up we go, page-63

I'd classify this as "barrier to entry". This is a capitalist economy, and as Warren Buffet puts it, companies that have a huge "moat", or barrier to entry, will win out in the long term. And that's precisely what RIO and BHP have.

Is it inefficient? Sure!

But then, so is having multiple factories all making identical goods but all running at 70% capacity. Efficient? No!

Or trucks all running at 80% capacity. That's not efficient, you're wasting precious fossil fuel having excess capacity! Would you force Toll and Linfox to carry, say, my hypothetical trucking company's goods? Taxpayers are subsidising their greenhouse emissions, so with your argument if I make a proposal to them, they'd have to accept my proposal? The barrier to entry here is that the big rigs are very expensive and not evenyone can get into longhaul routes.

I think your point of increasing the tonnage precisely supports the economics of my argument. The fact is, it currently makes economic sense to restrict rail access. Because it works. It is in the big 2's interest to do so, economically. When it is not, then they will change their strategy. Free market.

I'd beg to differ. I think RIO and BHP have a case (and not because I'm a RIO holder lol). Restricting access does not prevent others from flourishing in the Pilbara. Look at FMG.

I'm not saying that our judicial system doesn't work. I'm simply saying that waiting for a final result could take years (appeals after appeals).

And because the hearing(s) will take so long, the only 'partner' I envisage FMS making a deal with is with RIO.