Why is the United States historically the only country in the world that does not treat transportation and energy...

>Why didn't the United States ever have a national oil company, railroad company, airline, etc?

No need.

If we want something done on the national level, the state funds it by giving it grants, and then regulates it with some sort of board or commission.

When companies are competing for that funding, they end up developing the cheapest means to get the project done.

Think about our national postal "company"...which only stays alive on account of special monopoly. We don't need state owned companies when the state can fund and regulate at will.

You can't have a federal state owned company when the nation is so federalised

The US is a bit larger than Japan.

Comparing similar countries, private rail isn't terrible. In britbongistan we see what the problem is, after privatization there was a rough transition period as businesses adapted to a rail system built by the state for the state.

gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142668/rail-trends-factsheet-2011-12.pdf

After adaptation the number of passengers increased however prices went up by a fraction. The large increase in demand despite the increase in price suggests they are attracting more customers through advertizing and providing a more frequent, convenient or luxurious service. The trend began before the financial crisis so I am not sure how influential changes in the economy are as a factor.

>In britbongistan we see what the problem is, after privatization there was a rough transition period as businesses adapted to a rail system built by the state for the state.
British rail network was built privately and only nationalized for a short time.

What? Many countries are privatizing and taking the lead of what the United States did long ago.

swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/projekt_papiere/Electricity_paper_KS_IIformatiert.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_1195.html

etc etc

That's not a good thing, though.

because bureaucracies are slow as hell. have you ever delt with your state's DMV? its health insurance system - try going on medicare, medicaid, social services - whatever the state offers vis a vis "safety net" and you'll find it to be corrupt, inept, as well as full of disrespectful people.

the rockerfellers, the carnegies, the teslas, the musks , gates -- etc. they make this country great, not some faggots in ivory towers

It was nationalized from 1948 to 1994, to me this is a long time, to you short, regardless during this time there was a major shift from steam to electric. Maybe the course of major routes didn't change, but there is more to it than that.

What about Germany then?

Nationalized industry=monopoly=bad

Lobbying from the haulage companies fucked the rail industry in the UK. I've posted about it on /n/ before, but like you say our problems with the rails is a very complex one. Also, when the Beaching report came through, instead of mothballing the lines (like in Europe and the US when there's a reduction in traffic) most of them were pulled up, hence in many cases permanently stopping services from returning. It wasn't just branch lines as well, see the Great Central Main Line. Our railways have been fucked up buy successive government policy.

>Our _______ have been fucked up by successive government policy.

That's just par for course in the UK though

But it has had all those things. Are you retarded?

Says who? Its worked well for many countries.

State owned industries are rarely well managed.

Sick quads

Yeah, I know it applies in every democracy but winning elections really does seem to be the primary concern of every government over actually sorting out this country.

US effectively has state railways.

>The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak /ˈæmtræk/, is a passenger railroad service that provides medium- and long-distance intercity service in the contiguous United States. Founded in 1971 to take over most of the remaining U.S. passenger rail services, it is partially government-funded yet operated and managed as a for-profit corporation.

Because we actually have places to be and things to do

it's an absolutely retarded disgrace that we don't have a cheap and efficient international railroad system for public use to this day

They could easily make it so, the infrastructure is there, the demand is not.

Cars and Airplanes killed public transport in the US.

>automobile lobbies killed public transport in the US

Lobbies could only affect so much.

Ultimately public usage of train transport began to dwindle in the 50's and 60's due to the rise of both affordable airfare and automobile prevalence. It became far more profitable to simply ship goods across the country and the industry needed to make the switch in order to survive.

the fucking 1950's man. I'm even conservative but I hate the /pol/ type fetishization of it. Everything wrong with our economy and politics now started then

The US has never had a national oil or commercial airline company. They did briefly nationalize the railroads during WWI but that was a one-off.

>Why didn't the United States ever have a national oil company, railroad company, airline, etc?

You understand capitalism, right?

Aristocratic conservatives who believed in noblesse oblige were loyalists during the American Revolution, and were exiled to Canada. As a result, there is no "Red Tory" tradition in the United States that could give support to such policies from the right.

Because railroads are very profitable and could expand faster than the government. Same is true for all RRs in all countries, which is why all ended up with railroad owners being the original robber barons (ie people who collected more in fees than the government did taxes, and had employed more staff than the government as well).

Though, this did change with the creation of the US Highway and Eisenhower Interstate System. This almost destroyed the railroads, leading to the deregulation of them in the 1980s (the Staggers Act and ICC being replaced by the much more lenient STB for example).

Also AT&T was a government-backed monopoly which ended because people were tried of shit service. The Bells then were destroyed by the rise of broadband, voip, and mobile telephones.

Amtrak only came about due to Penn Central destroying their NYC Terminal (now the toilet bowl that is madison square garden) and threatening to leave the northeast without intercity rail service. This was enough to push the GOP into creating a bailout for the RR industry in the form of Amtrak (remember that under the ICC most railroads were required to operate passenger service at a fixed rate aka a loss, so Amtrak was a way of getting around it without disbanding the ICC though that later did happen).

private vehicle culture.

>In britbongistan we see what the problem is, after privatization there was a rough transition period as businesses adapted to a rail system built by the state for the state.

ahaha my friend allow me to explain

>1960s
>every1 should drive cars, lets abolish this antiquated Edwardian system of oppression and bourgeois class stratification called "train"
>[closes down 2/3 of rail networks]
>now lets have mass immigration and a population bomb
>wat could go wong?

>2010s
>pfft fucking bigot driving a car! everyone should use public rail transport like the Scandinavians
>If only we could kill the wealthy owners of privatized rail companies and be like Scandinavia
>ugg the government needs to just build more rail networks overnight with the money they don't have
>Boomer Edition: "I'm a Maoist and you youngsters need to sieze the railways into public ownership. It waz the private industries and..."

>mfw

bravo boomers.

Britain is the most dysfunctional and schizophrenic society in the West today.

privatisation was a mistake

which we implicitly admitted when we renationalised railtrack, and when Directly Operated Railways (the state) ran the most profitable service in the country after a private company bounced on the contract.

Only true for passenger rail service. Freight wise its several large private companies and hundreds of smaller operators giving us the most efficient freight service in the world. Of course were also one of the few countries that needs that kind of network by virtue of the size of our interior.

>Nationalized industry=monopoly
Not really. One can establish a nationalized baseline standard while having private competition or niche service

>today

This.

>state capitalism is better than regular capitalism

lol, no.

I don't think Canada has a national oil or rail company either

Because the american people,culturally,are libertarians.

The Deutsche Bahn is owned by the state but organized like a regular company. The Federalization in germany is different so the Bund (federal government) has control over the railway system. The Bundespolizei (federal police) is responsible for safeguarding railway stations.

Ok "Pablo Escobar". If you pull shit like this out of your ass i would like too hear your explanation why the british and american healthcare system are so shitty and inefficient. State capitalism isn't working but a efficient state has too provide and control basic services that influence public health, education infrastructure etc. Basically the state has to provide the basics for a successful first world nation. This doesn't mean that every of these services/companies have to be state owned but the state should have a strong influence at the very least.

Pan Am and Standard Oil were both partially owned by the government at various points in their existence.

Nothing was ever officially nationalized but the effects were similar.

Canadian National was government-run only the 1990s.

until*