*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

Ok well I'm going to admit something that hurts my argument somewhat, but it only applies to water and certainly not energy.

That's probably wrong. Depends on what you mean by "energy". There's a difference between Exxon and your electric company, even though both provide "energy".

Water isn't too expensive here. They don't overcharge, probably because of exactly what you just said... government regulations

Oversight is a better word.

Personally, I'm against regulations when it comes to the majority of things, but not when it comes to things like natural monopolies, even if I'm the only one who accepts that term.

I'll concede I know what you mean when you say "natural monopolies". Now you gotta meet me halfway and promise me you understand the difference between regulation, and oversight.

The regulations you speak of are anti-capitalist measures

,
Not even close.

they are anti-competetive policies

A complete falsehood.

it is essentially doing exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

Oversight.

The measures are not anti capitalist. When a utility company generates and delivers electricity for a profit....that's capitalism. And the government oversight is not anti-competitive. The nature of the business itself is anti-competitive. There's ultimately nothing preventing you outright from burning some fuel, boiling some water, spinning a turbine, generating energy, and then selling it. The real hurdle though, is delivering that energy. For that you need infrastructure, like power lines. The capital and red tape required to build an infrastructure that can deliver energy at a level competitive with the existing electric company is a massive, practically insurmountable barrier to entry.

What government oversight does, is a countermeasure to this anti-competitive atmosphere. It doesn't allow the existing players to leverage large barriers to entry in a way that exploits the consumer.

And let's be clear. The government exercises very little "control", if any, over these companies.

But energy is definitely too expensive, although that might well be an effort to force people to use less

The first part sounds like a personal problem. The second part makes no sense. The energy company prefers to sell more energy.

Still, energy companies are making an absolute fucking fortune thanks to people's need for electricity.

I know I've explained this several times, so it baffles me how the concept still eludes you. They are not making "an absolute fucking fortune". They are making a return commensurate with the market, their risk, and their amount of invested capital. That's what the government oversight ensures.

Is that being invested in research and development for renewable energy sources? Of course not. We can probably already do that, but there's just too much money in fossil fuels. Renewable energy remains out of reach for most people.

Why is it the responsibility of the energy company to find alternative energy sources? It's up to YOU, the consumer, to demand alternatives if that's what you really want. Create a need in the marketplace, and capitalism will provide. That's how it works.

One way to do that, is to buy less energy. Exxon knows this. They see people buying hyrbid cars. They know that gasoline isn't going to work forever. Therefore they invest tons of capital into alternatives and remain on the cutting edge of the industry.

Another way to do that is to exercise democracy. If you don't like XYZ energy company burning fossil fuels because it pollutes, then you have a strong case for government action. Pollution is bad, and it affects entire communities, therefore it's totally within the government's purview to regulate/prevent it. Pass a law forcing XYZ company to pollute less, and they will be forced to find alternatives.

Remember I was telling you how valuable cowshit is? In Vermont, where cows outnumber people, the electric company buys cowshit, and burns it to generate electricity. It's really hard to get energy much cleaner than that.

They probably don't have this where you live because it's a shithole country with like 6 sunny days a year. But here in paradise, if you install solar panels at your house, and you use less energy than you produce....then there is a law requiring the public utility companies to BUY that extra energy from you. Even cleaner that cowshit!

Trains are too expensive too.

When was the last time you tried to buy a car?

The problem with state owned services is always the state itself, its incompetence or corruption, not the fact it is state owned. That incompetence and corruption can exist in a private company too. The difference is that an incompetent business goes bust, while an incompetent government loses power (or at least they should). Both have incentive.

So.....wouldn't you then prefer that these enterprises be run by private companies....since the consequences of incompetence and corruption are so much higher??

Yet, early you said...

exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

Does not compute

[wufwugy]

The measures are not anti capitalist. When a utility company generates and delivers electricity for a profit....that's capitalism. And the government oversight is not anti-competitive. The nature of the business itself is anti-competitive. There's ultimately nothing preventing you outright from burning some fuel, boiling some water, spinning a turbine, generating energy, and then selling it. The real hurdle though, is delivering that energy. For that you need infrastructure, like power lines. The capital and red tape required to build an infrastructure that can deliver energy at a level competitive with the existing electric company is a massive, practically insurmountable barrier to entry.

You mentioned two ways monopolies develop, (1) fixed costs, (2) government regulation.

In practice, we have seen that government regulation is a remarkable deterrent to competition. The high fixed cost component, well, it's tough to say if the data show that it's much of a deterrent to competition. It's a deterrent to having a lot of competitors, but quantity of competitors doesn't equal competition. Some markets are highly competitive even with only two firms.

What government oversight does, is a countermeasure to this anti-competitive atmosphere. It doesn't allow the existing players to leverage large barriers to entry in a way that exploits the consumer.

What are these barriers to entry the firms are leveraging that aren't instead the government making them?

Here's how a firm with market power (the power to set market price, essentially a monopoly) can leverage in free market: it can set price where marginal cost equals demand whenever another firm tries to enter the market, thereby reducing the entering firm's incentive to enter. Then when the entering firm backs off, the monopoly can go back to setting the price where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, which is a higher price and lower quantity than the market demand would prefer while higher profits for the monopoly.

In theory, that is what can happen. In practice, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on firm entry. Given my study of other elements of economics, it is my view that the monopoly model's deterrent on firm entry that I presented is flawed enough that it's near worthless. Firms are unlikely to want to enter a market based on current price/profits under a monopoly regime, and instead are likely to want to enter a market based on expected future price/profits in a market after the newly entered firm is established.

Perhaps the best example of all of the above is ISP. Incumbent ISPs are trying to use their market power to deter entry from companies like Google. It's not working. The only real active barriers to entry in the market are government regulations. Those barriers have been quite successful so far.