Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#41

Post by bix6 »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #36
bix6 wrote: post #2

What happened to antitrust? We were making great progress and then a few months ago this admin totally flipped?

What happened to antitrust is you guys had an antitrust system that was going way too far (think breaking up regional gas stations too far) and then nixon appointed Rehnquist to the supreme court in 1972, then Reagan appointed him chief justice in 1986. Rehnquist made decent arguments for reforming that that were then taken too far over his tenure (and continuing to this day) and now we have multinational oligopolies…

I meant more recently. Lina Khan was making progress and even Tr*mp seemed to be taking a harder line on the tech companies in particular.

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#42

Post by iwontberude »

pc86 wrote: post #38
snapplebobapple wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to antitrust is you guys had an antitrust system that was going way too far (think breaking up regional gas stations too far) and then nixon appointed Rehnquist to the supreme court in 1972, then Reagan appointed him chief justice in 1986. Rehnquist made decent arguments for reforming that that were then taken too far over his tenure (and continuing to this day) and now we have multinational oligopolies…

You guys? How many people on HN do you think were around so that they could vote for Nixon in 1968?

Given demographics of HN they probably is British and talking to Americans

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#43

Post by pc86 »

cma wrote: post #28
gruez wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They already can. I'm not a railroad expert, but here's the exact quote from the article, which cites a consultancy: >Going from coast to coast is a greater prize. Avoiding interchanges between networks would mean faster trains and fewer delays. According to Oliver Wyman, a consultancy, the share of intermodal goods in America that travel by rail on journeys longer than 1,500 miles increases from 39% to 65% when ser…

Very hard to believe freight trains can't go coast to coast in the US and they get unloaded to load on a new train on the same gauge rail.

A train leaving Seattle isn't loaded entirely with cars going to Philadelphia. Some are going to Miami, some are going to Texas, some at going to Chicago. There might even be cars in Chicago that get picked up by that train on its way to Philadelphia.

Nobody is talking about taking boxes out of one car and putting them on another, but it seems pretty self-evident that the entire train itself would get broken up multiple times on a cross-country trip.

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#44

Post by iwontberude »

bix6 wrote: post #41
snapplebobapple wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to antitrust is you guys had an antitrust system that was going way too far (think breaking up regional gas stations too far) and then nixon appointed Rehnquist to the supreme court in 1972, then Reagan appointed him chief justice in 1986. Rehnquist made decent arguments for reforming that that were then taken too far over his tenure (and continuing to this day) and now we have multinational oligopolies…

I meant more recently. Lina Khan was making progress and even Tr*mp seemed to be taking a harder line on the tech companies in particular.

Yeah even chuds like Josh Hawley and Matthew Gates were pushing for anti trust

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#45

Post by lqet »

pc86 wrote: post #38
snapplebobapple wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to antitrust is you guys had an antitrust system that was going way too far (think breaking up regional gas stations too far) and then nixon appointed Rehnquist to the supreme court in 1972, then Reagan appointed him chief justice in 1986. Rehnquist made decent arguments for reforming that that were then taken too far over his tenure (and continuing to this day) and now we have multinational oligopolies…

You guys? How many people on HN do you think were around so that they could vote for Nixon in 1968?

I think that referred to Americans

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#46

Post by SilverElfin »

bix6 wrote: post #2

What happened to antitrust? We were making great progress and then a few months ago this admin totally flipped?

Yes they flipped. Lina Khan should have supported mergers for smaller companies (to help startups needing an exit) while breaking up the largest and most abusive companies like Google or Amazon or Microsoft. Unfortunately now more will come. Warren Buffett is more likely to pursue his own rail merger for BNSF (owned by Berkshire Hathaway):

https://www.semafor.com/article/07/21/2025/berkshire-bnsf-ba...

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#47

Post by pc86 »

ethagknight wrote: post #33
zanecodes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among many others: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ftc-accuses-intuit-decep... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/08/...

None of those are antitrust, those are just examples of basic consumer complaints.

And barely that. If one of these is to be taken at face value, you don't need to disclose fees and false advertising is not illegal?

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#48

Post by gruez »

trollbridge wrote: post #35

Both workforces are union and I doubt employees will see much benefit from this. I would expect to see the unions block this unless they get major concessions.

>I would expect to see the unions block this unless they get major concessions.

I can understand mergers being blocked by regulators, but what powers do unions have? What was the last time a merger was blocked by an union?

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#49

Post by bix6 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #20
idiotsecant wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty much indisputable that the FTC was making huge progress in consumer rights and antitrust work. What, specifically, are you talking about in your comment. It's easy to make comments like this based on general 'feelings' without saying anything at all.

What great progress was made under the previous administration?

Lawsuits against Meta, Amazon, Google, Kroger, etc. They were actually starting to enforce antitrust laws. Tr*mp DOJ actually started the Google one.

Re: Union Pacific to buy Norfolk in $85B mega U.S. railroad deal

#50

Post by uoaei »

SilverElfin wrote: post #46
bix6 wrote: post #2

What happened to antitrust? We were making great progress and then a few months ago this admin totally flipped?

Yes they flipped. Lina Khan should have supported mergers for smaller companies (to help startups needing an exit) while breaking up the largest and most abusive companies like Google or Amazon or Microsoft. Unfortunately now more will come. Warren Buffett is more likely to pursue his own rail merger for BNSF (owned by Berkshire Hathaway): https://www.semafor.com/article/07/21/2025/berkshire-bnsf-ba...

Could you explain why you think any "startup" "needs an exit"? Why should we accept businesses that cannot persist on their own?

This comment caught me off guard with how blatantly VC-sycophantic it is.

Post reply on HN