4 ms·

If multiple companies are competing, I'd much rather get services from the market rather than the government, because I can vote with my wallet, and companies r

by koboll 7y ago

If multiple companies are competing, I'd much rather get services from the market rather than the government, because I can vote with my wallet, and companies respond to that. But if I must use a single monopoly company that provides a service, I'd much rather get services from the government, because at least I have some semblance of a vote in the form of my actual vote. With a single corporate provider of a utility, I have no say at all.

apacheCamel 7y ago
> With a single corporate provider of a utility, I have no say at all. Which is honestly the case in couple instances in my life. I have moved around the US NE quite a bit and multiple places I have lived only offer Verizon or Comcast but only one or the other. The current place I am in is Verizon which is fantastic because dealing with Comcast has always been a massive time sink and emotional/mental strain but I still have no choice in who provides me service.
buckminster 7y ago
When many large British companies were in state hands (up until the 1980s) there was no accountability. Customers were ignored because they had no alternative. The law - sensibly enough - didn't allow politicians to interfere in the running of the companies so they were basically unaccountable. That's how you got waiting lists of more than a decade for a phone line. One of the Tory ministers responsible for privatizing utilities in the 1980s said they did it because the utilities would be easier to control as private companies with a regulator. There is no silver bullet.
- koboll 7y ago
  >The law - sensibly enough - didn't allow politicians to interfere in the running of the companies so they were basically unaccountable. I'm not sure how that's sensible. Are you being sarcastic? Sure, there are problems with political intervention in state-owned companies (near term bias, etc.), but if it's the only means of holding state-owned companies accountable, and if a competitive market is untenable, then yes, voter-accountable politicians should be able to intervene in state-owned companies. As it stands, with a company like PG&E, you have a half-solution, where it's a privately-owned monopoly but isn't directly accountable to its customers because they can't vote with their wallet, so it gets metric tons of regulation dumped on it instead as a half-measure that (obviously) doesn't work.

by koboll 7y ago

apacheCamel 7y ago

> With a single corporate provider of a utility, I have no say at all. Which is honestly the case in couple instances in my life. I have moved around the US NE quite a bit and multiple places I have lived only offer Verizon or Comcast but only one or the other. The current place I am in is Verizon which is fantastic because dealing with Comcast has always been a massive time sink and emotional/mental strain but I still have no choice in who provides me service.

buckminster 7y ago

When many large British companies were in state hands (up until the 1980s) there was no accountability. Customers were ignored because they had no alternative. The law - sensibly enough - didn't allow politicians to interfere in the running of the companies so they were basically unaccountable. That's how you got waiting lists of more than a decade for a phone line. One of the Tory ministers responsible for privatizing utilities in the 1980s said they did it because the utilities would be easier to control as private companies with a regulator. There is no silver bullet.

koboll 7y ago
>The law - sensibly enough - didn't allow politicians to interfere in the running of the companies so they were basically unaccountable. I'm not sure how that's sensible. Are you being sarcastic? Sure, there are problems with political intervention in state-owned companies (near term bias, etc.), but if it's the only means of holding state-owned companies accountable, and if a competitive market is untenable, then yes, voter-accountable politicians should be able to intervene in state-owned companies. As it stands, with a company like PG&E, you have a half-solution, where it's a privately-owned monopoly but isn't directly accountable to its customers because they can't vote with their wallet, so it gets metric tons of regulation dumped on it instead as a half-measure that (obviously) doesn't work.