4 ms·

>> Sometimes a monopoly is a monopoly because they are better than everyone else. There is also the case of "natural monopolies" in economics, these are railwa

by pyeri 3y ago

>> Sometimes a monopoly is a monopoly because they are better than everyone else. There is also the case of "natural monopolies" in economics, these are railways, postal services, etc. where it wouldn't make sense for multiple players to waste resources and the one player can benefit from economies of scale. It'd be hilarious if 2-3 rail companies tried setting up their own tracks, stations, signals, etc. in a small town for example. So much redundancy all going waste. Another example is multiple telecom companies trying to erect their own towers in vicinity of a little town where only one is enough to provide coverage. It's a collosal waste for the whole society, not just those companies.

morepork 3y ago
More than railways, imagine if roads were privatised and you had 2-3 roading networks trying to get to as many homes/business/etc. as possible
- autoexec 3y ago
  > imagine if roads were privatised and you had 2-3 roading networks trying to get to as many homes/business/etc. as possible This would never happen. If roads were privatized they wouldn't care about connecting as many homes/business as possible, they'd only care about building roads where it was the most profitable for them and even then any roads that made less money would be left in increasingly poor condition. It wouldn't leave taxpayers off the hook either. Governments would have to spend taxpayer money to incentivize private companies to build out in "unprofitable" areas, but those roads would be kept in the worst conditions of all (assuming that companies didn't just repeatedly promise to build them, only to pocket the taxpayer's money while providing nothing) Some services are worth enough to the public good that profit shouldn't be the only consideration, and some are worth so much that profit shouldn't be the goal at all and instead those services should simply strive to do the job required for every citizen with as little genuine waste as possible.

by pyeri 3y ago

morepork 3y ago

More than railways, imagine if roads were privatised and you had 2-3 roading networks trying to get to as many homes/business/etc. as possible

autoexec 3y ago
> imagine if roads were privatised and you had 2-3 roading networks trying to get to as many homes/business/etc. as possible This would never happen. If roads were privatized they wouldn't care about connecting as many homes/business as possible, they'd only care about building roads where it was the most profitable for them and even then any roads that made less money would be left in increasingly poor condition. It wouldn't leave taxpayers off the hook either. Governments would have to spend taxpayer money to incentivize private companies to build out in "unprofitable" areas, but those roads would be kept in the worst conditions of all (assuming that companies didn't just repeatedly promise to build them, only to pocket the taxpayer's money while providing nothing) Some services are worth enough to the public good that profit shouldn't be the only consideration, and some are worth so much that profit shouldn't be the goal at all and instead those services should simply strive to do the job required for every citizen with as little genuine waste as possible.