4 ms·

If it's truly essential then that company should be nationalized and run by the government.

manigandham 6y ago
That would be terrible and only monopolize everything further. Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. That's called competition and ends up serving everyone better.
- minikites 6y ago
  How do you propose having multiple electricity providers or multiple water/sewer providers? What about multiple emergency medial providers or multiple fire brigades? Sometimes the right move is in fact to put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket. Also, "competition" necessarily implies a company can refuse service to a customer, which is not what I (or most people) want with essential services like electricity, water, police, fire protection, etc.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Things like fire and police should be provided by the state due to the authority and access they require over civilians. However we have multiple utilities already. They follow regulations to ensure a level of service and reliability, but are often entrenched by these very same regulations which is why others are prevented from serving the same area. If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. This is similar to ISPs. You can consider network services as essential need in the modern era, but nobody wants a slow nationalized ISP service (look at how Australia screwed that up). Instead multiple local competitive organizations have always delivered the best outcome whenever that's been allowed and encouraged.
    - minikites 6y ago
      Am I understanding correctly that you think multiple companies should be allowed to run electric and telecom lines to every residence? So that every moderately dense city turns into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.j... ?
      - manigandham 6y ago
        You're definitely misunderstanding. Why can't companies reuse infrastructure? Does every delivery company build their own road?
        minikites 6y ago
        >If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. Then how does competition address decaying infrastructure if not by running new lines?
        manigandham 6y ago
        By fixing the existing infrastructure. We're getting lost in the technicalities here but private companies providing services doesn't displace public infrastructure or eliminate the need for state ownership and oversight. What I'm saying is that a single state-run provider isn't a great model for most things, even critical things like utilities. The state can own the rights and build the things that only the state can, while the rest can be leased, shared, operated and maintained by multiple private organizations that compete to offer the best service without the regulatory incumbency. Allowing use in return for upkeep and updates is a well-known model in many industries, especially real estate. It can be applied to the public sector easily. We're slowly seeing things change as private enterprise finds new ways like hyperlocal co-ops and distributed infrastructure like solar power, but there's still much more progress that can be made.
- slothtrop 6y ago
  > monopolize everything further. Were it for profit, yes. > Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. I don't think this is demonstratively true anywhere.
missedthecue 6y ago
Food production is probably the most essential thing in society. Should all the farms be nationalized? It's been tried before many times in many places, and things went spectacularly wrong on each occasion.
- minikites 6y ago
  There are massive farm subsidies and other market controls in agriculture in the USA, so the government already puts a massive thumb on the market "scale". I would argue farms in some sense are already nationalized.

That would be terrible and only monopolize everything further. Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. That's called competition and ends up serving everyone better.

minikites 6y ago
How do you propose having multiple electricity providers or multiple water/sewer providers? What about multiple emergency medial providers or multiple fire brigades? Sometimes the right move is in fact to put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket. Also, "competition" necessarily implies a company can refuse service to a customer, which is not what I (or most people) want with essential services like electricity, water, police, fire protection, etc.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Things like fire and police should be provided by the state due to the authority and access they require over civilians. However we have multiple utilities already. They follow regulations to ensure a level of service and reliability, but are often entrenched by these very same regulations which is why others are prevented from serving the same area. If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. This is similar to ISPs. You can consider network services as essential need in the modern era, but nobody wants a slow nationalized ISP service (look at how Australia screwed that up). Instead multiple local competitive organizations have always delivered the best outcome whenever that's been allowed and encouraged.
  - minikites 6y ago
    Am I understanding correctly that you think multiple companies should be allowed to run electric and telecom lines to every residence? So that every moderately dense city turns into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Telefontornet_1890.j... ?
    - manigandham 6y ago
      You're definitely misunderstanding. Why can't companies reuse infrastructure? Does every delivery company build their own road?
      - minikites 6y ago
        >If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists. Then how does competition address decaying infrastructure if not by running new lines?
        manigandham 6y ago
        By fixing the existing infrastructure. We're getting lost in the technicalities here but private companies providing services doesn't displace public infrastructure or eliminate the need for state ownership and oversight. What I'm saying is that a single state-run provider isn't a great model for most things, even critical things like utilities. The state can own the rights and build the things that only the state can, while the rest can be leased, shared, operated and maintained by multiple private organizations that compete to offer the best service without the regulatory incumbency. Allowing use in return for upkeep and updates is a well-known model in many industries, especially real estate. It can be applied to the public sector easily. We're slowly seeing things change as private enterprise finds new ways like hyperlocal co-ops and distributed infrastructure like solar power, but there's still much more progress that can be made.
slothtrop 6y ago
> monopolize everything further. Were it for profit, yes. > Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. I don't think this is demonstratively true anywhere.

missedthecue 6y ago

Food production is probably the most essential thing in society. Should all the farms be nationalized? It's been tried before many times in many places, and things went spectacularly wrong on each occasion.

minikites 6y ago
There are massive farm subsidies and other market controls in agriculture in the USA, so the government already puts a massive thumb on the market "scale". I would argue farms in some sense are already nationalized.