Oh shit you’re right. There’s no such thing as a societal need, everything ought to be turned into for-profit endeavors that enrich private equity! Don’t just defund the police, let them compete in the free market! Let’s see who has the best ideas! Let’s see if we can create a quadrillionaire! Because isn’t the invisible hand of the market such an inherently appealing idea that we should ignore its failures? Isn’t it fun to think of an economic theory as a great filter?
Infrastructure is terrible to use as an example where competition exists.
We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from. The distribution will always be common. So either that has to be installed and maintained by a municipality or a single company which then rents it out.
Competition is also predicated on the concept of low barriers to entry. If it’s nearly impossible for small companies to enter the market place, there effectively never will be competition. We also have seen that money talks, that the power inequality of a big company vs small company means the large company can squeeze the small company out by economies of scale and being able to absorb larger losses until either the smaller company quits or sells to the larger company.
We can offset a lot of this by putting in strong regulations, pathways for small businesses to enter the market, create and enforce strong anti-monolopy laws, or take ownership of core infrastructure by municipalities.
You also seem to have the idea that anything state run is inefficient and corrupt, which has just been corporate propaganda. I trust USPS far more than FedEx, UPS, or any other parcel service. They run quickly, efficiently, and against some very harsh regulations which make them fully pre-fund retiree pensions.
Meanwhile FedEx consistently says I wasn’t home when they tried to deliver which is highly interesting because I work from home and never leave my neighborhood on workdays. If they tried to make a delivery I’d see the truck. They just leave the “we missed you” post it without ever ringing the bell or knocking at the door
We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from.
Can you think of no other ways to deliver gas than running six pipes?
When everything becomes electric, we’ll have plenty of utility room to spare. Locking us into a different type of monopoly won’t allow room for innovation or advancement.
The next sentence was about shared infrastructure for the pipes. That multiple gas companies could use to distribute, with the caveat that they still would need to be owned by a single entity whether that’s a private company or municipality. I’d argue a municipality is the correct answer here.
If we look at electric as an analogous system, the poles and wires are always owned by a single company and then the supply can be “chosen.” Even though it’s just routing where your cash goes, since electricity is all pooled. The downside, is no matter how much I may not want to support the company that owns the poles and wires, I have no other option and there is no way for a competitive company to build another product to give the consumer a choice.
It’s why I advocate largely for the distribution infrastructure to become public owned, paid for and maintained with taxes. I don’t necessarily agree with the production of the gas/electricity/water. If the distribution infrastructure if publicly owned, then so long as a new business creates a product that matches the regulated quality they only need to pay for the permits and means to attach to the distribution network. We can lower the barrier of entry to new competitors.
The minimum standards would be set based on regulatory capture in very many municipalities. I don’t think it would be worse than jank monopolies, at least. I don’t know that the speed (or incentives) of either is something I trust with keeping up technologically.
Moving from a monopoly to a municipality doesn’t help when the standards they set are super strict.
We’ve tried that. What’s prone to happen is the corporations spend money to the municipalities to deregulate. Let’s stop giving them the chance. It hasn’t worked. Let’s instead go back to treating utilities as publically beneficial
You fundamentally misunderstand what people are calling for. The aim of making utilities public isn’t the enrichment of a small few, its to spread the benefits of society to all who contribute. The core of this is that we want responsible accountability and the best way to do that is to operate with a communal mindset. One in which if we find a political officer is abusing their position of power we can remove them and restore the material wealth stolen to who it belongs to. You’re so used to operating in a system where positions of power go to the already wealthy that you’re assuming that’s what we’re still calling for. Collaborative cooperation has become such a foreign concept to you that you’re completely ignoring that we’re saying utilities and services should enrich no one but society as a whole
A monopoly run by the government can operate at a loss no problem. Why? Because their job isn’t to make a profit first but to serve the people. Can any private business operate at a loss? And IMHO, utilities are the prime example of what should be owned by the government.
Would you say rampant inefficiencies and cronyism are also present in the private side of things as well though?
I can certainly imagine that the rich owner of a company is more likely to take a service contract with his rich buddy than with the newbie on the block, and nobody will do anything about it because private.
Then in terms of inefficiencies, the only thing a private company seems to be able to do efficiently is take money off you, not deliver their service or even customer service.
At least state services have the opportunity to hold those in charge responsible, if the systems put in place work for the people. In many countries however, this is not the case.
Therefore it seems like turning companies private is just another bad option. The actual, and perhaps impossible, fix is to resolve the issues in our governing bodies such that our leaders are held accountable.
If the state is run by the workers, and in the interests of the workers without the profit motive, it is soley directed towards providing a service. A capitalist monopoly is directed towards profit alone, and can price control.
