Response to me or the OP?
A bit of both. That's bad governing for sure. No argument from me. It's not like they were selling prescription drugs or something. |
|
|
|
Then why don't more people set up panels or other generation systems? Look into it yourself, You could turn a bill into a profit stream. And how do the power companies differentiate? They don't. They come check the meter, and however much you have used, that's what they charge you for.
Have a look at the response above yours. MoonShadow explains it rather well. I mean how do you differentiate the power you generate from the power the power company generate? Can't do it, unless you have a separate circuit. I do however still want an explanation about why why that thing you're saying should happen doesn't happen. Why don't we see competition in these areas? Why doesn't the market "fix it" all by itself? Another interesting fact: clean energy is only happening because of government sponsoring. They're "wasting" money by helping people set up wind turbines and other renewables and while doing so sponsoring technology development in these areas. The first wind turbines that went up cost more energy to produce than they gave during their lifetime, now they give a net surplus. Left to the free market we wouldn't have as much wind power as we do today, reducing the CO2 emissions for everybody. |
|
|
|
If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?
If that question was for me then yes, I think so. I doubt that you are allowed to use circuits connected to the grid though. Wait, why can't I hook to the grid? It's a free market, isn't it? Free but not unregulated. And you can sell power to the power companies if you follow certain rules in setting the equipment up. I think that has to do with protecting the grid from faulty equipment. And how would you be able to differentiate your power from any other power if you sent it over the regular grid. You'd have to have your own grid to distribute it to your neighbour. |
|
|
|
|
Bad form.
That looks like overreaching to me. I've had a ton of businesses when I was a kid, and not once been in trouble over it.
To be honest I'm a bit worried about the US. Seems like there's a lot of crap going on there right now.
|
|
|
|
If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?
If that question was for me then yes, I think so. I doubt that you are allowed to use circuits connected to the grid though. |
|
|
|
Fine, pick another rich guy. Point is that whatever you're saying will happen isn't happening.
The difference being what in another market? Pay and you get service. Pay little to the monopoly and get service, compared to pay a lot to the "free market" to get service. In the example we're talking about. So the free market is a tyranny now? Or is it the fact that I get to choose which of the big players I will give my money that makes it better than paying a little to one I have no choice in.
You're deliberately twisting my words. What you have is NOT the free market. What you have is a government established oligopoly, which is supported by regulation costs making the barrier to entry too high. You can't just 'pick another rich guy', it has to be somebody who has a reason to enter the market aside from marginal profits 10 years down the line. Funny thing is, if you look at the papers written about this, they do talk about barriers to entry but never about artificial barriers of entry which is what you're suggesting. The barriers are high cost of building power plants and infrastructure. Those barriers would remain even in your utopian "free market". So what you have is a few big players with no interest of competing and no new players interested in joining, which screws the customer even more than a monopoly does, because now you have the illusion of choice and nobody to hold responsible. |
|
|
|
Why would Branson care? It's not his itch to scratch. Billionaires have other things to do than jump on every single profit opportunity. They go for the big fish. It's the little guys that take care of the local problems. And yes, a government sponsored monopoly isn't only comparable to tyranny, it is tyranny. In your own words: Only one provider meant no cost for advertising, everybody who wanted power had to pay. And besides, you can indeed remove a tyrant. It's been done before, just takes a little work. Fine, pick another rich guy. Point is that whatever you're saying will happen isn't happening. The difference being what in another market? Pay and you get service. Pay little to the monopoly and get service, compared to pay a lot to the "free market" to get service. In the example we're talking about. So the free market is a tyranny now? Or is it the fact that I get to choose which of the big players I will give my money that makes it better than paying a little to one I have no choice in. |
|
|
|
I'm comfortable knowing that the people with the right to use violence are trained to do so, instructed to use a minimum of force and responsible for their actions. Anything else would be madness. Just as I consider religion to be.
Here's an excellent example of minimum use of force: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxkAn-g4XoAs far as responsible ? To whom ? They are the law. No, that's not an excellent example of minimum of force. That's an example of the opposite. They're not the law. They are the enforcers of laws. They are responsible to the law. |
|
|
|
Christians, Muslims, Jews and other monotheists almost all believe might makes right. They worship God because they believe He is all-powerful. I asked many Christians if they would still worship God if Satan was more powerful. Few responded. You could see smoke coming from their ears. They tried to weasel out question. Ultimately the answer for almost all of them is "no". They would worship Satan if Satan was all-powerful.
