Time for a national, publicly-owned, railway?

[amateur51]

It is true the word like many others can have varying degrees of strength and. yes. even meaning, but if I emerge from any activity with something of value (that I didn't possess before) then that, to me at least, is most definitely 'a profit' !

And I hope that you wash your hands afterwards, scotty

[Flosshilde]

If I wasn't going to profit from going to work in the private sector I simply wouldn't bother getting out of bed in the first place,

Does Scotty think he's a supermodel? "I don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day" - Linda Evangelista

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4fa31c74eab8eaca60000003-401-301/linda-evangelista.jpg

We all profit (however low) from our labours in paid employment

Tricky thing, the English language. Yes, we all 'profit' from many things, including improved transport services; that's not the same as 'earning' a profit - ie money - from providing those services.

[scottycelt]

Does Scotty think he's a supermodel? "I don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day" - Linda Evangelista

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4fa31c74eab8eaca60000003-401-301/linda-evangelista.jpg

Tricky thing, the English language. Yes, we all 'profit' from many things, including improved transport services; that's not the same as 'earning' a profit - ie money - from providing those services.

Quite right, Linda! ... we supermodels must stick together ..

Well, Floss, we now appear to be in agreement ... and that's undoubtedly an expected profit for us both regarding mutual understanding on this forum ... earning money from providing services is a 'profit'? Of course it is, that's exactly what I've been saying all along!

If we didn't 'profit' by earning money we'd stay in bed just like the lovely Lucky Linda!

[Flosshilde]

And while we are talking about profit, According to the Guardian's report Virgin Rail paid out £381m dividend over the past ten years, so it was certainly very profitable for some, who probably didn't even have to get out of bed to 'earn' it. Wouldn't that have been better used to reduce the subsidy paid by government (us)?

(And yes, I do object to putting money into Branson's pocket, but not nearly as much as I object to putting it into Soutar's)

[Flosshilde]

You seem to have misunderstood me, Scotty, & I have to assume deliberately, as I think I was quite clear. We are certainly not in agreement (or if we are you seem to have had a dramtic conversion. Were you on the road to anywhere?)

[amateur51]

We all profit (however low) from our labours in paid employment ...

Disabled people who are being forced off benefits into lowpaid work by ATOS most probably don't - I wonder what dividends ATOS paid out last year?

[amateur51]

And while we are talking about profit, According to the Guardian's report Virgin Rail paid out £381m dividend over the past ten years, so it was certainly very profitable for some, who probably didn't even have to get out of bed to 'earn' it. Wouldn't that have been better used to reduce the subsidy paid by government (us)?

(And yes, I do object to putting money into Branson's pocket, but not nearly as much as I object to putting it into Soutar's)

[Dave2002]

It seems that the Pendolinos are owned by Angel Trains. http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/news/release.aspx?Id=705

Thanks for this. I assumed something like that, but was misinformed by a third party. At least this means that there should be no major asset problem re trains if there is a change in operator.

[Flosshilde]

Thanks for this. I assumed something like that, but was misinformed by a third party. At least this means that there should be no major asset problem re trains if there is a change in operator.

I assume that that's why the 3-part structure - train operating companies, a company owning the track & facilities, and a company owning the rolling stock - was set up. But that still doesn't explain why its the tocs that 'invest' in new rolling stock, as Virgin was said to with the Pendolinos. Do they say to the rolling stock company 'we want some new trains & we will pay x pounds for them'?

[Flosshilde]

It is true the word like many others can have varying degrees of strength and. yes. even meaning, but if I emerge from any activity with something of value (that I didn't possess before) then that, to me at least, is most definitely 'a profit' !

but 'profit' implies, as ff said, that you have a net gain. If you are being paid for your labour you are exchanging your physical and mental efforts, and your time, for your pay. In theory it should balance. If you have a net gain - ie a profit - you are being overpaid.

Who is it you work for, Scotty? I'll tip them off.

