<Khurais Me A RiverThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: March 13, 2008>

216 comments on A Vicious Circle

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

acarrell on March 13, 2008 - 9:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sorry to say, I cannot quote the facts here.

bill, here is what i think of what you thought

1. Germany Energy is primarily a monopoly. Please read about a firm called EON. The government mandated the changes you are on about.
2. In the united states de monopolisation has led to price rises in the energy sector. As it has in UK too.
3. Monopolization has continued in transportation, inefficiency of 80% -> you need to read the history of californian trams/electric buses, note period after WWII when GM et al bought them up and slowly closed them down. A similar story happened with UK canals when railways came along. Lack of regulation, lack of checks and balances on democratic processes that allowed companies to make these monopolies. Thus never need to change their ways.
4. I praise the break up of AT&T, but what happened since, Bell south has managed to remake AT&T nearly. Microsoft has taken the IT market, though the EU are trying to stop that. In the US they legeslated to help Microsoft, upshot is that your software patent laws are a nightmare for small and middle sized businesses, they can barely compete. I admire the states for break up of monopolies like standard oil and AT&T, but they are one off examples.

My thoughts are while you could have non monopolies running these utilities, they are utilities in the end, and have become just too important to allow free market reign. in our democracies the is inherent bias to well funded lobby groups as the people who could regulate often need to make quick decisions that they may not have time to answer well. In these situations, these poeple, if fed something convincing from 'friends' without other opinions fall for the lobby group opinion.

You can guess I am european, I think the is a need for a shake up in how Anglo saxon countries view regulation. We need more transperancy and ability to lock up politicians who are corrupt, or indeed so stupid they fall for lobby group gambits. We need much stronger corridors for lobby from populace.
de-monopolization does not seem to work.

alex

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
crobar on March 13, 2008 - 9:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"In the united states de monopolisation has led to price rises"

No, liberalization without sufficient demonopolisation led to price rises. There must be sufficient competition for liberalisation to be effective.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on March 13, 2008 - 3:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In California deregulation allow customers to choose who would bill them for power.

De-monopolization, allows anyone to sell power to the grid. This allows small business to find profitable niches.

There is a huge difference.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on March 13, 2008 - 4:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And yet, the people who make claims like yours do not:

1) Set up court watchers.
2) Complain when it is illegal to set up doctor rating systems.
3) Complain when Creekside Beef is treated the way it was.
(there are more, but these are just a simple sample)

But here is the money shot:
"must be sufficient competition"

So, you gonna support the government breaking up GE/WalMart/Boeing/Lockeed-Martin/(blah blah blah)?

How about breaking up AT&T

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on March 13, 2008 - 4:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Strange tie-in but in general, I think there are anti-trust laws for good reason.

If you want innovation, let people bet their own money.

That is the whole problem with ethanol. It is growing because of subsidies, not market demand.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on March 16, 2008 - 8:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If you want innovation, let people bet their own money.

Then why complain about when people who are using there own money (to set up this place) opt to choose where the discussion goes?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on March 13, 2008 - 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Alex

Monopolies in political terms are dictatorships, monarchs, etc... Monopolies in commerce are not much better at allowing new ideas.

they are utilities in the end, and have become just too important to allow free market reign.

The simple truth is that our current infrastructure is the cause of Peak Oil and Climate Change. We built it. We can build better.

At the time of Edison, Ford and Bell, regulatory monopolies were very weak. As the monopolies grew, we locked in inefficiencies from a century ago. Since de-monopolization of communication in 1984, communication's infrastructure has radically improved. If we want to re-tool transport and power generation, we need to allow the messy process of churn to sort breakdown from breakthrough.

If you want to adapt, you must allow churn. You cannot expect monopolies to risk their existence by allowing themselves to be superseded by better ideas.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on March 13, 2008 - 3:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You cannot expect monopolies to risk their existence by allowing themselves to be superseded by better ideas.

I still am looking for your whitepaper on the use of Eminent Domain to take from one party to give to another in the name of public good - and how often the new owner results in private gains.

Because the monopolies you list all had the use of Eminent Domain to set them up, and the regulation was the bargin THEY entered into to have the takings of property via Eminent Domain.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on March 13, 2008 - 4:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The FCC had the incredible foresight to note that networks provided for the general welfare and common defense, a Constitutional basis for granting rights of way for communications networks.

Rights of way need to be paid for, but where would we be without roads, railroads, sewers, power grids, etc....

PRT being off ground plane, will have a visual impact but consumes very little actual land. It should still pay for those uses.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dryki on March 14, 2008 - 9:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You're using the FCC as a good example of providing for general welfare and common defense? That's a little problematic, seems to me. I'd use the FCC - and document my argument - to prove the failure of the regulatory state and system.

If you want people to take you seriously, do your homework. Upthread someone suggested you put together a White Paper.

cfm in Gray, ME

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on March 16, 2008 - 8:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Rights of way need to be paid for, but where would we be without roads, railroads, sewers, power grids, etc....

But that is not the system that exists.

Land and right of ways are not treated at market rates or market terms.

PRT being off ground plane, will have a visual impact but consumes very little actual land. It should still pay for those uses.

And yet, while you say 'should', you'll be happy to on the profit end of a eminent domain taking.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.