A Gov't Monopoly vs. A Competitive Free Maket

[SVT]

In what instance is it best to have a gov't monopoly only? Is there ever an instance where a monopoly is better than competition?

A few gov't monopolies off the top of my head - Police, Courts, Flood Insurance, Postal Services, Roads, Etc

 

[dixiejarhead]

I don't know, but the power companies have monopolies and rape us on the price of energy.... In my opinion, any area where you don't have a choice as a consumer between two or more competitors would rate some gov regulation.

 

[SVT]

I personally like the idea of abolishing gov't monopolies, at least on the things i mentioned above. I think it makes sense to allow competition to take place.

I hadn't really done a lot of research on water & power companies so I didnt list it, but i would LOVE competition in those areas too

 

[03protege]

I personally like the idea of abolishing gov't monopolies, at least on the things i mentioned above. I think it makes sense to allow competition to take place.

I hadn't really done a lot of research on water & power companies so I didnt list it, but i would LOVE competition in those areas too

LOL, as if you are going to have multiple sewer, water, and power companies all running utilities to one house so the owner can hop back and forth each month to whoevers rate is lower by $0.01

 

[SVT]

LOL, as if you are going to have multiple sewer, water, and power companies all running utilities to one house so the owner can hop back and forth each month to whoevers rate is lower by $0.01

Ok so are you saying this is an area where Gov't force and monopolized contracts are required since the free market won't be able to figure it out on it's own?

 

[Btl_Rkt_Sci]

LOL, as if you are going to have multiple sewer, water, and power companies all running utilities to one house so the owner can hop back and forth each month to whoevers rate is lower by $0.01

I know you can't do much about water and sewer, but when I lived in Houston I picked from about 5 power providers.

 

[poor_shot]

I don't know, but the power companies have monopolies and rape us on the price of energy.... In my opinion, any area where you don't have a choice as a consumer between two or more competitors would rate some gov regulation.

it's not really a monopoly. the Power and Cable companies in New Orleans are regulated. they're regulated by the people you vote into office. they cannot raise rates if they do not meet certain levels of service. when they are granted a franchise agreement with they city, there's a contract that spells out a standard that they are going to be held to. if they don't meet those standards, that franchise agreement does not have to be renewed and it can be renegotiated and rates should not rise until they can prove they will provide the consumer with something in return for the higher costs. most people don't know the Power company's profit margin is regulated. lets say it's 13.5% now, and they want to push it to 15% by raising rates, well you can't just do that.

 

[dixiejarhead]

it's not really a monopoly. the Power and Cable companies in New Orleans are regulated. they're regulated by the people you vote into office. they cannot raise rates if they do not meet certain levels of service. when they are granted a franchise agreement with they city, there's a contract that spells out a standard that they are going to be held to. if they don't meet those standards, that franchise agreement does not have to be renewed and it can be renegotiated and rates should not rise until they can prove they will provide the consumer with something in return for the higher costs. most people don't know the Power company's profit margin is regulated. lets say it's 13.5% now, and they want to push it to 15% by raising rates, well you can't just do that.

To me, if you cannot choose which company to have service from, then it is a monopoly. Personally I either want choices like they have in texas or one entity supplying power to everyone at cost+ a small percent margin, say 3%. Make it a government job, just like the sewerage and water. Set regulations in effect that to keep the politicians from using it as a profit mechanism.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

t

In what instance is it best to have a gov't monopoly only? Is there ever an instance where a monopoly is better than competition?

A few gov't monopolies off the top of my head - Police, Courts, Flood Insurance, Postal Services, Roads, Etc

Postal Service isnt a monopoly. Flood Insurance not a monopoly. Roads also not a monopoly. For profit Police and Courts are a HORRIBLE idea.

 

[poor_shot]

To me, if you cannot choose which company to have service from, then it is a monopoly. Personally I either want choices like they have in texas or one entity supplying power to everyone at cost+ a small percent margin, say 3%. Make it a government job, just like the sewerage and water. Set regulations in effect that to keep the politicians from using it as a profit mechanism.

Ok, how about you do this little test, check out the rates for Entergy New Orleans and then for a random power company in Houston or Dallas. Entergy's rate is around .06 kw/h., guess what, Reliant and other companies in Dallas are around .07-10 kw/h. Options aren't always better. Also, it is illegal, but it can lead to collusion. Power bills are high in Louisiana, I believe, due to poor housing construction (old inefficient homes) and geographic location.

Also, if you want a cheaper cable bill, then spend the money to over build a network and compete for a franchise agreement.

