Comments by "Aleksa Žunjić" (@aleksazunjic9672) on "The UK DIDN'T "Privatize" the Railways" video.

Nationalization of railways always makes them better. Reason is simple - on railway market you cannot have competition. Only few companies are able to operate railways, and they unavoidably form cartels and jack up prices. Running a railway is no easy as lets say running a bakery, therefore free market of railways is simply not possible.
3
Full privatization of railways would only make matters worse (higher prices, worse service). Reason for that is simply - only few companies could afford to operate railways, and they as a rule form cartels. For some things free market simply cannot exist, railways are always better when nationalized.
2
@jimtaylor294 Well, you are wrong. Railways across the globe were usually built as either government concessions, or straight up government construction. Railways are capital projects, and companies are not willing to spend money on something like railways or roads without generous government incentives.
2
Free market exist only when you have many small "players" competing for the same business. Grocers, bakers, butchers ... but even they sometimes fix prices. On healthcare market, by definition of it, you could have only few big players. Which unavoidably leads to monopolization and cartelization . Thus, healthcare in US is much more expensive than in "socialist" countries. Reality of the life - sometimes state intervention is necessary.
2
@jimtaylor294 Not true. USSR built many railroads as did other communist/socialist countries. In fact, building infrastructure was their main focus.
1
@jimtaylor294 I'm afraid that Soviet missiles do not miss, as many of Western "volunteers" have found out by now 😆
1
@tastethecock5203 Railways always compete with alternative modes of transport, but for some kinds of goods delivered in bulk (ore, sand, grain ...) there is simply no alternative over land. Cartels would fix prices just high enough that transport by trucks is not an alternative.
1