CSX Mike Ward Vs Matt Rose and now pro passenger convert Wick Moorman

http://www.bloomberg...-rail-plan.html

"I'm a corporation. I exist to make money, OK? You can't make money hauling passengers, so why would I want to do that? That wouldn't be fair to my shareholders."

VS.

Norfolk Southern CEO Wick Moorman, while raising a concern about profitability and track congestion, told virginiabusiness.com last year, "We are happy to talk about running passenger trains anywhere on Norfolk Southern."

At BNSF, CEO Matt Rose told the Austin Economic Club in 2009 that investment in high-speed passenger trains is "an investment our society ought to make." Rose told a Railway Age magazine conference on passenger trains operating over freight railroad tracks that BNSF "is proud of its relationship" with the passenger services it either hosts or operates, and that new and expanded passenger rail, including high speed, is essential for economic, mobility, safety, and environmental reasons.

This just makes me cringe. CSX is by far the WORST run railroad in the country IMHO (and does anyone honestly disagree?). Any business that says they exist "to make money" gets a big wag of the finger from me.

TVRM610 said:

Any business that says they exist "to make money" gets a big wag of the finger from me.

Click to expand...

Really? Why? Are you a communist or socialist? If so, that would explain your comment, otherwise I wonder why you would make that statement. Is that not why every business exists? If they do not make money, they cease to exist, unless they are subsidized by the taxpayers. So, I would hope that all businesses exist to make money.

And, research, development, inventions, progress would all come to a screeching halt because if business does not make any money, they have no money to invest.

I think that saying "Businesses exist to make money" is too often interpreted as implying that the business ONLY purpose is to make money.

Was it Dupont that had the slogan "Better living through Chemistry" (What a slogan for the '60's :giggle: ) I thought that it meant that one of the Company's goals was to make the world a better place to live, while making money.

And, as someone mentioned recently in another thread, if CSX (or any Company X) exists to make money (rather than provide freight transportation service, or however it chooses to define their industry), they would switch from such a capital-intensive industry to one with higher profit margins so that they can make more money.

from Wikipedia:

A business (also known as enterprise or firm) is an organization designed to provide goods, services, or both to consumers.[1] Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, in which most of them are privately owned and formed to earn profit to increase the wealth of their owners

So, CSX provides a service (freight) to consumers, in exchange for payment. CSX is in the business of earning a profit and increasing the wealth of their owners. The exception to this would be if they are not-for-profit organization, which I don't think CSX is. So, CSX is definitely in business to make money. How many people really think CSX is not in business to make money? They run the capital-intensive service because of their benevolent intentions? I don't think so.

I agree with Rich, good business is a business that provides a needed service which improves the life of all. I used to think that businesses that exist only to make money would not survive because they were not providing a needed service in which someone is willing to pay for. However, recent government actions, both with a D and an R, have skewed this with things like TARP and "too big to fail". Now, I think there are corporations who only exist to make money and have the US government doing their bidding in this process. :angry:

There is nothing wrong with being in business to make money. I don't know about the bottom line, but based on comments that I have read about both railroads, BNSF consistently does a better job of running their railroad and would probably be more effective at earning money. Developing a partnership with the government that facilitates an increase in capacity is a win win for the freight railroad and Amtrak. Which is good business resulting in more money being made by the freight railroad.

CSX is so in the business of making money that they don't care how they make a profit even if means not spending money on mantence and track work. So they dump a few trains and kill a few hundred people with amtrak derailments. That's business to them. CSX and CN are the worst RR companys to work for. Both need a complete overhaul in management.

jb64 said:

TVRM610 said:

Any business that says they exist "to make money" gets a big wag of the finger from me.

Click to expand...

Really? Why? Are you a communist or socialist? If so, that would explain your comment, otherwise I wonder why you would make that statement. Is that not why every business exists? If they do not make money, they cease to exist, unless they are subsidized by the taxpayers. So, I would hope that all businesses exist to make money.

And, research, development, inventions, progress would all come to a screeching halt because if business does not make any money, they have no money to invest.

Click to expand...

Well I shouldn't be surprised that you are questioning if I'm a communist if you really think I'm dumb enough to not understand what a business is. Yes, I understand that businesses make money, if they don't make money they go out of business (except for Amtrak, GM, American Airlines... oops, that's another thread).