It is what it was, before the whole privitization thing
deleted by creator
Oh shit you’re right. There’s no such thing as a societal need, everything ought to be turned into for-profit endeavors that enrich private equity! Don’t just defund the police, let them compete in the free market! Let’s see who has the best ideas! Let’s see if we can create a quadrillionaire! Because isn’t the invisible hand of the market such an inherently appealing idea that we should ignore its failures? Isn’t it fun to think of an economic theory as a great filter?
deleted by creator
Infrastructure is terrible to use as an example where competition exists.
We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from. The distribution will always be common. So either that has to be installed and maintained by a municipality or a single company which then rents it out.
Competition is also predicated on the concept of low barriers to entry. If it’s nearly impossible for small companies to enter the market place, there effectively never will be competition. We also have seen that money talks, that the power inequality of a big company vs small company means the large company can squeeze the small company out by economies of scale and being able to absorb larger losses until either the smaller company quits or sells to the larger company.
We can offset a lot of this by putting in strong regulations, pathways for small businesses to enter the market, create and enforce strong anti-monolopy laws, or take ownership of core infrastructure by municipalities.
You also seem to have the idea that anything state run is inefficient and corrupt, which has just been corporate propaganda. I trust USPS far more than FedEx, UPS, or any other parcel service. They run quickly, efficiently, and against some very harsh regulations which make them fully pre-fund retiree pensions.
Meanwhile FedEx consistently says I wasn’t home when they tried to deliver which is highly interesting because I work from home and never leave my neighborhood on workdays. If they tried to make a delivery I’d see the truck. They just leave the “we missed you” post it without ever ringing the bell or knocking at the door
Can you think of no other ways to deliver gas than running six pipes?
When everything becomes electric, we’ll have plenty of utility room to spare. Locking us into a different type of monopoly won’t allow room for innovation or advancement.
The next sentence was about shared infrastructure for the pipes. That multiple gas companies could use to distribute, with the caveat that they still would need to be owned by a single entity whether that’s a private company or municipality. I’d argue a municipality is the correct answer here.
If we look at electric as an analogous system, the poles and wires are always owned by a single company and then the supply can be “chosen.” Even though it’s just routing where your cash goes, since electricity is all pooled. The downside, is no matter how much I may not want to support the company that owns the poles and wires, I have no other option and there is no way for a competitive company to build another product to give the consumer a choice.
It’s why I advocate largely for the distribution infrastructure to become public owned, paid for and maintained with taxes. I don’t necessarily agree with the production of the gas/electricity/water. If the distribution infrastructure if publicly owned, then so long as a new business creates a product that matches the regulated quality they only need to pay for the permits and means to attach to the distribution network. We can lower the barrier of entry to new competitors.
The minimum standards would be set based on regulatory capture in very many municipalities. I don’t think it would be worse than jank monopolies, at least. I don’t know that the speed (or incentives) of either is something I trust with keeping up technologically.
Moving from a monopoly to a municipality doesn’t help when the standards they set are super strict.
We’ve tried that. What’s prone to happen is the corporations spend money to the municipalities to deregulate. Let’s stop giving them the chance. It hasn’t worked. Let’s instead go back to treating utilities as publically beneficial
Not my tempo 🥁
You’re dragging a bit.
Central planning is not to enrich the elite, lmao. That’s Capitalism.
You fundamentally misunderstand what people are calling for. The aim of making utilities public isn’t the enrichment of a small few, its to spread the benefits of society to all who contribute. The core of this is that we want responsible accountability and the best way to do that is to operate with a communal mindset. One in which if we find a political officer is abusing their position of power we can remove them and restore the material wealth stolen to who it belongs to. You’re so used to operating in a system where positions of power go to the already wealthy that you’re assuming that’s what we’re still calling for. Collaborative cooperation has become such a foreign concept to you that you’re completely ignoring that we’re saying utilities and services should enrich no one but society as a whole
Nobody is stopping people from having a commercial option next to a government option.
A monopoly run by the government can operate at a loss no problem. Why? Because their job isn’t to make a profit first but to serve the people. Can any private business operate at a loss? And IMHO, utilities are the prime example of what should be owned by the government.
Would you say rampant inefficiencies and cronyism are also present in the private side of things as well though?
I can certainly imagine that the rich owner of a company is more likely to take a service contract with his rich buddy than with the newbie on the block, and nobody will do anything about it because private.
Then in terms of inefficiencies, the only thing a private company seems to be able to do efficiently is take money off you, not deliver their service or even customer service.
At least state services have the opportunity to hold those in charge responsible, if the systems put in place work for the people. In many countries however, this is not the case.
Therefore it seems like turning companies private is just another bad option. The actual, and perhaps impossible, fix is to resolve the issues in our governing bodies such that our leaders are held accountable.
If the state is run by the workers, and in the interests of the workers without the profit motive, it is soley directed towards providing a service. A capitalist monopoly is directed towards profit alone, and can price control.
Planned economies are based.