It is wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong if Time-Warner lobbied to be a local monopoly on that city, excluding all competition. We should have FREEDOM, not special privilege going one way or the other.
The reason companies become behemoths that can pretty much disregard new competition is because of anti-competitive legislation, corrupt anti-trust laws, special provisions in the tax code, you name it.
Now, there is not much a small city's government can do against these harmful interventions, which are most at the federal level, so I do sympathize for them, while disagreeing with the chosen means.
You're putting words in my mouth. Government is not a monopoly. Government is accountable to the public because we make up the government. A private corporation is not accountable to the public. A heck of a lot more scrutiny goes into government programs than happens in the private sector. It's all that "red tape" people are always complaining about.
If government were accountable to the public, the bailouts and TARP funds would not have passed. Obama wouldn't be still in Iraq and planning to invade Afghanistan. If 'we are the government' then everything the government does must be righty, ho, then! Somebody who goes to prison has just 'done it to himself'.
A corporation may not be 'accountable' to people, yet they are subject to an oversight - in the form of the marketplace - as strict as the government will NEVER have. AIG, Bear Sterns, WaMu, all these 'unaccountable' corporations would be out in the street if your 'accountable' government was the fantastic construct you envision. The Federal Reserve would have been bankrupted several times in the last century by bank runs if it didn't have the government-granted monopoly on the issuance of circulating credit and guarantee.
Government IS a monopoly. It doesn't matter if they have a consumer hotline, claim to 'care about you' or even hold a poll every four years to choose a new chairman - by rules written by them and only between two 'serious' candidate options.
which without the economy of a geographically huge country is completely at the mercy of one or two rail companies...Just like it was.
Errr, no it wasn't. The connections with the most demand for traffic were so competitive that the fare was CHEAPER than smaller, less used routes that, if fortunate, had just one rail company offering service, which in that case did charge a hefty price, like whatever the traffic could bear, so in many cases the long-haul was cheaper than the short-haul.
When the government proceeded 'put a curb on corporate greed' it simply raised all prices to the inflated short-haul fares. Yay for intervention!
When accusing someone of 'diverging *so far* from reality', maybe you could stick to reality yourself by checking your facts. And no, by that I do not mean a public high school textbook that begins the chapter on the Great Depression with "Franklin D. Roosevelt was possibly America's greatest president...".
In this case, transportation is a public hunk of bad, steaming feces
Roads, rails, sidewalks, buses, trains, planes and airports should be owned and operated by private individuals for profit. To believe that governments are able to supply them is to think that a monopoly is better at serving customers than a competitive market.
As to your statement that 'all transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing (...)", well, I can only laugh. Do you also think food prices would go up, or worse, we'd all starve, if farming subsidies were removed?
So you're defending a government monopoly on the theoretical possibility that a monopoly might, one day arise in a free market and "rape" the economy?
Don't you ever consider the possibility that the government is the one actually raping the economy?
Especially given that they can tax your money without producing anything, restrict your professional life in basically any way they or your competitors' lobbyists want, borrow money that you, or your children, will be expected to pay for and force you to use the money that they alone have the power to create more of, debasing your money into worthlessness, and a myriad of other things that no company can do.
Ya, that's the problem with all government intervention. They sell something to the public with the talk that they're sticking it to big players and helping the little guy, while they stick it to the little guy and help the big players.
And this is all the time. You gotta admire their consistency.:)
Granted, sorry for the broad brush there. Though I still think the best mechanism for making the best use of scarce resources is the price system in a free market. But I digress.:-)
The point you raised about California has one glaring problem: Government price controls on energy. Fixing prices below the market price leads to shortages. This is Econ 101.
A free market would naturally impose a ration on power with a high price, i.e. people reducing their consumption - with the added benefit of stimulating the supply. Price controls - and its necessary companion to prevent a shortage: mandated rationing - lacks the automatic aspect of the free market and actually DISCOURAGES new investment.
I point out that California's power fiasco as very evidence that you don't know what a free market is.
I suggest this respectfully, not like a pedantic ass, but from the interest you seem to have in these matters you would enjoy reading the book on my signature, especially the chapter on price controls.:-)
We don't need 10 pipes. It is in the guy owning the big pipe to charge for its use to the water companies.
If he's the only one he could charge a monopoly price, but if the market has free entry he likely won't because it will certainly attract new competition, i.e. people actually building another pipe, which will cut into his profits.
So, it will either be profitable for utilities to use existing infrastructure for a fee, or it will be profitable for someone to build another pipe to compete with the first. Either way, the spice, I mean, water will flow.
