No there aren't, unless you interpret "good" as "good for extracting monopoly prices from the people". The US economy is overly monopolized as it is even without this buyout.
More importantly, no reasonable person would skip the $85 Billion (with B) price tag which is a definite proof of my words above.
Why is $85B automatically bad? Is it just because it's a large sum of money?
I didn't say automatically, I referred to "my words above" - that kind of money, and the profits on top of it, can only come from monopoly pricing and it's a strong sign that the business in question is operating in near monopoly conditions.
In most of the world, railroads (and other roads) are government owned because it's hard to make that kind of business competitive plus there are natsec issues to address. The privatization trend is recent.
In many parts of the world, railroads were originally private enterprises. The US is perhaps exceptional here in that they never nationalized theirs.
So according to you, I somehow stated that disagreement with me makes somebody unreasonable, and in support of that you provided... a fictional quote. Your strawman isn't simply unreasonable, it's aggressively dishonest.
> "and instead must be mustache-twirling villains" is certainly an interesting take.
Now you offer hallucinations about "mustache-twirling villains"... Do you have something, anything, reasonable to say? Like address the topic? $85 Billion with a B? Did you forget about it?
Peaceful disagreement DOES NOT make an argument reasonable. Are you going to argue about that too?
> No there aren't
You did state that disagreement makes you unreasonable.
No, I didn't, and there's no such claim in the words you so selectively quoted. Outside of that, I used the specific facts of the case to show that it's unreasonable to call the merge good.