[Dave2002]

but 'profit' implies, as ff said, that you have a net gain. If you are being paid for your labour you are exchanging your physical and mental efforts, and your time, for your pay. In theory it should balance. If you have a net gain - ie a profit - you are being overpaid.

Who is it you work for, Scotty? I'll tip them off.

I'm guessing you think we should be operating with Pareto equilibria, but the real world is not like that. I suspect that true Pareto equibrium is completely impractical, but most of us would be happy to operate in something which is not too far off - or at least think we would. What seems to really upset some people (me included) is some people who, IMHO, do **** all, and yet still manage to end up with more $$$$ than almost all the rest of us. On the other hand, I don't believe in hard work being rewarded. Simply working hard may be pointless - it may not be necessary, may result in unwanted products or services, or there may be better ways of doing the same thing. People who work effectively should be rewarded - sometimes their work will be hard, sometimes less so.

[scottycelt]

You seem to have misunderstood me, Scotty, & I have to assume deliberately, as I think I was quite clear. We are certainly not in agreement (or if we are you seem to have had a dramtic conversion. Were you on the road to anywhere?)

No, I was being silly ... you couldn't quite bring yourself to admit you might just agree with me over anything, now, could you, Floss ... ?

My definition of 'profit' is perfectly consistent with that contained in any official dictionary. We have had such disputes before over words, and their various meanings have also been freely available there for any curious member to view.

I can never quite understand these disputes over words when there are acknowledged different meanings. French Frank has her own interpretation but I cannot quite work out how she considers the financial worth of one's personal contribution to an organisation and/or society can be anything other than a subjective opinion. Coming out with a penny when one went in completely broke is still a financial 'profit', surely?

An 'excess profit' may well be frowned upon in the same way as any other excess but I don't understand this weird antipathy to 'profit' in itself. 'Give and take' is a good part of the natural human experience and we all 'profit' from it sometimes. Even our profit-hating socialists in 'public service' might receive more from a non-contributory pension scheme heavily invested in the stock market than the nil money they themselves put into it .. don't they consider that a 'profit' or maybe they feel it's simply an 'entitlement'?

[Frances_iom]

...
My definition of 'profit' is perfectly consistent with that contained in any official dictionary. ... Even our profit-hating socialists in 'public service' might receive more from a non-contributory pension scheme heavily invested in the stock market than the nil money they themselves put into it .. don't they consider that a 'profit' or maybe they feel it's simply an 'entitlement'?

Obviously I would expect a return from my own significant investment in a pension fund (tho of course the Tory colition removed most of that with 0.5% interest - as the Gov of B of e said the only ones to benefit have been the rich ) - however railways are effectively natural monopolies - the SW Trains fare to London is excessive but there is no alternative carrier - the WCML has a few carriers available but for any long distance Virgin hold a monopoly unless you wish to spend all day getting north of Crewe - what various Govs have done since privatisation has controlled the peak commute fares (ie a subsidy to their electorate in SE England mainly) but other fares falling into the complicated morass of predatory price structures have seen significant increases- some lines appear to be licences to print money.

[Dave2002]

Obviously I would expect a return from my own significant investment in a pension fund (tho of course the Tory colition removed most of that with 0.5% interest - as the Gov of B of e said the only ones to benefit have been the rich ) - however railways are effectively natural monopolies - the SW Trains fare to London is excessive but there is no alternative carrier - the WCML has a few carriers available but for any long distance Virgin hold a monopoly unless you wish to spend all day getting north of Crewe - what various Govs have done since privatisation has controlled the peak commute fares (ie a subsidy to their electorate in SE England mainly) but other fares falling into the complicated morass of predatory price structures have seen significant increases- some lines appear to be licences to print money.

We live in a world where we have something called money.

Why would/should you expect to get any return on the money you have already saved? There are several possible answers, including:

Because it's usual
Because you want to maintain the value of your money
Because you want to make more money
Because you have effectively lent the money to others
who are benefitting from it, and you want something back as a reward

Let's assume you obtained your money legitimately, by some process which people round here will agree with.
You could spend it all now, but that might not be clever if you are no longer able to acquire more money.