The point is that any corporation that makes a statement such as "we are in business to make money so why would we want to do X if it doesn't make money" is a horrible business attitude.

Apple Computers makes ALOT of money, but I've never heard Steve Jobs say "We exist to make money, so we are not going to spend money on this." He says things like "We love making and showcasing new products and technology" (These are not direct quotes).

Disney makes alot of money.. but I've never heard Bob Iger say "We could care less about what some people want us to do, we are only going to do what is profitable to our bottom line.

And both Apple and Disney have money losing ventures which only exist for customer satisfaction.

I find it funny that both UP and CSX make statements like this, when BNSF and NS are clearly running better railroads.

TVRM610 said:

jb64 said:

TVRM610 said:

Any business that says they exist "to make money" gets a big wag of the finger from me.

Click to expand...

Really? Why? Are you a communist or socialist? If so, that would explain your comment, otherwise I wonder why you would make that statement. Is that not why every business exists? If they do not make money, they cease to exist, unless they are subsidized by the taxpayers. So, I would hope that all businesses exist to make money.

And, research, development, inventions, progress would all come to a screeching halt because if business does not make any money, they have no money to invest.

Click to expand...

Well I shouldn't be surprised that you are questioning if I'm a communist if you really think I'm dumb enough to not understand what a business is. Yes, I understand that businesses make money, if they don't make money they go out of business (except for Amtrak, GM, American Airlines... oops, that's another thread).

The point is that any corporation that makes a statement such as "we are in business to make money so why would we want to do X if it doesn't make money" is a horrible business attitude.

Apple Computers makes ALOT of money, but I've never heard Steve Jobs say "We exist to make money, so we are not going to spend money on this." He says things like "We love making and showcasing new products and technology" (These are not direct quotes).

Disney makes alot of money.. but I've never heard Bob Iger say "We could care less about what some people want us to do, we are only going to do what is profitable to our bottom line.

And both Apple and Disney have money losing ventures which only exist for customer satisfaction.

I find it funny that both UP and CSX make statements like this, when BNSF and NS are clearly running better railroads.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining your position, that makes more sense. I never stated that you were dumb, I just didn't understand your statement and was trying to seek clarification. I agree with most of what you have stated above and I apologize if I offended you, it wasn't meant to be a personal jab (though I have seen plenty of those on these forums).

TVRM610 said:

And both Apple and Disney have money losing ventures which only exist for customer satisfaction.

Click to expand...

This is actually one of the reasons why the railroads ran passenger trains.

Quite frankly, I think Amtrak owes its existence to the fine passenger trains of the 1940s and 50s. These trains were operated by the private railroads, and many people were sad that they had to go.

Although the main commercial job of a railroad is to move freight from produces to market, operating passenger service is going to make the railroad a lot more popular. Even back in the 19th century, the proposed railroads would offer passenger service in order for towns to accept eminent domain.

With the case of a state-owned railroad, like what many European countries had after WWII to the 1990s, it's a lot more politically popular to expand passenger service than it is to run more freight trains.

jb64 said:

Thank you for explaining your position, that makes more sense. I never stated that you were dumb, I just didn't understand your statement and was trying to seek clarification. I agree with most of what you have stated above and I apologize if I offended you, it wasn't meant to be a personal jab (though I have seen plenty of those on these forums).

Click to expand...

Haha... none taken. My response was made with a bit of fun too.

TVRM610 said:

jb64 said:

Thank you for explaining your position, that makes more sense. I never stated that you were dumb, I just didn't understand your statement and was trying to seek clarification. I agree with most of what you have stated above and I apologize if I offended you, it wasn't meant to be a personal jab (though I have seen plenty of those on these forums).

Click to expand...

Haha... none taken. My response was made with a bit of fun too.

Click to expand...

ahhh, you forgot your snark tag (/s)

jb64 said:

TVRM610 said:

jb64 said:

Thank you for explaining your position, that makes more sense. I never stated that you were dumb, I just didn't understand your statement and was trying to seek clarification. I agree with most of what you have stated above and I apologize if I offended you, it wasn't meant to be a personal jab (though I have seen plenty of those on these forums).

Click to expand...

Haha... none taken. My response was made with a bit of fun too.

Click to expand...

ahhh, you forgot your snark tag (/s)

Click to expand...

Oh did I? oops.

I'm also extremely bias towards Norfolk Southern.