It's not all politics, I'd say its 50/50. There are macro and micro economics. Some companies don't want to invest in this State. But times are changing.

 

[SVT]

t


Postal Service isnt a monopoly. Flood Insurance not a monopoly. Roads also not a monopoly. For profit Police and Courts are a HORRIBLE idea.

Postal is in fact a monopoly - It has a government-granted monopoly on first class mail. (& i'm not positive but I'm pretty sure flood insurance is as well), I'll post links Monday for you.

Why is a monopoly on police the best way to go?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

You can send letters via DHL, UPS, and FedEx. You may pay more but that's free markets at work. If the Postal Service had a monopoly it wouldn't be losing billions of dollars a year. Lots of Private Insurance Companies offer Flood Insurance. Some people in extremely flood prone areas have to buy Gov Provided Flood Insurance because Private For Profit Insurers aren't willing to take the risk and write them. That again is free markets at work. Police shouldn't be a for profit enterprise and everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. Rich or Poor, black or white, resources should be applied equally. In a for profit model private police would only police in areas that were profitable and would only enforce laws that's de them money.

 

[dixiejarhead]

Ok, how about you do this little test, check out the rates for Entergy New Orleans and then for a random power company in Houston or Dallas. Entergy's rate is around .06 kw/h., guess what, Reliant and other companies in Dallas are around .07-10 kw/h. Options aren't always better. Also, it is illegal, but it can lead to collusion. Power bills are high in Louisiana, I believe, due to poor housing construction (old inefficient homes) and geographic location.

Also, if you want a cheaper cable bill, then spend the money to over build a network and compete for a franchise agreement.

It's not all politics, I'd say its 50/50. There are macro and micro economics. Some companies don't want to invest in this State. But times are changing.

Rates are cheaper here than they were in Georgia for sure, however no choice is still no choice. I have CLECO. You don't pay the bill, they shut the power off. You have NO other choice but to pay what they charge. In that manner, regardless of economics, you basically have a gun to your head. You cannot do anything without power nowadays. No washing machine, heat, cooling and in my home, no water either. Sure I could spend a ton of cash and try to get off the grid, and when I built a home from scratch, I'll do just that. Same thing with internet/cable. we have charter, and the service sucks. Net is slow, but we have no other choices... Yes, that's a monopoly.

 

[Charles1959]

I'm all for letting the Government run anything it has a history of running smoothly, efficiently and economically!
That leaves ........squat!

 

[SVT]

You can send letters via DHL, UPS, and FedEx. You may pay more but that's free markets at work. If the Postal Service had a monopoly it wouldn't be losing billions of dollars a year.

A few links for you to read regarding the Postal Service: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/time-again-to-tame-the-postal-monopoly/ - http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/09/us-postal-service-a-government-protected-monopoly/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes

Additionally, your comment saying "you may pay more but that's the free markets at work" is incorrect. In a free market, there would be NO gov't regulation that props up one business over the other, that subsidizes one business no matter what, that forces all other businesses (except one) to charge more for the same services....no, that's in no way a free market.

Lots of Private Insurance Companies offer Flood Insurance. Some people in extremely flood prone areas have to buy Gov Provided Flood Insurance because Private For Profit Insurers aren't willing to take the risk and write them. That again is free markets at work.

OK I wasn't aware of any private flood companies. When I got insurance, the ONLY option I had was the gov't. But again, your comment here of "that's the free market at work" is not accurate. There cannot be a truly free market where the gov't comes in and provides the same insurance at a significantly discounted rate. Essentially it seems as if the federal flood insurance is a form of welfare.

Police shouldn't be a for profit enterprise and everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. Rich or Poor, black or white, resources should be applied equally. In a for profit model private police would only police in areas that were profitable and would only enforce laws that's de them money.

Ok so since "some" of the private security firms that would be in existence might not provide a certain percentage of charity coverage, you would rather EVERYONE be subject to Government Force? Also, I'm not sure how likely this scenario is since it's likely that there would emerge voluntary charities in the form of “police aid societies” much like “legal aid societies” exist to help people who can’t afford legal services today. Secondly, in a competitive market, police firms would want to create good will in general and not be seen as heartless. Wouldn't it be better to have a society where citizens were free to decide if they even wanted police services and what level of service they wanted? Philosophically, it seems correct to say if police firms were required to compete against one another, we would have a police market that provided a higher level of service, at a better price. There would probably be less "bad cop cases" since an entire company's life would depend on the services they provide.