Might=right for these people. This is why they are Statists and why they are perfectly comfortable with a system centered around a violence monopoly.
Sweet jesus is there no end to the hyperbole? Atheist statist here. I'm comfortable knowing that the people with the right to use violence are trained to do so, instructed to use a minimum of force and responsible for their actions. Anything else would be madness. Just as I consider religion to be. |
|
|
|
You're missing the point. The point is not the compliance with the rules, the point, and the barrier to entry, is proving compliance. Licensing fees, inspection fees, all sorts of regulation-related costs. Startups often can't afford to pay these costs, which is why there's no new players. No new players means the existing ones are free to soak the customers as much as they want.
And in this specific instance, with a responsible monopoly, which got broken up into a cartel, yes, the customers were better off. A benevolent tyrant is usually better than a democracy, too, but that doesn't mean we should support tyranny.
Oh come on. You don't think Richard Branson could pay whatever fee to break into a market if he wanted to? Why doesn't he, or someone similar go in there and undercut the others? It's what should happen according to you. The real world just seems to disagree with your theory. A government sponsored monopoly isn't comparable to tyranny. You can replace the government every four years if you want. You have power over a government. |
|
|
|
Free market: (n) A market unencumbered by regulation or taxation.
Not to say there aren't rules, but those rules are not enforced by a state, they're followed voluntarily. Ratings organizations could rate which companies do the best job in various areas.
So, no rules then? If companies can't be bothered to follow rules when there's punishment waiting for those who break the laws, you expect them to follow rules they don't have to? But what about the broken up monopoly that resulted in a oligopoly with higher prices? Surely it was better for the consumer to have a monopoly, no? |
|
|
|
So no competition is better than a little competition? The market isn't "free" in your sense. It's free in the "everyone's free to compete and here are the rules" kind of way. It has turned into an oligopoly and no player is undercutting another because they make a ton of money, and no new player have emerged. I'm not sure how long anybody's supposed to wait for the market to fix problems like these, but 15 years is more than enough don't you think?
Ahh. Yup, looks like the same thing happened in your case... they sold all their stuff to their buddies, and then set up barriers to entry. The market needs to be completely free for competition to work. If they're in a 'walled garden' of regulation, it makes it real tough for new players to enter. If no new players can enter, the existing companies can screw the customers as much as they want. So then it's better to keep a monopoly run by the state, since you have a few politicians to punish? I'd like to know what you consider a a free market? No rules at all, or can you have a few rules in place, such as rules about waste disposal? Employee safety? Are those the things that you claim keep competition out? |
|
|
|
I'm not a big supporter of monopolies, but sometimes they work and I'm pragmatic enough to choose what "works" over what "follows my ideology" in matters like this.
I don't know the legislation surrounding the deregulation, but here in the US, what we call 'Deregulation' really amounts to granting oligopolies, or regional monopolies. So no competition is better than a little competition? The market isn't "free" in your sense. It's free in the "everyone's free to compete and here are the rules" kind of way. It has turned into an oligopoly and no player is undercutting another because they make a ton of money, and no new player have emerged. I'm not sure how long anybody's supposed to wait for the market to fix problems like these, but 15 years is more than enough don't you think? |
|
|
|
Only one provider meant no cost for advertising, everybody who wanted power had to pay. Yet again, you only focus on one thing. How was the customer service? How long did it take for outages to get fixed? How often did outages occur? How efficient was their grid? Did they support purchasing surplus power from solar panels or wind turbines? If so, what was the price per kilowatt hour? Did they have different kinds of meters, digital meters, analog meters, etc? You see, competition doesn't just lower prices. It also raises quality and increases variety. Try to look at the big picture instead of whatever agrees with your conclusions. But the deregulation was supposed to benefit the customers and I can't really see that a price that increased threefold is beneficial, even if they get digital meters. The Nordic power monopoly, as it were, was a very efficient beast, and it was cheap too. Today it's a deregulated market where a few big suppliers have more or less a stranglehold on the market and they make record profits, and investments in clean energy have decreased. There are a number of scientific journals about how the deregulation didn't work as intended, if you want to read. I'm not a big supporter of monopolies, but sometimes they work and I'm pragmatic enough to choose what "works" over what "follows my ideology" in matters like this. |
|
|
|
Higher prices for the consumer, more tax revenue. But didn't your theory say the opposite? Or were you arguing that deregulation is good for the state?
