3 ms·

Sometimes free market doesn't lead to competition. UK national railway is sort of free market. The state runs the network, sells the tickets and decides the ro

Sometimes free market doesn't lead to competition. UK national railway is sort of free market. The state runs the network, sells the tickets and decides the routes, but provides are chosen in open tenders - lowest price wins. They get paid for operating the route for the state-owned network. But it then usually turns out that the only operator who can bid on the new tender for the route is the existing one. After all, they have a ready supply of trains meeting the technical spec! And if, say, the drivers go on strike demanding yet another pay rise, the providers shrug their arms and ask the state for a top up. After all, the state doesn't have an alternative either. Free markets lead to maximizing corporate profits, but it's not a given that these correlate to a positive outcome for the society.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Right. But doctors are regulated by government and the regulation is for a good reason but it also has bad side effects. Doctors are not part of a free market. Supply is regulated like a cartel.
Fluorescence 2y ago
I don't think you've got that right. There is an extra level: Network Rail - the gov owned infrastructure, rails etc. Rolling Stock - privately owned trains Operators - lease rolling stock, employ staff, sell tickets The problem we have is that the operators are barely profitable so always cutting quality/service because there is this other layer of private rolling stock company acting as landlords which are sucking all the profit out. We have a similar problem with energy. There are the customer facing providers which are basically a brand and a call centre which are selling the power from energy generation companies. When they get trapped in some bad contract as a gamble on the energy market, they go bust. It feels like a deliberate con that the customer facing providers, the brands the public knows about, keep going bust and earn public ire from their crap services but they are really scapegoats for a less visible layer of private company which are doing the real profiteering as landlords.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

Right. But doctors are regulated by government and the regulation is for a good reason but it also has bad side effects. Doctors are not part of a free market. Supply is regulated like a cartel.

Fluorescence 2y ago

I don't think you've got that right. There is an extra level: Network Rail - the gov owned infrastructure, rails etc. Rolling Stock - privately owned trains Operators - lease rolling stock, employ staff, sell tickets The problem we have is that the operators are barely profitable so always cutting quality/service because there is this other layer of private rolling stock company acting as landlords which are sucking all the profit out. We have a similar problem with energy. There are the customer facing providers which are basically a brand and a call centre which are selling the power from energy generation companies. When they get trapped in some bad contract as a gamble on the energy market, they go bust. It feels like a deliberate con that the customer facing providers, the brands the public knows about, keep going bust and earn public ire from their crap services but they are really scapegoats for a less visible layer of private company which are doing the real profiteering as landlords.