4 ms·

>Never have I seen evidence of water, power, etc naturally monopolizing and being hostile to consumers. Come to Florida and checkout FPL post hurricane. They

>Never have I seen evidence of water, power, etc naturally monopolizing and being hostile to consumers. Come to Florida and checkout FPL post hurricane. They are pretty notorious for restoring power to wealthy neighborhoods first. That’s pretty hostile. Otherwise I think most agree they have a difficult job and seemingly continue to get better in terms of preparedness and restoration in these events. Going to the state intervention and water pipes as an example, even if the state said anyone can join in and compete whenever they want, it begs the question of how that would be possible without the state being involved. At any given point tom, dick or Harry want to start a water company the publi roads get ripped up yet again to lay pipe. Do Tom, dick and Harry all get to rip up my yard and connect to my home without my consent? If connections aren’t done all at once, do public roads get ripped up for every home that wants water connection from a new supplier? The NFL May be such an example of a monopoly (according to the courts) that doesn’t rely on state intervention, but good luck building your own stadium or contracting to use theirs any given Sunday. Are the hostile to consumers? I suppose that question is debatable based on your definition, in the case of my local team they price out consumers and have record low attendance and didn’t allow competitors to use their stadiums (USFL) to the detriment of football fans who wanted alternative leagues.

pitaj 8y ago
> Come to Florida and checkout FPL post hurricane. It looks to me like FPL is a utility heavily regulated in its rates and operation by the Florida state government. Seems like a lot of government involvement to me. > Going to the state intervention and water pipes as an example, even if the state said anyone can join in and compete whenever they want, it begs the question of how that would be possible without the state being involved. The roads could be built to facilitate expansion and competition. Roads could be avoided altogether through technology like directional drilling or tunneling. Competitors could get started by servicing new development first, then expanding into existing areas. As it stands, existing cities were designed with centralized utilities in mind. It makes it hard to monkey patch competition on top. > Do Tom, dick and Harry all get to rip up my yard and connect to my home without my consent? They shouldn't, but utilities use eminent domain all the time. > public roads get ripped up for every home that wants water connection from a new supplier? I don't think roads should be public either, but that's for another discussion. > The NFL May be such an example of a monopoly Talk about a bad example. The NFL gets all sorts of subsidies including cities building their stadiums for them! The military uses the NFL as a main medium for advertising.
- will_brown 8y ago
  My reading of the OP was there is no evidence of government supported monopolies being hostile to consumers, the top two example you seem to agree with me that these government supported monopolies are hostile to consumers. As you say if we open up water to competition, as many as possible can immeenient domain a pipe into my house. I could have 1,000 water pipes from 1,000 companies sticking out of my wall and I have no say.. that seems hostile. I don’t think you can just imagine some magical road that allows for unlimited pipes and electric to run through it that just accommodates more competition without real hostility to consumers. The military doesn’t “use” stadiums they form partnerships with the NFL and pay to advertise...the military isn’t helping protect the NFL monopoly the way OP says. And not all stadiums are build by the cities or tax payer funds. But in my case they did, admittedly, but again it can be argued they are hosilte (pricing out the local fans, while the stadium sits half empty). I think you missed the part about OP claiming these State backed monopolies aren’t hostile to consumers (or I completely misunderstood this part of the post)...as your post seems to concur with mine, they are sometime hostile.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    > My reading of the OP was there is no evidence of government supported monopolies being hostile to consumers Which OP are you referring to? > As you say if we open up water to competition, as many as possible can immeenient domain a pipe into my house. I could have 1,000 water pipes from 1,000 companies sticking out of my wall and I have no say.. that seems hostile. I don't think that would actually happen of course. Nor do I think eminent domain is a valid power of the State. My point was that this already happens. I think a much better system could spontaneously exist when the market is involved. An example is given by WalterBright: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18536896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18536896 > I don’t think you can just imagine some magical road that allows for unlimited pipes and electric to run through it that just accommodates more competition without real hostility to consumers. Obviously, scarcity is a thing. Unlimited competition isn't possible. I'd say 2-6 competitors is about right, depending on your situation. > The military doesn’t “use” stadiums they form partnerships with the NFL and pay to advertise...the military isn’t helping protect the NFL monopoly the way OP says. My point was that the military is a large source of NFL funding, but I shouldn't have even brought that up. It's entirely unnecessary, because the NFL isn't a monopoly. Sports entertainment is a super competitive arena, with multiple sports and multiple levels per sport, including college football. > And not all stadiums are build by the cities or tax payer funds. Sure, but regardless my point that they get huge subsidies from governments stands. > missed the part about OP claiming these State backed monopolies aren’t hostile to consumers I'm not sure who you're referring to by OP, but my position is that state-backed monopolies are the only ones which can be hostile to consumers. Otherwise, the hostility is just opportunity for competitors.

