which apparently didn't include many survivalists et. al.. He got there, as a wheat farmer, by appealing to a broad popular sentiment in a state where the Republicans are seen as pro-railroad, and the Democrats are seen as representing the true interests of hard working people such as the wheat farmers, and rail workers who complain constantly about their "railroad."

But, a careful review of rail industry literature of the past century would show that this is a typical industry response: a demonstrable and continuing violation of federal law regarding rates by a railroad is transformed by innuendo into "something wrong" with ... the farmers, the states they're from, the shippers, the airlines, the government, the highways, the truckers, regulated rates, unregulated predatory rates, barges, government subsidies, the ICC, the STB, government tax policies and ... Randy Weaver. You name the distraction, they'lll come up with it ... or invent it.

By the way, I am aware that FBI "sharpshooters" shot and killed his unarmed wife while she was cradling a baby, his unarmed 14-year old son, and his unarmed Labrador retriever, each in the head. But I am otherwise unaware of who Randy Weaver is or what he did, or what his wife, 14 year old son, and Labrador retriever may have done to the country. Or what it has to do with railroading other than through Bob Wilcox's typical insidious remarks.

This is why railroad credibility on issues important to railroading continues to be met with derision by the broader business and political community. This industry is politcally tone deaf. I just finished Railroad Mergers by Richard Saunders and it was striking how the author chronicles in detail how the rail industry for nearly a century met each economic or regulatory challenge by petty and often even childish responses.

See the ludicrous comments on this thread for evidence that nothing has changed.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[SALfan]

Whatever his political convictions and whatever merit they might have, my understanding is that Randy Weaver went off and lived by himself, without trying to impose his views on anyone else or make life miserable for those who disagreed with him. The militant (and stupid) zealous liberals in certain Federal agencies at that time should have left him alone.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I hardly refer to Jeanette Rankin, she had the courage of her convictions. Where is she when we need her the most? I do refer to such types as the Aryan Nation, survivalists, Randy Weaver, etc.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I normally don't step into political frays if I can help it but as far as political cancers are concerned, there are many people who feel the same about certain inhabitants of Montana and Idaho since the states seem to attract certain bigots from the extreme right.

You refer of course to Jeanette Rankin, who voted against US entry into both world wars, and Ted Kaczynski, the refugee from UC Berkeley, who was sending package bombs from his Montana address to anyone he felt was anti-environment. Idaho boasts of course Big Bill Hayward who blew up the Governor of Idaho because Big Bill thought the Guv was too "conservative," and Tony Boyle, nee Avery, Idaho, of course tried to keep his hold on the UAW, and his ability to continue to support the hard Left, by murdering the entire family of Jock Yablonski.

Politiics is one thing, "certain bigots," someone else ....

Best regards, Michael Sol

[jeaton]

We could also give Idaho to Canada, too. Near as I can tell, it is only good for a shortcut between Montana and Washington.

Interesting though. This forum's leading advocate of more regulations governing railroads would blast another section of our country for advocating regulations in such areas as worker health and safety, environmental protection, anti-trust laws and many other programs designed for the general welfare of out society.

The nice things about being a conservative is that it is easy to decide on a prefered course of action. "If it isn't beneficial to ME, then it is the mean spirited action of stoney hearted people who are out to regulate everything I do and rob me of my personal wealth in the process".

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I normally don't step into political frays if I can help it but as far as political cancers are concerned, there are many people who feel the same about certain inhabitants of Montana and Idaho since the states seem to attract certain bigots from the extreme right.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Its past time to give Montana to Alberta.

At least then Montanans would have two Class I's to choose from.

It's ironic you mention this, because I have always thought we should give the entire Northeast U.S. to Canada, and in exchange we'll take everything west of Ontario (Sorry, Junctionfan, I know you'd probably rather be with us, but geography is geography!) It's almost a win-win for all, we get rid of a political cancer and gain vast natural resources, they get to regulate and malevolate each other to their small stoney hearts' content.[:p]

Well, ... Oh, Well.

I wonder what it's like to not be limited by reality and reason. Things like facts. If you just don't let those things get in the way it must be fun. Not very productive, but fun.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Its past time to give Montana to Alberta.

At least then Montanans would have two Class I's to choose from.

It's ironic you mention this, because I have always thought we should give the entire Northeast U.S. to Canada, and in exchange we'll take everything west of Ontario (Sorry, Junctionfan, I know you'd probably rather be with us, but geography is geography!) It's almost a win-win for all, we get rid of a political cancer and gain vast natural resources, they get to regulate and malevolate each other to their small stoney hearts' content.[:p]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jsanchez

... that have done nothing but anger farmers, elevator operators, state legislatures, federal representatives, the public, and could fuel the case for reregulation. Reregulation would wind putting the rail industry back into the dark ages, so I hope BNSF somehow wisens up.

You can see from this thread alone that the historical arrogance of the rail industry is alive and well, and if BNSF provokes re-regulation, it will be no surprise to anyone ... except the rail industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[jwinter]

It's not just the farmers complaining. I've seen a number of articles about loggers siting the same complaints, car shortage/higher rates. Only difference is that CN is the naughty railroad in the Upper Michigan.
http://www.miningjournal.net/news/story/1023202005_new01-n1023.asp

[Anonymous]

Talked with a couple of Framers today and they were saying with winter fast approaching, they need to hurry up and get this new house sheathed and enclosed. [:D]

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I don't see how small farmers, who are small customers, are ever going to grow into big customers. The amount of land in Montana that is arable is finite, and you can produce only so much wheat from that land. Crop yields will not expand ad infinitum, a farmer will have good years and bad years, but there is a limit to what will be produced in a good year.

Small farmers virtually died twenty years ago after the credit crunch in the early 1980s. They are usefull when agri-business is after a political payoff such as a subsidy from the local evil railroad.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I don't see how small farmers, who are small customers, are ever going to grow into big customers. The amount of land in Montana that is arable is finite, and you can produce only so much wheat from that land. Crop yields will not expand ad infinitum, a farmer will have good years and bad years, but there is a limit to what will be produced in a good year.