| ManusJustus said: I find your entire argument hilarious. So how are different water companies going to get their water to consumers through the same pipe system? Magic? Seems to be your answer for other things. Other such public goods and natural monopolies include roads and security, but I guess they could build several roads on top of each other and so you can only pay one company when you drive on them, and I guess Army Inc. could let Mexico invade your neighbors house if he didnt pay his national security bill on time. How do electric compnies get power through the same lines? Magic? Yet they do exactly that in America. I told you that they do exactly that in my area. Water can be the same way. Your water company businessman analogy is also laughable. I dont know how anyone could convince themselves that an owner wanting to make as much profit as possible, with no restrictions on price or quality, would be an equal situation to a politician in charge of the plant who was running for re-election in a few years. Both the city government and the investor who own the water plant are going to hire someone else to run the company for them, again the difference here is that the mayor wants to make his electorate happy so he can get re-elected and the investor/owner wants to make as much money as possible. Lets back up here for a minute: The businessman still needs to do a good job, or face external pressure from other businesses that can either provide the same service, or better the service. Again, in my county, it's happening with city water vs. public water. The evil private water company is keeping their consumers happier and has a better profit than the city is, so they are preping to transfer control over to the private company. And if the investor does not make the consumers happy, they can easily switch, forcing said owner out of business. I've stated that already. Go read the business wires. CEOs get fired all the time. See the difference? Consumers can force a politician out of office, but they cant force the business owner of a monopoly out of business. Yet in praxis, very little has changed in the US when politicians are removed from power promising reforms to government-run monopolies. Also, your under the assumption that a government monopoly is as efficient as a private monopoly. I'd give the historical precedent of various monoplies to state your wrong. Govt. monopolization of postal, pension and education services has been detrimental, and I've used them again and again as an example of why government monopolies are bad, yet you rehash the same old rhetoric that 'well they can be voted out' yet parties have changed hands many times, and we still have a broken system. So I must ask again: How are the currently run government monopolies better than a private monopoly? History is not on your side in America, I believe. Its obvious that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. I would advise reading the economics website I linked to or taking an introductory economics course. Given your examples have been wrong, I suggest you do the same. |
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
