Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandomLensman | Hacker News Reader

The German mail rail and track operator (Deutsche Bahn) isn't private but 100% state owned (and control sits with the federal government). They wanted to privatize it a couple of decades ago but abandoned it. There is still some hybridization between supposedly it being a business and also a public service left in the law, though.

View on HN

The Deutsche Bahn AG is in fact a private Aktiengesellschaft(which is to say a stock company) with the german gov't owning 100% of the shares. I'd very much argue that it is run mostly like a private enterprise and only occasionally compelled by the government to act like a public service.

Yes, but doesn't change that it is 100% state owned and controlled with a mixed mandate (business/public service - see art 87e GG). No reason to absolve the owner and the associated politics from their responsibilities.

The legal form doesn't determine whether something is state owned or private.

It's still the government running the company if they own all the shares. So what's your point?

I would say Deutsche Bahn has managed to combine the disadvantages of public services with the disadvantages of private companies into one coherently terrible package.

Well it's pretty much the same with the SNCF in France. However, surprisingly it is still more reliable than the DB (less accident, more on time); which is quite shocking considering German's reputation...

The actual root is even widely acknowledged: DB has been underfunded for a long time.

It’s an AG, why should it be funded?

Why would it not given the legal framework put in place?

Most of the world agrees that public transport has external benefits and therefore is deserving of public funding.

You sure the ~600 companies that the Deutsche Bahn is made up of can be compared to one state-owned entity?

All rolls up into one 100% owner and having a lot of subsidiaries isn't unusual.

I believe they make a good point: making a vertically integrated entity could matter more than just buying most of the shares.

If we are discussing tendencies of "privatized vs public", it's hard to ignore that factor. Public entities that historically worked well weren't just masses of 600 subcontractors.

But again, that is up to the owners - and the owner is the state. Also, the state didn't buy most of the shares: it had full ownership before and kept it while the legal form changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com