I think competition and incentives is generally the best way to get things done but natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve, in private hands are generally worse than the government doing it. A natural monopoly in private hands might well be more efficient but "efficiency" in the context of a natural monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing.
I think competition and incentives is generally the best way to get things done but natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve, in private hands are generally worse than the government doing it. A natural monopoly in private hands might well be more efficient but "efficiency" in the context of a natural monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing.
What about unnatural monopolies such as the BBC, who have used their monopoly to give viewers and listeners 50+ yeats of increasingly pro-left and "progressive" propoganda, and increasingly ignore the wishes and tastes of middle Britain?
Watford’s Conservative party has been extinguished at borough level after the last Tory councillor has defected to the ruling Liberal Democrat group.
Steve Johnson, who had been the leader of the Conservatives onWatford Borough Council until recently, announced this morning he was crossing the floor due to the national Tory party’s “right wing drift”.
In a statement the Leggatts representative said: “I have become increasingly disappointed by the right-wing drift of Conservative party rhetoric, particularly its attitude to welfare issues. I feel my views are more in tune with the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition, in
I think competition and incentives is generally the best way to get things done but natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve, in private hands are generally worse than the government doing it. A natural monopoly in private hands might well be more efficient but "efficiency" in the context of a natural monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing.
It depends what you mean by a natural monopoly. I wrote an A level economics essay arguing that telephony wasn't a natural monopoly. Our economics teacher marked it down and pointed out that telephony was a natural monopoly, wouldn't accept my arguments at all.
This was in the days before mobile phones, though.
I'm sure there's an argument that food retailing could be a natural monopoly.
I would pay double the license fee if they would just stop broadcasting those dreadful weekday 6.30 pm "comedies".
When I was young and rebellious all comedy on the BBC was stuff my parents liked. Now that I'm older it's all left-wing student "humour" (note: it's not humorous).
It depends what you mean by a natural monopoly. I wrote an A level economics essay arguing that telephony wasn't a natural monopoly. Our economics teacher marked it down and pointed out that telephony was a natural monopoly, wouldn't accept my arguments at all.
This was in the days before mobile phones, though.
I'm sure there's an argument that food retailing could be a natural monopoly.
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
You implicitly accept the point yourself by mentioning the difference in telephony since mobile phones. Mobile phones make competition much easier to achieve.
Was the "Winter of Discontent" of 1978/79. the climax of the "Post-War Consensus"? Is that what it all came to? Sure was a cold winter ..... Perhaps, a passing left-leaner will explain ...
I think competition and incentives is generally the best way to get things done but natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve, in private hands are generally worse than the government doing it. A natural monopoly in private hands might well be more efficient but "efficiency" in the context of a natural monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing.
I can see where you are coming from but would suggest that if efficiency isn't necessarily a good thing then that means that the goods or services would be more expensive than they need to be and I am not sure that will help. In such cases where there is a "natural" monopoly would it not be better if HMG found a way of breaking that monopoly and lowered costs of entry into the market?
A more worrying feature of our present utilities set-up is the failure of the regulators to prevent a cartel-market. For example, our gas and electric suppliers meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, but they definitely do not, hand-on-heart-honest discuss pricing. It is a matter of wonderful co-incidence that each year they raise prices by about the same amount within a couple of months of each other.
"I'm in favour of your solution if it would work, building up the SE as it is going now just can't work from an infrastructure basis. It isn't just roads and hospitals. What about the water?"
Good point about the water supply. I don't know if my idea would work, I suspect the numbers would come out about right but there are social issues that would need to be considered. You mentioned people moving South to be near their working off-spring, may be there would be the same drag that would prevent the elderly moving North. I dunno, but it seems certain to me that the idea that "redundant" areas can be revitalised by government action has been tested to destruction - it has been going on since the end of WW2 (see the Atlee cabinet papers). As the old motto goes if what you are doing isn't working doing something else.
couldn't we just cheat and categorise Liverpool as part of the SE ? Then when tim starts to vote blue his standard of living will rise along with his house price.
I think competition and incentives is generally the best way to get things done but natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve, in private hands are generally worse than the government doing it. A natural monopoly in private hands might well be more efficient but "efficiency" in the context of a natural monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing.
What about unnatural monopolies such as the BBC, who have used their monopoly to give viewers and listeners 50+ yeats of increasingly pro-left and "progressive" propoganda, and increasingly ignore the wishes and tastes of middle Britain?
Like i said
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
TV isn't one of those sectors so the BBC should go imo.
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
You implicitly accept the point yourself by mentioning the difference in telephony since mobile phones. Mobile phones make competition much easier to achieve.
