would you support ending all monopolies?

[NoStateofMind]

electric, gas, water, cable etc.?

We'd have to rethink the distribution of gas. Like the gas companies can only own the gas but the lines to the homes can only be rented. Water might be a hard one though. I'm interested to see what idea's can be fleshed out if we allow ourselves to think of the possibility.

Thoughts?

 

[realibrad]

electric, gas, water, cable etc.?

We'd have to rethink the distribution of gas. Like the gas companies can only own the gas but the lines to the homes can only be rented. Water might be a hard one though. I'm interested to see what idea's can be fleshed out if we allow ourselves to think of the possibility.

Thoughts?

Try having the government stop creating the monopolies first. Then you can talk about using the government to force companies to do things with their investments.

 

[EOM]

Does this include the monopoly on force that the government currently enjoys?

 

[SMOGZINN]

All all important infrastructure should be socialized. We can maintain private generation of resource, like gas and electricity, but the ability to transport that resource to the public, like the gas and electric lines, needs to be publically owned. This would solve nearly all the problems with such utilities.
Also, the internet needs to be recognized as a important resource.

 

[Moonbeam]

Does this include the monopoly on force that the government currently enjoys?

I want your amygdala to go to sleep tonight with the thought that Hillary Clinton will soon have a very warm hand on your nuts. God, you psychos are amazing.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I subscribe to the Smogzinn solution.

Also, lets get rid of the political monopolies as well, get rid of the 2 party system.

 

[Humpy]

Hillary Clinton will soon have a very warm hand on your nuts.

That sounds kinda nice.

Thanks Hillary!

 

[Smoblikat]

Humans are terrible in general, there isnt much you can do about it. No matter what system we have in place, people will always twist it to their advantage. If we remove monopolies they will just be replaced with lots and lots of corrupt organizations, rather than one large one.

 

[boomerang]

I'd like to hear what the end goal of this would be first. What is the current problem and what would be the desired outcome? How would it benefit the masses and what would the consequences both intended and unintended be?

 

[glenn1]

I'd like to hear what the end goal of this would be first. What is the current problem and what would be the desired outcome? How would it benefit the masses and what would the consequences both intended and unintended be?

Evidently OP likes what he sees where infrastructure is publicly owned and maintenance costs get deferred due to the reelection concerns of politicians who don't want to pay for it.

Yes, public ownership is the perfect solution if you're a hipster who likes retro stuff since a lot of urban infrastructure is 100 years old. Who needs modern materials and construction methods when instead you can keep on using what your great-grandfather did? If clay sewer pipes and telegraph services were good enough for him why do you need your fancy "high speed internet service"? Spoiled kids nowadays. Back in the day we were made of sterner stuff and could handle things like failing sewer systems where mains break constantly and leak raw sewage into streams, pothole filled roads, electricity grids that brown out every time the temperature goes above 80.

 

[norseamd]

Does this include the monopoly on force that the government currently enjoys?

There is no full monopoly on the use of force in America. The government does leave some controls on the use of powerful force however.

 

[norseamd]

All all important infrastructure should be socialized. We can maintain private generation of resource, like gas and electricity, but the ability to transport that resource to the public, like the gas and electric lines, needs to be publically owned. This would solve nearly all the problems with such utilities.

Most certainly all of this type of shit.

Also, the internet needs to be recognized as a important resource.

This. But we can not have the government control everything and we need to allow citizens full freedom to run their own mesh networks.

 

[norseamd]

Yes, public ownership is the perfect solution if you're a hipster who likes retro stuff since a lot of urban infrastructure is 100 years old. Who needs modern materials and construction methods when instead you can keep on using what your great-grandfather did? If clay sewer pipes and telegraph services were good enough for him why do you need your fancy "high speed internet service"? Spoiled kids nowadays. Back in the day we were made of sterner stuff and could handle things like failing sewer systems where mains break constantly and leak raw sewage into streams, pothole filled roads, electricity grids that brown out every time the temperature goes above 80.

Hi.

You are a dumbass.

Despite much of our infrastructure in America being under private ownership it is some of the worst in the core countries and possibly even worse than some periphery countries. Just downright terrible for the overall size and power of our country.

Civilizations from thousands of years ago did much more than us from much less technology. They were very innovative and efficient and far less apathetic. This is something that America could only dream of right now.

I gave the infrastructure in America the grade of D-.

The American Society of Civil Engineers was actually much more kind and forgiving than me.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

 

[nickqt]

Hi.

You are a dumbass.

Despite much of our infrastructure in America being under private ownership it is some of the worst in the core countries and possibly even worse than some periphery countries.

I gave the infrastructure in America the grade of D-.

The American Society of Civil Engineers was actually much more kind and forgiving than me.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

All of that may be true, but it doesn't matter when you are required to wear your faith-based politics on your sleeve or be kicked out of the tribe.

 

[TheSlamma]

I want your amygdala to go to sleep tonight with the thought that Hillary Clinton will soon have a very warm hand on your nuts. God, you psychos are amazing.

Is that the same hand she used to shake Bills at their wedding?

 

[BoberFett]

All all important infrastructure should be socialized. We can maintain private generation of resource, like gas and electricity, but the ability to transport that resource to the public, like the gas and electric lines, needs to be publically owned. This would solve nearly all the problems with such utilities.
Also, the internet needs to be recognized as a important resource.

