We sure did have some heated exchanges back then.
I always read FM’s postings and found his points extremely interesting and thought provoking. Looking at his points on cross subsidizing from loose car freight to intermodal, he made interesting points, but that is probably the case with just about any noncommodity type industry.
It appears the STB’s ruling could lead to a shift in the pricing structure and power now in place with the rails.
ed
OH, PUHLEEZE…
Not this drivel, again…
LC
Tells you something doesn’t it?
A tormentor leaves and things return to a state of relative normalcy…imagine that!?!
LC
The idea was to produce a hypothetical cost structure for an identical railroad, to compare to the actual cost structure of the actual railroad. In essence, the SAC required a complaining shipper to design a railroad. What on earth was that all about? It is a bizarre approach. As Alfred Kahn, generally regarded as the Father of Deregulation, pointed out:
"I never dreamed, however, in proclaiming that efficient prices should be based on incremental costs, that policymakers would then proceed to ignore the actual incremental costs of the incumbent suppliers and instead adopt as the basis for policy the costs of a hypothetical, most efficient new entrant, constructing an entire set of facilities as though writing on a blank slate … The entire logic of the marginal cost pricing principle requires that prices reflect the additional costs that society will actually incur or save if purchasers take somewhat more or somewhat less of the product or service in question. " [Alfred E. Kahn, “Whom the Gods Would Destroy, or How Not to Deregulate,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center First Distinguished Lecture, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, WASHINGTON, D.C., 2001.]
Alfred Kahn was one of the economists who designed the Staggers Act. Protecting Captive shippers was a key, and he advocated that “bottleneck” railroads be required to offer captive shippers access to those facilities at stand-alone costs, with corresponding trackage rights to competitive carriers (Kahn 1996c).
…
"The Staggers Act, deregulating the railroads, was predicated upon the universal recognition of their need for greater freedom to discriminate in their charges for different kinds of traffic, if they were to have an opportunity to recover both their heavy sunk costs and their large element of fixed and common costs, even on a forward-looking basis.
"At the same time, there was concern about the danger of the railroads’ exploiting the very large amounts of captive traffic, where they concededly had and still enjoy a large amount of monopoly power. The central question, therefore, concerned the proper upper limit for permissible price discrimination. The Staggers Act had itself adopted a standard approximately the same as the one proposed by the ILECs for the pricing of UNEs-namely, the actual (rather than hypot
To refer to the victim as the tormentor is patently offensive.
Use the search feature for “bootlick” and any reader can see who were the tormentors.
It is interesting, just as it always happened, that even when Dave’s name comes up, the same tired old group still shows up to harass him, without any regard to the thread topic. “LC” was always a leader of those off-topic attacks – here he is again. Claiming even now to be “tormented” and compelled to comment. This was typical, and as ridiculous then as it is now.
This is getting personal and off-topic. It is also an affront to discuss someone who is not here to speak for himself.
Please address the topic in the originator’s opening statment.
-Crandell
Thanks Crandell!
A “Class 1 exec…”
Oh, please…
Dave was asked to leave simply because he refused to stop picking fights.
That was his main reason for being here in the first place…not to learn, or entertain or enlighten, but simply to pick fights.
As for the same five attacking him, or complaining about him…nonsense…re read any post with Dave involved…anyone who failed to agree with him was immediately insulted and berated by Dave, in attempts to start fights.
The complaints came from almost all sides of the forum.
After repeated warnings and request to cease, he was asked to leave, and then locked out when he refused.
I asked Bergie, and this is what he told me.
If Dave told you anything different…well, I am not real sure why everything has to be a conspiracy, or a Big Brother versus you few white knights kinda thing, but if it makes you and Dave feel more important, then enjoy.
“Class 1 Exec”…I doubt there is a single class 1 executive out there who cares what is written in this, or any other railfan forum.
As for cyber stalking…well my, my you’ve become dramatic…
And my original response here was to the thread starter, asking him to clarify his title…no insult there, and none intended, yet his response was immediate and insulting,.
Regardless, I didn’t even address you Mike, yet you felt compelled to accuse me of cyber stalking, and insult me…not to hard to see who is starting what ,when and where…although I am somewhat honored to be in the company of the “five” you seem to hate so much…their qualifications are outstanding in their chosen railroad fields.
Beyond that, Dave is gone simply because he refused to stop picking fights, so his own bad behavior and that alone got him the boot.
As Crandell pointed out, he is not here to speak for himself, so lets give it a rest.
[quote user=“MichaelSol”]
[quote user=“TimChgo9”]
[
Well, except you obviously can’t. As I have sugg
[sigh]