TVRM610 said:

This just makes me cringe. CSX is by far the WORST run railroad in the country IMHO (and does anyone honestly disagree?). Any business that says they exist "to make money" gets a big wag of the finger from me.

Click to expand...

Hold on, why? Without the pursuit of profit, all else fails. I wouldn't ask CSX to run pax trains, and not compensate them, nor would I ask them to "give" any of their infrastructure.

EDIT: Good to see you two kissed and made up. What the other posters said, too.

Doesn't CSX receive payments from Amtrak for the trains that run over its routes? If so, from the prospective of CSX, passenger trains are making them money. Perhaps not as much as a freight train, but its not like they're being asked to donate the track and resources.

Eric S said:

And, as someone mentioned recently in another thread, if CSX (or any Company X) exists to make money (rather than provide freight transportation service, or however it chooses to define their industry), they would switch from such a capital-intensive industry to one with higher profit margins so that they can make more money.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because they know how to make money in the industry they are in. There are numerous cases (Montana Power comes to mind) of companies that do try to move from their low-return, capital-intensive industry to something more exciting, only to come to bad ends.

EDIT: Not that I claim to know if CSX does know how to make money railroading.

Ispolkom said:

Eric S said:

And, as someone mentioned recently in another thread, if CSX (or any Company X) exists to make money (rather than provide freight transportation service, or however it chooses to define their industry), they would switch from such a capital-intensive industry to one with higher profit margins so that they can make more money.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because they know how to make money in the industry they are in. There are numerous cases (Montana Power comes to mind) of companies that do try to move from their low-return, capital-intensive industry to something more exciting, only to come to bad ends.

EDIT: Not that I claim to know if CSX does know how to make money railroading.

Click to expand...

Well put. (Including the edited remark ) I was just trying to point out that CSX doesn't exist simply to make money. They exist to make money by doing a specific thing or specific things. To note the first part (make money) without adding the second part (doing whatever, railroading in this case) would suggest that they aren't very good at choosing industries in which to make money, as there are certainly more profitable industries. I probably should have further explained what I meant in my earlier comment.

transit54 said:

Doesn't CSX receive payments from Amtrak for the trains that run over its routes? If so, from the prospective of CSX, passenger trains are making them money. Perhaps not as much as a freight train, but its not like they're being asked to donate the track and resources.

Click to expand...

CSX might argue that the revenue they earn from Amtrak does not cover the costs they incur because of Amtrak. That's the argument that has been raised by freight railroads from time to time.

jb64 said:

TVRM610 said:

Any business that says they exist "to make money" gets a big wag of the finger from me.

Click to expand...

Really? Why? Are you a communist or socialist? If so, that would explain your comment, otherwise I wonder why you would make that statement. Is that not why every business exists? If they do not make money, they cease to exist, unless they are subsidized by the taxpayers. So, I would hope that all businesses exist to make money.

And, research, development, inventions, progress would all come to a screeching halt because if business does not make any money, they have no money to invest.

Click to expand...

I am a reasonably successful business owner, and among my purposes is to make money. However, I don't work towards that purpose. I sell industrial/personal safety equipment, such as work gloves, Z87.1+ eyewear, N95 respirators, ANSI 207 compliant clothing, and similar items. My purpose in business, if anyone were to ask, is to determine what each customer needs, provide them with products meeting that need of high quality and at a fair price. (Usually meaning low.) I have a Nordstrom-esque customer satisfaction policy.

I exist to make sure my customers are well protected by quality safety equipment, provided in a way that maximizes their customer satisfaction.

I concentrate on doing the above, and also making sure that my prices are set such that I don't lose money on sales. I don't worry about making money, because if my prices are set profitably, and I keep my customers safe and happy, money will come. I am not in the business of making money.

Realistically, if you are in the business of making money, you are either a counterfeiter or you are not going to be in business very long because you are concentrating on the wrong thing. I am not in the business of making money, but that doesn't mean I am not in business to make money.

Yes, I can make more money on each sale. Yes, I can sell my customers (with whom I have built up a trust relationship) much fancier equipment then they need. And in doing this, I will eventually drive my business onto the rocks. I don't make money by selling you something at a huge profit. I make money by convincing you that whenever you need safety equipment, you come to me to get it. Over the long, fruitful years of our business relationship, believe me, I'll make money.