Oh, so... the power is taxed now? Instead of subsidized? Yeah, of course the price went up. Don't even need a degree in economics to see that. Hell, don't even need a GED. What do you mean "now"? And what do you mean subsidized? There was always taxes, and doesn't subsidizing imply that the you don't make money, but instead lose it to keep price down? And what's so mystical about more money to tax, higher tax revenue? |
|
|
|
Only one provider meant no cost for advertising, everybody who wanted power had to pay. They made a profit, although small, and the Nordic countries had the lowest power fees in Europe. That changed with deregulation. The state still makes money, probably more than before, and the consumers have to pay.
But feel free to ignore reality if it doesn't fit your theory.
Why is this? I'm genuinely curious. [/quote] Higher prices for the consumer, more tax revenue. But didn't your theory say the opposite? Or were you arguing that deregulation is good for the state? |
|
|
|
Oh yes, of course, a subsidized industry would definitely have lower prices when privatized.  Removing a monopoly typically lowers prices. Removing a subsidy typically raises them. In the end, the market will resolve the prices. Only one provider meant no cost for advertising, everybody who wanted power had to pay. They made a profit, although small, and the Nordic countries had the lowest power fees in Europe. That changed with deregulation. The state still makes money, probably more than before, and the consumers have to pay. But feel free to ignore reality if it doesn't fit your theory. |
|
|
|
Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof. Did you consider how much tax money was no longer being spent on subsidizing that industry? Did you consider the real costs of producing electricity? No, of course not. You only looked at the number on the bill. Also, didn't you argue that deregulation and competition would lower the price for the consumers? How come that didn't happen? Monopoly gave the lowest prices. I suppose the market just wasn't free enough, right? It's not like your theory isn't always right? |
|
|
|
Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof. Did you consider how much tax money was no longer being spent on subsidizing that industry? Did you consider the real costs of producing electricity? No, of course not. You only looked at the number on the bill. Faulty assumption. I know what the production price is. I know about the investments required to maintain and expand the production. I know that the owner, which was the state at the time, made a profit from production. I also know that prices went up over 2000% during cold winter days, from a price that already had gone up to "harmonize" with other markets. While I haven't worked in this field, I have colleagues who do. I am not the bitter consumer that you're implying. It was a working monopoly for the benefit of the consumers. There were other benefits from deregulation, but it sure as hell wasn't good for the consumers. And was that the only thing you were going to comment on my long post? |
|
|
|
Notice how you had to put free in quotes? That's because TANSTAAFL. And, no. People with "more money than me" do not pay for all of the services I get "free", unless you consider "more money than me" only in the aggregate. You seem to forget that the poor pay taxes, too. (I don't know about in the UK, but in the US, even the income tax refund checks are taxed). Furthermore, I argue that a monopoly is not the most efficient, nor the best, way to provide those services. As such, prices for those services will be lower. If you consider Education to be unnecessary, then by all means, reduce your spending on it. Just don't try and reach into my pocket and tell me what to spend.
I put free in quotes for you, to avoid the obligatory "but it's not free someone else pays"-response that always follow otherwise. Didn't work though. Next time I'll be sure to explain everything. I know we all pay taxes, what I'm saying is that the poor get more out than they put in, and the rich less so. The rich however have the financial means to provide for himself in other ways. Choices the poor doesn't have. I would argue that a monopoly absolutely can be the most efficient way to provide a service. I've seen examples of monopolies broken up that have been bad for the customers, and the other way around too. It's not as simple as you think it is. Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof. I don't consider education unnecessary at all, I'm just saying that poor people would have to make choices like that. People in the US today have to choose not to go to the doctor when they're sick. Virtually nobody in Europe does that. Care to guess why? I seriously doubt that your ideology would help the poor more than the rich. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
