4 ms·

> The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened

by walkon 14y ago

> The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Why laughable? If the owner of the bridge does not provide good enough value and operational efficiency, then competing bridges will be received with favor instead of skepticism. If the government owns the bridge/infrastructure and does not provide acceptable value or efficiencies, it would likely be even harder to create an alternative.

bluedanieru 14y ago
I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.
kristopolous 14y ago
If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one). I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge. I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did. My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first. Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained. No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers. I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town. When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start. Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Oh nonsense. It's not like you can just come along and set up another bridge; that takes years, and the incumbent is likely to leverage some of the economic rents to frustrating your purpose.
ubernostrum 14y ago
Oddly enough, an early landmark Supreme Court case in the US involved the owners of one bridge suing to try to stop a competing bridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_...

by walkon 14y ago

bluedanieru 14y ago

I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.

kristopolous 14y ago

If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one). I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge. I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did. My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first. Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained. No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers. I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town. When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start. Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Oh nonsense. It's not like you can just come along and set up another bridge; that takes years, and the incumbent is likely to leverage some of the economic rents to frustrating your purpose.

ubernostrum 14y ago

Oddly enough, an early landmark Supreme Court case in the US involved the owners of one bridge suing to try to stop a competing bridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_...