View Single Post
Old 02.21.2019, 11:20 AM   #5903
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,496
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonrail666
Subsidies only stop the privatisation of the railways from being an even bigger disaster than it already is. They at least keep less profitable lines open - albeit it at a massively reduced service. But the point I'm making is these companies generate massive rewards with next to no risk for those rich enough to become shareholders.

shares are not expensive to buy actually. and you own shares of this and many other companies.

and maybe subsidies are the disaster itself, that keeps a dying enterprise in artificial life support?

i really don’t know a lot about rail service to be honest. much less in england. here in the u.s.a. the only profitable train route for passengers is the northeast corridor. otherwise it’s car country. you can buy a ford fiesta for as low as $12k!

and for long distance, airplanes are cheap and fast and fuel efficient. but i hate flying coach, lol.
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|