 

[JadeRaven]

The USPS has a legal monopoly on standard and first class mail service. UPS and FedEx or a local courier can make the same delivery but it typically has to be considered "urgent delivery" and they cannot under Federal Law undercut the USPS price. Also nobody but the USPS can put something in your mailbox (but not a mail slot, go figure). There was an article I read a number of years ago that stated that UPS, if allowed, could deliver mail for about ten cents/ea. I think that was pre-increased gasoline prices, etc.

What is killing the USPS is the fact that the company has no true freedom like any other private enterprise to trim the fat or incentive to produce a profit.

You can get a general homeowners policy from private insurers but expect to pay through the nose. Rates under the NFIP are subsidized by the gov't and also through those purchasing flood insurance where it never floods. Some people are getting their insurance for cheap (but appearing expensive) while others pay seemingly very little but actually far too much since they will statistically never flood.

I wouldn't mind some competition in the mail department, but I do think the USPS still serves a purpose. I would also love to have some speed-limitless toll roads.

 

[cajun_64]

A few links for you to read regarding the Postal Service: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/time-again-to-tame-the-postal-monopoly/ - http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/09/us-postal-service-a-government-protected-monopoly/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes

Additionally, your comment saying "you may pay more but that's the free markets at work" is incorrect. In a free market, there would be NO gov't regulation that props up one business over the other, that subsidizes one business no matter what, that forces all other businesses (except one) to charge more for the same services....no, that's in no way a free market.



OK I wasn't aware of any private flood companies. When I got insurance, the ONLY option I had was the gov't. But again, your comment here of "that's the free market at work" is not accurate. There cannot be a truly free market where the gov't comes in and provides the same insurance at a significantly discounted rate. Essentially it seems as if the federal flood insurance is a form of welfare.



Ok so since "some" of the private security firms that would be in existence might not provide a certain percentage of charity coverage, you would rather EVERYONE be subject to Government Force? Also, I'm not sure how likely this scenario is since it's likely that there would emerge voluntary charities in the form of *police aid societies* much like *legal aid societies* exist to help people who can’t afford legal services today. Secondly, in a competitive market, police firms would want to create good will in general and not be seen as heartless. Wouldn't it be better to have a society where citizens were free to decide if they even wanted police services and what level of service they wanted? Philosophically, it seems correct to say if police firms were required to compete against one another, we would have a police market that provided a higher level of service, at a better price. There would probably be less "bad cop cases" since an entire company's life would depend on the services they provide.

So you would like our policing duties going to the low bidder? Can anyone tell me how their last few encounters with the TSA went?

I think there was a previous post some where on the issue of for hire policing, in that they are not bound by the same laws and restrictions our police force is. In essence, bye bye our constitutional rights.

 

[SVT]

So you would like our policing duties going to the low bidder? Can anyone tell me how their last few encounters with the TSA went?

I think there was a previous post some where on the issue of for hire policing, in that they are not bound by the same laws and restrictions our police force is. In essence, bye bye our constitutional rights.

I'm saying I would prefer a free market compared to a gov't monopoly. I'm saying I prefer Freedom compared to Gov't Force.

Regarding your Constitution statement, the free market can and would solve these issues in their contracts with their customers.

 

[cajun_64]

I'm saying I would prefer a free market compared to a gov't monopoly. I'm saying I prefer Freedom compared to Gov't Force.

Regarding your Constitution statement, the free market can and would solve these issues in their contracts with their customers.

I understand what you are saying. However, I feel we tend to be best with our local LE that does grant us some protections and the ability to know everyone in the agency.. In this area, a private company will have to always consider the profitability of any activity. I just can not be sold this would be in our favor. MHOO

 

[SVT]

I understand what you are saying. However, I feel we tend to be best with our local LE that does grant us some protections and the ability to know everyone in the agency.. In this area, a private company will have to always consider the profitability of any activity. I just can not be sold this would be in our favor. MHOO

I'm not sure I understand you comments. So with that in mind...

Why do you assume the "protections" of the citizenry would be different? Why can't these things (if the citizens want them) be written into contracts with the police firm they choose?

When you say "the ability to know everyone in the agency", are speaking of other law enforcement's ability to know everyone in the agency? Or of the local citizenry's ability to know everyone in the agency?


From a philosophical point of view, on the most basic level: The gov't, at the point of a gun, forces us to pay taxes for police. If this was done by ANY other person or business, it would be called Theft.

From an Economic point of view, on the most basic level: Competition is better than a Gov't Forced Monopoly.

Shouldn't true freedom be the end goal that we all strive for?