If CSX wants to sit around making statements like that to the public, thus making them seem like a bunch of obnoxious pricks, they are frankly stupid. If I was on their board of directors, or any board of directors, and a key executive was quoted saying something that ridiculous, they would be pulling their golden parachute- hopefully to find I replaced it with a lead one.

Who owns CSX? and most railroads....... YOU DO!!!.... Lets see here....Boston and Albany was financed by subscriptions of stock by the then what were villages along the right of way out of there own coffers.....The Baltimore and Ohio was financed by the city of Baltimore way back in 1830 and townspeople and buisneses subscribed to its stock... The State of New York and The City of New York own enough shares to get shareholders proxy's on the ballot....Calpers (California State Pension Fund owns half of this countrys stock with the other half owned by the Indiana State Teachers Pension Fund)..... In order to start building a railroad they had to get a franshise agreement in the form of a charter from the states which gave them the right of Eminate Domain and the abilty to have there own police force...If Conrail was not created by the Feds there would be no CSX or viable railroad running in the USA today.....Transportation is too valuable to be left up to private hands who then have a monopoly. Railroads are public highways and have been declared so by the courts a long time ago see http://books.google.com/books?id=sEkLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA588&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U272SC1kh53Ju9yazEFuTw4wHtgCQ&ci=123%2C259%2C397%2C512&edge=0y link

Eric S said:

And, as someone mentioned recently in another thread, if CSX (or any Company X) exists to make money (rather than provide freight transportation service, or however it chooses to define their industry), they would switch from such a capital-intensive industry to one with higher profit margins so that they can make more money.

Click to expand...

Wasn't this very thing, that is taking money from the railroads, and instead of reinvesting in improved plant and equipment and instead diversifying into more profitable and/or glamourous businesses, the very thing that caused the railroad crisis in this country back in the '60's and '70's, eventually resulting in the Penn Central debacle?

And on another note---reading the comments about the CSX would probably make one former rail chief smile...remember what Commodore Vanderbilt said...." the public? The public be d-----d". ^_^

So maybe I should become a shareholder of CSX so I can tell them to accept passenger service?

Green Maned Lion said:

I am a reasonably successful business owner,

I am not in the business of making money.

Realistically, if you are in the business of making money, you are either a counterfeiter or you are not going to be in business very long because you are concentrating on the wrong thing. I am not in the business of making money, but that doesn't mean I am not in business to make money.

Click to expand...

The key difference between you and CSX is that you're a sole-owner operation (I presume, or else a limited partnership of some sort); CSX is owned by investors and controlled by a board of directors appointed by those investors. The board's goal is not to run a railroad well, but to do whatever the investors say. Often investors simply desire to maximize short-term profit for themselves, and unfortunately (for the nation at large) that's the sort of investors CSX has been taken over by.

Investors (and boards) are increasingly short-sighted -- maximize short-term profits by eliminating long-term investment in infrastructure, maintenance, and planning (as these have only a negative effect in the short term -- big cost, no immediate gain). These investors have no strong interest in the long-term viability of a company -- they'll maximize profits now, then move on to another company and do the same thing there.

This seems to be what has happened to CSX. CSX already has existing resources which make "running a railroad" more profitable than "selling everything and pouring the assets into banking" or some such, so the investors don't suggest totally divesting the company of the railroad business; instead they merely suggest ways to run the railroad into the ground in the name of maximizing short-term profits.

Whereas you have a strong interest in the long-term viability of your company, so you prioritize differently.

And whereas other railroads may have attracted a different sort of investor. BNSF certainly did, ultimately winding up with Warren Buffett, king of long-term investment, buying them out. Norfolk Southern is also strong in this regard. It would be nice if infrastructure-heavy companies whose long-term viability is important to the public good (such as railroads and utilities, who essentially hold a monopoly on certain kinds of infrastructure for a region making it virtually impossible for any private competitor to be started) were not subject to falling into the hands of short-term profit-maximizing investors, but we have no (or few) safeguards against this in America (that I know of).

As a business owner my purpose is to make money but also to serve the public interest. Businesses all shared this philosophy years ago but todays corporate America is only interested at turning a profit at any cost, and 20% unemployment is the result.

Free enterprise is the greatest economic system in the world when it maintains its moral compass. Today that moral compass is gone and needs to be restored for our very survivial. You cannot keep raping the American consumer, relying on their purchases for your success while contibuting nothing for theirs. This system of greed will fall apart as it now is.