4 ms·

There's plenty of arguments for privatized infrastructure, if you never heard them then you weren't looking for them. For example telecoms, energy and TV monopo

There's plenty of arguments for privatized infrastructure, if you never heard them then you weren't looking for them. For example telecoms, energy and TV monopolies have been broken repeatedly in the 20th century in countries around the world, nobody wants them back. There were way more infrastructure monopolies in the early parts of the 20th century than there are now.

photochemsyn 4y ago
I'm sorry, isn't that an argument against privatized infrastructure, which always becomes monopolistic control of infrastructure by private interests? It's not like competing systems of basic infrastructure are at all plausible, we're not going to have multiple private roads systems are we?
- revelio 4y ago
  No? Private infrastructure doesn't always become monopoly, that's why most infrastructure monopolies were created by nationalization at a time when that was all the rage. Railway monopolies, radio (e.g. BBC), telecoms, steel, water, electricity ... lots. > we're not going to have multiple private roads systems are we? Toll roads exist but indeed, roads are one of the cases where building and maintaining them is easy so you don't lose much from a state monopoly, and they take up a lot of space so duplication is unfortunate. But there are relatively few cases like that.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    Are competing water companies going to build multiple water pipe systems to people's homes? Are competing electricity companies going to cover cities with multiple independent competing grids? Are competing ISPs going to build separate fiber networks to everyone's door? Should there be multiple rail networks owned by private parties, or just one that everyone uses cooperatively? These are cases where it only makes sense to build one system, and any such system should be under public control, not under private monopoly control by some rent-extracting shareholder outfit.
    - revelio 4y ago
      >> Are competing {water,power,internet} companies going to cover cities with multiple independent competing {pipes}? Sure and they have done in the past. The existing networks weren't initially built by governments, they were built by private entrepreneurs and then nationalized. That's true at least for power and internet, admittedly I don't know for water piping, that might be old enough to pre-date private companies of any significant size. Now should they is a different question to will they. In many cases it's OK to allow that. I think the US still has private railway lines. In other places there aren't any left. But I agree that for networks that require enormous amounts of land and where there's ~no scope for innovation, government monopolies can be beneficial. Water, power and roads seem clear cut. We can add gas and sewerage to that. Rail is a sort of interesting middle ground where countries go back and forth because there is actually scope for innovation in how the signalling works and governments are typically extremely slow to deploy improvements. Note that most civilized countries don't nationalize the endpoints. Power generators, gas wells, trains etc are owned by private companies usually. Also, in practice these networks are often built and maintained by private contractors.
      - photochemsyn 4y ago
        "The existing networks weren't initially built by governments, they were built by private entrepreneurs and then nationalized." This is simply not true in many cases, and the Rural Electrification program is Exhibit A, isn't it? Exhibit B is the national freeway system. The takeover of the government-built Hetch Hetchey to CA power grid by PG&E is exhibit C, granted a complicated story: https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/293699-a-hundred-years-of-controversy https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/293699-a-hundred-years... Certainly the private sector has a role to play, i.e. the production of water pipe itself is a competitive business, so is the production of fiber optic cable, and of tools and equipment - but the systems themselves should never be privately owned.
        revelio 4y ago
        I think you're looking only at the 20th century? The first electricity systems were built by companies (Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse etc). The first high quality roads were privately built and run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust (well, semi-private at least, corporations didn't exist in the same way that far back) And the internet was all private and still is, with no change on the horizon.

photochemsyn 4y ago

I'm sorry, isn't that an argument against privatized infrastructure, which always becomes monopolistic control of infrastructure by private interests? It's not like competing systems of basic infrastructure are at all plausible, we're not going to have multiple private roads systems are we?

revelio 4y ago
No? Private infrastructure doesn't always become monopoly, that's why most infrastructure monopolies were created by nationalization at a time when that was all the rage. Railway monopolies, radio (e.g. BBC), telecoms, steel, water, electricity ... lots. > we're not going to have multiple private roads systems are we? Toll roads exist but indeed, roads are one of the cases where building and maintaining them is easy so you don't lose much from a state monopoly, and they take up a lot of space so duplication is unfortunate. But there are relatively few cases like that.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Are competing water companies going to build multiple water pipe systems to people's homes? Are competing electricity companies going to cover cities with multiple independent competing grids? Are competing ISPs going to build separate fiber networks to everyone's door? Should there be multiple rail networks owned by private parties, or just one that everyone uses cooperatively? These are cases where it only makes sense to build one system, and any such system should be under public control, not under private monopoly control by some rent-extracting shareholder outfit.
  - revelio 4y ago
    >> Are competing {water,power,internet} companies going to cover cities with multiple independent competing {pipes}? Sure and they have done in the past. The existing networks weren't initially built by governments, they were built by private entrepreneurs and then nationalized. That's true at least for power and internet, admittedly I don't know for water piping, that might be old enough to pre-date private companies of any significant size. Now should they is a different question to will they. In many cases it's OK to allow that. I think the US still has private railway lines. In other places there aren't any left. But I agree that for networks that require enormous amounts of land and where there's ~no scope for innovation, government monopolies can be beneficial. Water, power and roads seem clear cut. We can add gas and sewerage to that. Rail is a sort of interesting middle ground where countries go back and forth because there is actually scope for innovation in how the signalling works and governments are typically extremely slow to deploy improvements. Note that most civilized countries don't nationalize the endpoints. Power generators, gas wells, trains etc are owned by private companies usually. Also, in practice these networks are often built and maintained by private contractors.
    - photochemsyn 4y ago
      "The existing networks weren't initially built by governments, they were built by private entrepreneurs and then nationalized." This is simply not true in many cases, and the Rural Electrification program is Exhibit A, isn't it? Exhibit B is the national freeway system. The takeover of the government-built Hetch Hetchey to CA power grid by PG&E is exhibit C, granted a complicated story: https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/293699-a-hundred-years-of-controversy https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/293699-a-hundred-years... Certainly the private sector has a role to play, i.e. the production of water pipe itself is a competitive business, so is the production of fiber optic cable, and of tools and equipment - but the systems themselves should never be privately owned.
      - revelio 4y ago
        I think you're looking only at the 20th century? The first electricity systems were built by companies (Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse etc). The first high quality roads were privately built and run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust (well, semi-private at least, corporations didn't exist in the same way that far back) And the internet was all private and still is, with no change on the horizon.