I didn't feel insulted but you said that someone else must be off their rocker to believe something you think is wrong which is completely unnecessary. I don't

I didn't feel insulted but you said that someone else must be off their rocker to believe something you think is wrong which is completely unnecessary. I don't disagree that government can make things worse or even that they may be the main problem in Baltimore and many areas. However I also believe that there can often be problems in unregulated infrastructure markets and also that government can help. Almost everyone in the UK has a choice of ADSL providers (and most now have the option of VDSL/FTTC from many providers at higher prices). It isn't perfect but the situation could be much worse. This is enabled by the regulation of the wholesale prices of BT Openreach, the arm of the former telephone monopoly company responsible for the lines. I offer this as an example of government enabling competition and a much better scenario than if the incumbent infrastructure owner could charge monopoly rents and only face competition in the highest density most lucrative areas at the cost of significant disruption as more companies dig up the roads. Bad government is bad and there are places even good government doesn't help much but that doesn't mean that government always makes things worse and less competitive. Don't forget that even in pure economic theory there are two "efficient" outcomes, perfect competition where the consumers obtain the entire surplus value and monopoly where the monopolist obtains the surplus.