pitaj 8y ago

> Come to Florida and checkout FPL post hurricane. It looks to me like FPL is a utility heavily regulated in its rates and operation by the Florida state government. Seems like a lot of government involvement to me. > Going to the state intervention and water pipes as an example, even if the state said anyone can join in and compete whenever they want, it begs the question of how that would be possible without the state being involved. The roads could be built to facilitate expansion and competition. Roads could be avoided altogether through technology like directional drilling or tunneling. Competitors could get started by servicing new development first, then expanding into existing areas. As it stands, existing cities were designed with centralized utilities in mind. It makes it hard to monkey patch competition on top. > Do Tom, dick and Harry all get to rip up my yard and connect to my home without my consent? They shouldn't, but utilities use eminent domain all the time. > public roads get ripped up for every home that wants water connection from a new supplier? I don't think roads should be public either, but that's for another discussion. > The NFL May be such an example of a monopoly Talk about a bad example. The NFL gets all sorts of subsidies including cities building their stadiums for them! The military uses the NFL as a main medium for advertising.

will_brown 8y ago
My reading of the OP was there is no evidence of government supported monopolies being hostile to consumers, the top two example you seem to agree with me that these government supported monopolies are hostile to consumers. As you say if we open up water to competition, as many as possible can immeenient domain a pipe into my house. I could have 1,000 water pipes from 1,000 companies sticking out of my wall and I have no say.. that seems hostile. I don’t think you can just imagine some magical road that allows for unlimited pipes and electric to run through it that just accommodates more competition without real hostility to consumers. The military doesn’t “use” stadiums they form partnerships with the NFL and pay to advertise...the military isn’t helping protect the NFL monopoly the way OP says. And not all stadiums are build by the cities or tax payer funds. But in my case they did, admittedly, but again it can be argued they are hosilte (pricing out the local fans, while the stadium sits half empty). I think you missed the part about OP claiming these State backed monopolies aren’t hostile to consumers (or I completely misunderstood this part of the post)...as your post seems to concur with mine, they are sometime hostile.
- pitaj 8y ago
  > My reading of the OP was there is no evidence of government supported monopolies being hostile to consumers Which OP are you referring to? > As you say if we open up water to competition, as many as possible can immeenient domain a pipe into my house. I could have 1,000 water pipes from 1,000 companies sticking out of my wall and I have no say.. that seems hostile. I don't think that would actually happen of course. Nor do I think eminent domain is a valid power of the State. My point was that this already happens. I think a much better system could spontaneously exist when the market is involved. An example is given by WalterBright: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18536896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18536896 > I don’t think you can just imagine some magical road that allows for unlimited pipes and electric to run through it that just accommodates more competition without real hostility to consumers. Obviously, scarcity is a thing. Unlimited competition isn't possible. I'd say 2-6 competitors is about right, depending on your situation. > The military doesn’t “use” stadiums they form partnerships with the NFL and pay to advertise...the military isn’t helping protect the NFL monopoly the way OP says. My point was that the military is a large source of NFL funding, but I shouldn't have even brought that up. It's entirely unnecessary, because the NFL isn't a monopoly. Sports entertainment is a super competitive arena, with multiple sports and multiple levels per sport, including college football. > And not all stadiums are build by the cities or tax payer funds. Sure, but regardless my point that they get huge subsidies from governments stands. > missed the part about OP claiming these State backed monopolies aren’t hostile to consumers I'm not sure who you're referring to by OP, but my position is that state-backed monopolies are the only ones which can be hostile to consumers. Otherwise, the hostility is just opportunity for competitors.