Not necessarily. There is no reason why fixed lines are a natural monopoly (they aren't now). There are two basic types of fixed line, cable (Virgin Media) and the BT network. The BT network is sub let to other providers (e.g. sky, talk talk), who can provide their own services. This could have been done before.
The argument that it is a natural monopoly is the same argument that road haulage should be 'publicly owned' on the grounds that roads are a natural monopoly.
I think competition and incentives is generally the best way to get things done but natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve, in private hands are generally worse than the government doing it. A natural monopoly in private hands might well be more efficient but "efficiency" in the context of a natural monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing.
I can see where you are coming from but would suggest that if efficiency isn't necessarily a good thing then that means that the goods or services would be more expensive than they need to be and I am not sure that will help. In such cases where there is a "natural" monopoly would it not be better if HMG found a way of breaking that monopoly and lowered costs of entry into the market?
A more worrying feature of our present utilities set-up is the failure of the regulators to prevent a cartel-market. For example, our gas and electric suppliers meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, but they definitely do not, hand-on-heart-honest discuss pricing. It is a matter of wonderful co-incidence that each year they raise prices by about the same amount within a couple of months of each other.
What i meant by greater efficiency in the context of natural monopoly (or a cartel) not necessarily being a good thing is exactly the sort of thing you describe. The easiest way to be more efficient as a business in the context of a natural monopoly (or cartel) where you don't have to compete is to screw the customers.
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
You implicitly accept the point yourself by mentioning the difference in telephony since mobile phones. Mobile phones make competition much easier to achieve.
Not necessarily. There is no reason why fixed lines are a natural monopoly (they aren't now). There are two basic types of fixed line, cable (Virgin Media) and the BT network. The BT network is sub let to other providers (e.g. sky, talk talk), who can provide their own services. This could have been done before.
The argument that it is a natural monopoly is the same argument that road haulage should be 'publicly owned' on the grounds that roads are a natural monopoly.
I'll repeat my definition again
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
You're quibbling over whether the definition applies in a particular case while implicitly accepting the definition by referencing how competition could potentially have been achieved.
You're quibbling over whether the definition applies in a particular case while implicitly accepting the definition by referencing how competition could potentially have been achieved.
OK, I'll accept your argument. You tell us what is a natural monopoly, and I'll stick with that definition.
You're quibbling over whether the definition applies in a particular case while implicitly accepting the definition by referencing how competition could potentially have been achieved.
OK, I'll accept your argument. You tell us what is a natural monopoly, and I'll stick with that definition.
You need to let that bitterness at your A level economics teacher go. I already gave a very loose and flexible definition which you keep using implicitly yourself.
redcliffe62 - Gillard could yet be replaced by her Hezza, Kevin Rudd, if the polls continue to fail, or maybe an ALP compromise, a John Major to keep out Abbott, and Aussie Kinnock in conservative clothing?
Comments
Lib Dem PEB 2,077 on theirs
Watford’s Conservative party has been extinguished at borough level after the last Tory councillor has defected to the ruling Liberal Democrat group.
Steve Johnson, who had been the leader of the Conservatives onWatford Borough Council until recently, announced this morning he was crossing the floor due to the national Tory party’s “right wing drift”.
In a statement the Leggatts representative said: “I have become increasingly disappointed by the right-wing drift of Conservative party rhetoric, particularly its attitude to welfare issues. I feel my views are more in tune with the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition, in
…
This was in the days before mobile phones, though.
I'm sure there's an argument that food retailing could be a natural monopoly.
I would pay double the license fee if they would just stop broadcasting those dreadful weekday 6.30 pm "comedies".
When I was young and rebellious all comedy on the BBC was stuff my parents liked. Now that I'm older it's all left-wing student "humour" (note: it's not humorous).
It's as though they're doing it to spite me.
You implicitly accept the point yourself by mentioning the difference in telephony since mobile phones. Mobile phones make competition much easier to achieve.
A more worrying feature of our present utilities set-up is the failure of the regulators to prevent a cartel-market. For example, our gas and electric suppliers meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, but they definitely do not, hand-on-heart-honest discuss pricing. It is a matter of wonderful co-incidence that each year they raise prices by about the same amount within a couple of months of each other.
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
TV isn't one of those sectors so the BBC should go imo.
The argument that it is a natural monopoly is the same argument that road haulage should be 'publicly owned' on the grounds that roads are a natural monopoly.
"natural monopolies i.e. industries or sectors where competition isn't easy to achieve"
You're quibbling over whether the definition applies in a particular case while implicitly accepting the definition by referencing how competition could potentially have been achieved.