I like the way you say "done correctly the delivery network lacks any reason to prefer or favor one provider over another". The fact is they ALWAYS do, government can't help that, it is always political. That is what they do, favor this over that.
You think agriculture would STOP if the state cut the subsidies? Why the peoples of the US didn't starve to death in the 18th or 19th centuries when government didn't subsidize farmers?
And do you think the US will ever be at war with all food producing countries of the world at the same time? Wars are often sparked because of the poverty caused by protectionist measures such as this, not by strong free trade between two nations.
Don't kid yourself. This is simply special interest legislation to benefit farmers at the expense of consumers who pay a higher price and taxpayers who are paying for subsidies. You should really read the book on my sig.:-)
Nonsense. If that was true, then why don't we have a state-sanctioned monopoly on all foodstuffs so we don't run the risk of 'unreliable' supply? I mean, food is so crucial.
The reason for any enforced monopoly is to artificially raise prices.
If you honestly think that competition to lower prices is only achieved through skimping on quality or reliability then I'm sure you used a room-sized, vacuum-tube, multi-million dollar computer from the 60s to type your comment instead of a US$ 400 MSI Wind netbook, but then again, what do I know.:-)
When something is left to the marketplace and free competition ( i.e. "unregulated" ), consumers will choose the best and cheapest alternative. When it is left to regulation, consumers are deprived of choice on that characteristic by force of law, and if the regulation is poorly crafted ( not unusual, to use an euphemism ) then we're all screwed with nowhere to run.
Limiting competition is regulation's very goal, with several companies lobbying to make sure the final text benefits them individually as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Your medical records should be PRIVATE.
Even if they now store your data in 'free software' it still means you are now less free.
Carbon is a pollutant, you insensitive clod!
It is wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong if Time-Warner lobbied to be a local monopoly on that city, excluding all competition. We should have FREEDOM, not special privilege going one way or the other.
The reason companies become behemoths that can pretty much disregard new competition is because of anti-competitive legislation, corrupt anti-trust laws, special provisions in the tax code, you name it.
Now, there is not much a small city's government can do against these harmful interventions, which are most at the federal level, so I do sympathize for them, while disagreeing with the chosen means.
OMGZERS, laughing so hard right now.
Well done. Please let me live now.
I don't think anyone actually read the damned article.
You must be new here.
Well, they can. But other people can also tell them to eat grass, which they probably will. :-)
Microsoft: Please compete with us on our terms??!?! Pretty please?!
Open-source: No.
There is a 'diesel generator building' in a picture here
You're putting words in my mouth. Government is not a monopoly. Government is accountable to the public because we make up the government. A private corporation is not accountable to the public. A heck of a lot more scrutiny goes into government programs than happens in the private sector. It's all that "red tape" people are always complaining about.
If government were accountable to the public, the bailouts and TARP funds would not have passed. Obama wouldn't be still in Iraq and planning to invade Afghanistan. If 'we are the government' then everything the government does must be righty, ho, then! Somebody who goes to prison has just 'done it to himself'.
A corporation may not be 'accountable' to people, yet they are subject to an oversight - in the form of the marketplace - as strict as the government will NEVER have. AIG, Bear Sterns, WaMu, all these 'unaccountable' corporations would be out in the street if your 'accountable' government was the fantastic construct you envision. The Federal Reserve would have been bankrupted several times in the last century by bank runs if it didn't have the government-granted monopoly on the issuance of circulating credit and guarantee.
Government IS a monopoly. It doesn't matter if they have a consumer hotline, claim to 'care about you' or even hold a poll every four years to choose a new chairman - by rules written by them and only between two 'serious' candidate options.
which without the economy of a geographically huge country is completely at the mercy of one or two rail companies...Just like it was.
Errr, no it wasn't. The connections with the most demand for traffic were so competitive that the fare was CHEAPER than smaller, less used routes that, if fortunate, had just one rail company offering service, which in that case did charge a hefty price, like whatever the traffic could bear, so in many cases the long-haul was cheaper than the short-haul.
When the government proceeded 'put a curb on corporate greed' it simply raised all prices to the inflated short-haul fares. Yay for intervention!
When accusing someone of 'diverging *so far* from reality', maybe you could stick to reality yourself by checking your facts. And no, by that I do not mean a public high school textbook that begins the chapter on the Great Depression with "Franklin D. Roosevelt was possibly America's greatest president...".
