> They are forced to (at least try to) make a profit for their shareholders,

This is not true at all.

The shareholders set the targets and since the shareholder is the government they can set any target they want: profitability, more trains, cheaper tickets etc..

If the shareholder wants to inject 10% every year in stead of taking a profit they are absolutely free to do so.

▲

matrss 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The DB AG has been specifically founded to be "market-oriented" and profit-making, so yes, it is true.

I am sure the state could try to do _something_ about it, but I am also sure that a very strong car lobby here in Germany is working against that. BTW, the road network, which I would consider to conceptually be the same kind of infrastructure as the rail network, is to my understanding mostly built and maintained by state organizations, so it is possible to do it that way.

I guess it is also harder to market "let's subsidize this private company with tax payer money so they can continue to offer mediocre service" to voters, compared to "let's use tax payer money to build and maintain one-of-a-kind critical infrastructure from which everyone (with a car, which due to the less-than-great alternatives is a lot of people) can profit".

Again, having it organized as a private company adds indirection, diffuses power and responsibility, and adds a certain more or less implicit expectation of what private companies are supposed to do. That's my main issue with it. Private companies aren't supposed to run critical infrastructure as a monopoly for profit. It's the states job to provide and maintain critical infrastructure in the interest of all.

▲

apexalpha 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>The DB AG has been specifically founded to be "market-oriented" and profit-making, so yes, it is true.

Again, if the shareholders decide this is the reason: yes.

But shareholders can just as easily set other targets or incentives.

>I guess it is also harder to market "let's subsidize this private company with tax payer money so they can continue to offer mediocre service" to voters,

The government owns DB AG, it is not a private company. It is a public company.

	▲	matrss 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The government owns DB AG, it is not a private company. It is a public company. It is a private company, as in it is a legal entity under private law. This is in contrast to a "öffentlich-rechtliches Unternehmen" (I don't know if this even has a proper translation or equivalent in other jurisdictions). There is more than two options here, it can be both privatized and public according to your definition.

▲

garbagewoman 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you know that the government has set those targets?