I'd be amenable to such a concept.

I've said for a while regarding internet that the last mile would be best owned by the local government and leased out to competitors who could colo their equipment at the cities CO. Connect anyone to whatever provider they want, the provider is only bringing in the trunk. It removes a massive amount of work for them. Of course that "work" of maintaining the last mile and getting a monopoly in exchange for it is their bread and butter.

 

[brycejones]

All all important infrastructure should be socialized. We can maintain private generation of resource, like gas and electricity, but the ability to transport that resource to the public, like the gas and electric lines, needs to be publically owned. This would solve nearly all the problems with such utilities.
Also, the internet needs to be recognized as a important resource.

I agree, this really opens these markets to competition by reducing the barriers to entry that exist today.

 

[realibrad]

I agree, this really opens these markets to competition by reducing the barriers to entry that exist today.

The majority of the barriers are from government. They are the ones who limit what can be put where and by whom. Open up cities to allow for companies to put in their lines, and you will see things change.

Hell, look at what google fiber just did in to Time Warner

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-proof-that-time-warner-cable-inc-is-ter.aspx

Charlotte opened up their city to Google, and look at what happened. It was not that other companies did not want in, but is that cities force companies out under the guise that you don't want a million lines going into your cities.

You want faster cheaper internet, don't let government hold back companies from building new infrastructure.

This wont work for thinks all things, but a lot of what you see is government creating monopolies for the good of society.

 

[hal2kilo]

The world would be so much better if we had more Enrons.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The majority of the barriers are from government. They are the ones who limit what can be put where and by whom. Open up cities to allow for companies to put in their lines, and you will see things change.

Hell, look at what google fiber just did in to Time Warner

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-proof-that-time-warner-cable-inc-is-ter.aspx

Charlotte opened up their city to Google, and look at what happened. It was not that other companies did not want in, but is that cities force companies out under the guise that you don't want a million lines going into your cities.

You want faster cheaper internet, don't let government hold back companies from building new infrastructure.

This wont work for thinks all things, but a lot of what you see is government creating monopolies for the good of society.

But the government is giving those monopolies because companies won't build the infrastructure without government assurances that they won't have competition. Without those assurances it is just too risky to build all the infrastructure, and certainly too risky for a second company to build infrastructure to compete with a company that is already established.

 

[piasabird]

This is impossible. You going to disconnect your electric service? Even the IRS is a monopoly.

 

[realibrad]

But the government is giving those monopolies because companies won't build the infrastructure without government assurances that they won't have competition. Without those assurances it is just too risky to build all the infrastructure, and certainly too risky for a second company to build infrastructure to compete with a company that is already established.

That is weird, because we see private investment in things that take decades to get a return on.

Check out this article. It explains how google got over this investment problem.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-fuels-internet-access-plus-debate-1408731700

In Kansas City, Google divided the region into areas of a few hundred homes it called "fiberhoods" and asked residents to pay $10 to preregister for a service that would operate at one gigabit per second, about 100 times the U.S. average. The service now costs $70 a month.

If interest exceeded a certain threshold, generally between 5% and 25% of households, Google connected the area. The threshold varied based on population density. Google also worked with local officials to speed the permitting and construction process. It skipped some areas entirely, because they were too thinly populated or because of construction challenges, a company spokeswoman said.

Companies can get around the investment problem. You simply tell people that if they want something, pay for it, and then they get it. This is not some pie in the sky option either, its already happening with google. So, explain why your problem of investment is not a problem for google, and why is it working when its not supposed to be?

 

[norseamd]

Realibrad fail.

Page and Brin are not most regular old businessmen.

 

[brycejones]

The majority of the barriers are from government. They are the ones who limit what can be put where and by whom. Open up cities to allow for companies to put in their lines, and you will see things change.

There are limits to numbers of lines that can be installed. If you separate the last mile from the rest of the infrastructure you can have potentially dozens of competitors for service. In the case of electric or gas service you can't have many companies installing pipelines or running their own electric lines.

Duplicating the last mile is just wasteful, it isn't needed and it serves as a substantial barrier to competition.

 

[realibrad]

There are limits to numbers of lines that can be installed. If you separate the last mile from the rest of the infrastructure you can have potentially dozens of competitors for service. In the case of electric or gas service you can't have many companies installing pipelines or running their own electric lines.

Duplicating the last mile is just wasteful, it isn't needed and it serves as a substantial barrier to competition.

If its so wasteful and expensive, then companies will not do it. What you would likely end up seeing, is a company that builds and maintains those last lines and leases out space to companies. Newegg does not make the vast majority of their products, they are just the retailer. The whole system of electric from producer to consumer is profitable. If its not profitable, then I would say you were right.

Every stage would have a value. UPS does not make a graphics card, but they do allow Nvidia to ship them to a retailer. The retailer does not make the graphics card, but it allows the gpu that Nvidia made to be sold to a customer. So if it can work for graphics cards, why would it not work for electric?

Company A makes the electricity. Company B builds and maintains an electrical network. Company C is the sales interface from the customer. Company C tells company A how much it needs, Company A puts out that much power, and Company B charges either Company A or B to transport it.

This happens everyday for many different industries, so why would it not work with electric, or gas, or internet?