3 ms·
Excuse my bad definition, I was referring to 'non-natural' monopolies. On the other note, as a consumer I prefer these natural monopolies exist over that they d
by perceptronas 7y ago
Excuse my bad definition, I was referring to 'non-natural' monopolies. On the other note, as a consumer I prefer these natural monopolies exist over that they don't. I would rather have an expensive railway than to not have any railway at all. Obviously investors will want their return on investment. Alternatives with lower capital requirements to setup businesses always exist (rail -> bus/trucks, electricity -> solar panels, internet -> 4G or similar solution, and so on.)
- modo_mario 7y agoThose railways wouldn't exist without the monopoly of the state bringing em about and we've seen how they operate if privatised in the UK and that's still regulated and not even a monopoly. It's shit. Similarly I don't want to see roads privatised because it leads to incredible inefficiency and the open access to the roads provides immense value to the rest of the free market.
- pjc50 7y agoRailways are basically impossible to build without government intervention or at least eminent domain because they require continuous land. 4G also requires some process for radio spectrum allocation in order to be usable at all.