In this case, transportation is a public hunk of bad, steaming feces
Roads, rails, sidewalks, buses, trains, planes and airports should be owned and operated by private individuals for profit. To believe that governments are able to supply them is to think that a monopoly is better at serving customers than a competitive market.
As to your statement that 'all transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing (...)", well, I can only laugh. Do you also think food prices would go up, or worse, we'd all starve, if farming subsidies were removed?
This book might be an interesting read.
NASA has shown a blatant disregard for democracy. They should be bombed and invaded by the US military. Like right now.
So you're defending a government monopoly on the theoretical possibility that a monopoly might, one day arise in a free market and "rape" the economy?
Don't you ever consider the possibility that the government is the one actually raping the economy?
Especially given that they can tax your money without producing anything, restrict your professional life in basically any way they or your competitors' lobbyists want, borrow money that you, or your children, will be expected to pay for and force you to use the money that they alone have the power to create more of, debasing your money into worthlessness, and a myriad of other things that no company can do.
Ya, that's the problem with all government intervention. They sell something to the public with the talk that they're sticking it to big players and helping the little guy, while they stick it to the little guy and help the big players.
And this is all the time. You gotta admire their consistency. :)
Granted, sorry for the broad brush there. Though I still think the best mechanism for making the best use of scarce resources is the price system in a free market. But I digress. :-)
The point you raised about California has one glaring problem: Government price controls on energy. Fixing prices below the market price leads to shortages. This is Econ 101.
A free market would naturally impose a ration on power with a high price, i.e. people reducing their consumption - with the added benefit of stimulating the supply. Price controls - and its necessary companion to prevent a shortage: mandated rationing - lacks the automatic aspect of the free market and actually DISCOURAGES new investment.
I point out that California's power fiasco as very evidence that you don't know what a free market is.
I suggest this respectfully, not like a pedantic ass, but from the interest you seem to have in these matters you would enjoy reading the book on my signature, especially the chapter on price controls. :-)
Sorry, I didn't realize you lived in Sweden when I wrote my response. :-)
Make that the US or any other country.
We don't need 10 pipes. It is in the guy owning the big pipe to charge for its use to the water companies.
If he's the only one he could charge a monopoly price, but if the market has free entry he likely won't because it will certainly attract new competition, i.e. people actually building another pipe, which will cut into his profits.
So, it will either be profitable for utilities to use existing infrastructure for a fee, or it will be profitable for someone to build another pipe to compete with the first. Either way, the spice, I mean, water will flow.
I like the way you say "done correctly the delivery network lacks any reason to prefer or favor one provider over another". The fact is they ALWAYS do, government can't help that, it is always political. That is what they do, favor this over that.
Only replying that mathematics and water-meters were already invented would have done the trick.
But I admire your patience. :-)
You think agriculture would STOP if the state cut the subsidies? Why the peoples of the US didn't starve to death in the 18th or 19th centuries when government didn't subsidize farmers?
And do you think the US will ever be at war with all food producing countries of the world at the same time? Wars are often sparked because of the poverty caused by protectionist measures such as this, not by strong free trade between two nations.
Don't kid yourself. This is simply special interest legislation to benefit farmers at the expense of consumers who pay a higher price and taxpayers who are paying for subsidies. You should really read the book on my sig. :-)
Wow, I suppose we all starved to death before farming subsidies existed then... Farmers probably couldn't make a living.
Oh... wait...
Yes, intervention to raise the price i.e. restrict supply. Farmers make more money, consumers foot the bill.
Hahaha!! The US a perfectly unregulated market!!! You kill me! Tell another one! Tell another one!
Nonsense. If that was true, then why don't we have a state-sanctioned monopoly on all foodstuffs so we don't run the risk of 'unreliable' supply? I mean, food is so crucial.
The reason for any enforced monopoly is to artificially raise prices.
If you honestly think that competition to lower prices is only achieved through skimping on quality or reliability then I'm sure you used a room-sized, vacuum-tube, multi-million dollar computer from the 60s to type your comment instead of a US$ 400 MSI Wind netbook, but then again, what do I know. :-)
When something is left to the marketplace and free competition ( i.e. "unregulated" ), consumers will choose the best and cheapest alternative. When it is left to regulation, consumers are deprived of choice on that characteristic by force of law, and if the regulation is poorly crafted ( not unusual, to use an euphemism ) then we're all screwed with nowhere to run.
Limiting competition is regulation's very goal, with several companies lobbying to make sure the final text benefits them individually as much as possible.
Apt-spy... Good lord, what will they come up with next?