| FightingGameGuy said: @NintendoOwnsMii: re: Government owned businesses. Will the government create or even allow competition for itself? If not, its essentially giving itself a monopoly, which is inefficient (monopolies can sell at their own price instead of the market price so they sell fewer goods at a higher price to secure the most profit for itself compared to how things would have been under competition). Under most economic theory, the government should primarily only perform economic activity where no one can effectively not use its product. The quintessential example of is national security: I can't decheck national security on the list of government services I want because so long as I live within my country I will be protected by it anyway. Thus, it makes sense for the government to charge everyone for it, there's no feasible alternative. |
Ideally, yes they would, much like we have competeing intelligence agencies (seriously exactly how many does the USA have? I know its more than a handful). Even if not the thought that monopolies are inherently inefficeint is bunk. Monopoplies are only inefficeint when (surprise surprise) there is a drive for more and more profits. Just look at MS, Ma Bell both drivin by profits. Now compare to the electric company who is a monopoly who aren't drivin solely by profits. Also look at gas companies there are TONS of them and look at how crazy prices are, and no you can't blame the arab/saudi/iranian royalty because shell/exxon/cheveron/mobile/etc are making more profits than before. Should not competition keep the price down (and thus profits)? It seems to me that traditional economic thinking on monopolies only makes sense if you take out the greed factor. And as long as private interests control businesses there will always be greed.