Money is often (usually) used to buy goods and services. Daily wants and needs may be satisfied using income which is acquired over a short period, which leads to a form of hand to mouth existence. This can be viable as long as people are able to acquire money, either as individuals or as a group. For longer term survival of society and individuals within it, some other mechanisms are needed. One such mechanism is for people to acquire more money than they need immediately, and to keep it for later - when they become older, or if they become ill.

Other people may be behaving in similar ways, but with a shift in time. You may be prepared to lend money to others to let them buy goods or services which they need/want now, but with the expectation that they will return your money to you at a reasonable value rate later on, when you need it. You may be more prepared to lend your money to people (organisations) whom you trust to be able to pay it back, when your need arises. You would probably not lend money to a group of people who declared that they simply wanted to go on a few round the world cruises, as you would realise that they would have no way of generating the money to pay you back in the future. However, if you realised that they had assets which could be useful to you or others, or that they had skills, or could acquire skills, which would enable them to generate revenue, then you would be more encouraged, and either take over their assets, or exact a promise that they will provide you with help later. Trust is a significant part of the operation/process. It is not perfect. Someone could request a loan for some constructive purpose, then deliberately use it in another way, and finally default on repayment. There is nothing about money itself to prevent this. There will always be some people who either accidentally or deliberately cause problems.

Saving/investment is a way in which the value of your money today may be protected against some future changes. It's not perfect, so the perceived value may be more or less in the future. This can be due to many factors. Some goods may become easier to make, so if you use your money in the future to buy them, you will get more, or better quality goods. Some goods may become scarcer, so the prices will rise if you want them. Some services may become more problematic, so again the future price will rise.

Once we have systems which operate reasonably well for most people, there is the possibility of subversion or fraud. Shares and stock markets did not start out with the intention of providing people with ways to make a living without doing any (real) work. It seems almost inevitable that some people will find ways to get something for nothing, if they can do so. Not only that, but some less scrupulous people will actively look out for ways of so doing in any system.

Sorry for the ramble, but it may make some people think harder - including me!

[scottycelt]

Obviously I would expect a return from my own significant investment in a pension fund (tho of course the Tory colition removed most of that with 0.5% interest - as the Gov of B of e said the only ones to benefit have been the rich ) - however railways are effectively natural monopolies - the SW Trains fare to London is excessive but there is no alternative carrier - the WCML has a few carriers available but for any long distance Virgin hold a monopoly unless you wish to spend all day getting north of Crewe - what various Govs have done since privatisation has controlled the peak commute fares (ie a subsidy to their electorate in SE England mainly) but other fares falling into the complicated morass of predatory price structures have seen significant increases- some lines appear to be licences to print money.

In the private sector, pensions were being downgraded and even removed altogether for new company employees long before the Coalition came to power!

I don't quite understand your logic when you talk about Virgin holding 'a monopoly'. Isn't nationalisation the very ultimate in a monopoly?

Also, I don't think people are particularly interested which company owns and runs the train service as long as it's service is reasonably efficient and affordable.

The train companies only get a fixed term contract then they have to compete for the franchise again. I think that's preferable to numerous companies running on the same line then they all go bust, as there is really only room for one or two. We all know what happened when there was the privitisation of the buses. Absolute chaos until the majority dropped out or went bust and then we had a more realistic number left to compete.

You don't need to spend all day getting somewhere north of Crewe, if you don't particularly like Virgin. You can use the North West Trains service to Manchester or Manchester Airport and then catch the same company's Voyager to Glasgow or Edinburgh stopping at stations en route. Obviously this train is slower than a Pendolino but the difference in time to these two cities is less than an hour.

It cost me less than £20 for the return trip from Manchester to Glasgow earlier this year using NWT. It recently cost me a similar amount to and from London with Virgin. Who ever pays the top fare on peak-time trains unless they are on business and, if so, presumably that fare is paid by the person's company anyway?

If anything, unless you live in the admittedly horrendously expensive London area, rail travel can be comparatively cheap now for the 'ordinary' traveller, more so than it ever was in the past.