[lenaitch]

Speaking to how badly they were managing CN compared to private CP back in the day.

Taking 1 billion out of 2 billion in stock buybacks (CN and CP historically have high stock buybacks) for investments in passenger rail infrastructure seems entirely to everyone's economic benefit with little downside.

Unless you believe the interests of duopoly shareholders matter more. Investments in transit can spur entrepreneurship and business investment. Also alleviating the problem of all investment going into housing.

I guess it depends on where along the 'socialism < - > free market capitalism' spectrum one lands. A free market economy properly regulated in the public interest is the ideal but it's a tough balance.

I'm not sure where I stand on the State owning capital interest, outside of an arms-length CPP Board). I know it has been done in the past with Air Canada, CN and PetroCan, and more recently with Trans-Mountain.

 

[micheal_can]

I guess it depends on where along the 'socialism < - > free market capitalism' spectrum one lands. A free market economy properly regulated in the public interest is the ideal but it's a tough balance.

I'm not sure where I stand on the State owning capital interest, outside of an arms-length CPP Board). I know it has been done in the past with Air Canada, CN and PetroCan, and more recently with Trans-Mountain.

In a perfect world free market capitalism would make things better. The problem is, with less and less competition, the things in a free market capitalism that would regulate itself disappear. I have asked in political groups, so, I will ask it here: What thing that was privatized in Canada has become better for more Canadians than when it was publicly owned?

 

[lenaitch]

I feel that the creation of the "over siding" trains was the start of the problems. Add to that the desire for freight operators not to run passenger service and you get what we have now.

The railways not wanting to continue with a money losing service should surprise no one. I guess the government could have subsidized them to carry on but decided on VIA instead. They likely saw Amtrak in the US and decided that was the way to go, only they didn't bother supporting it with legislated mandate. If I recall, CP was the most adamant at getting out of the passenger game and any cost.

Longer trains was simply the railways minimizing costs, which they can't be faulted for. For them, any service disruption caused by not spending money to lengthen their passing tracks was an acceptable cost of business.

 

[urbanclient]

Air Canada, CN and PetroCan, and more recently with Trans-Mountain.

There aren't many shining examples of SOEs or nationalization in Canadian history. You'd have to look to other countries.

 

[micheal_can]

The railways not wanting to continue with a money losing service should surprise no one. I guess the government could have subsidized them to carry on but decided on VIA instead. They likely saw Amtrak in the US and decided that was the way to go, only they didn't bother supporting it with legislated mandate. If I recall, CP was the most adamant at getting out of the passenger game and any cost.

Longer trains was simply the railways minimizing costs, which they can't be faulted for. For them, any service disruption caused by not spending money to lengthen their passing tracks was an acceptable cost of business.

I understand the reasons and, yes, when it ends up harming a service Canadians use, I can fault them for it. However, I do not expect them to wake up tomorrow and change it.

 

[lenaitch]

In a perfect world free market capitalism would make things better. The problem is, with less and less competition, the things in a free market capitalism that would regulate itself disappear. I have asked in political groups, so, I will ask it here: What thing that was privatized in Canada has become better for more Canadians than when it was publicly owned?

It largely depends on your parameters. Providing a service that bleeds taxpayer dollars might be "better" for the ones who use it but perhaps not for the ones paying for it. The current Canada Post tribulations are an example. Is daily service to every household in Canada, in some cases to-the-door service, worth the Billion dollars of taxpayer support, with no clear end in sight?

I don't know if there is an example of a previously-publicly owned service that was operated on a commercial, bottom line basis.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a complete free-market capitalist supporter. I like our single-payer healthcare system, but that doesn't mean it without challenges.

 

[urbanclient]

It largely depends on your parameters. Providing a service that bleeds taxpayer dollars might be "better" for the ones who use it but perhaps not for the ones paying for it. The current Canada Post tribulations are an example. Is daily service to every household in Canada, in some cases to-the-door service, worth the Billion dollars of taxpayer support, with no clear end in sight?

I don't know if there is an example of a previously-publicly owned service that was operated on a commercial, bottom line basis.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a complete free-market capitalist supporter. I like our single-payer healthcare system, but that doesn't mean it without challenges.

Related to this discussion:

The whole debate about privatization vs. state-ownership is a bit of a false dichotomy in IMHO. It's not just about who owns the company, it's about how it's run. If SOEs ran around abusing their market position, abusing their customers, illegally competing, and all-around causing social harm, then that would be bad.

If SOEs are managed in a manner where they at least try to compete both within and outside the country, then they can still remain innovative and beneficial to the overall economy. Albeit probably less innovative than a non-state owned company, but I digress.

I'll add that the key is profit incentive, if you have state-run things that have no incentive to profit, much less break even, then fiscal unsustainability is much more likely. I am an advocate of for-profit companies, that just so happen to be state-owned. 100% state ownership is far from necessary, the state just needs to mandate itself to hold a controlling stake.

The current Canada Post tribulations are an example. Is daily service to every household in Canada, in some cases to-the-door service, worth the Billion dollars of taxpayer support, with no clear end in sight?

Door-to-door letter service is obsolete, I am glad it's ending for suburban pearl clutchers.

It speaks to poor management regarding how they managed to turn a profitable parcel delivery situation to an unprofitable one. I don't buy the narrative that a flood of cheap labour is the only reason Canada Post failed to compete against Amazon-adjacent couriers.

-----------------------

Also I want to reiterate, that the whole point of state-ownership, or publicly-run services (like healthcare, which theoretically produces more than a fully-privatized equivalent) is economic benefit to society. As libertarians believe, if SOEs were a black hole where money disappeared, they wouldn't be financially sustainable.

 

[micheal_can]

It largely depends on your parameters. Providing a service that bleeds taxpayer dollars might be "better" for the ones who use it but perhaps not for the ones paying for it. The current Canada Post tribulations are an example. Is daily service to every household in Canada, in some cases to-the-door service, worth the Billion dollars of taxpayer support, with no clear end in sight?

I don't know if there is an example of a previously-publicly owned service that was operated on a commercial, bottom line basis.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a complete free-market capitalist supporter. I like our single-payer healthcare system, but that doesn't mean it without challenges.

Canada Post is a great example. We see how we need low wage workers, driving questionable vehicles, driving poorly, and running when they get out to drop of something to be successful. So, that is not an improvement.
The real problem with the free market is when a big guy buys up all the little guys instead of actually competing with them.

I do not think there is a way HSR could be successful if it also had to be profitable.