Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarians R Stupid #1 - Natural Monopolies

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:43:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you solve for Natural Monopolies without regulation?

Power companies are natural monopolies because:

1. Setting up power lines that run everywhere they need to go is expensive, and is a barrier to entry into the market.

2. Power running through these lines can't be directed from X power plant to Y house/business, etc. Therefore, without multiple sets of power lines with connections to every house and business, you can't have competition in the market.

As we saw in California, once the power market is deregulated, it can be manipulated in such a way as to destroy the economy of the region in which it was deregulated (plants purposely shut down such that power could be diverted from a far away plant at 5X the kilowatt hour price, when the plant that was shut down had no reason to be shut down).

How do you solve for this issue without the regulation of the state?

(NOTE to DanT - before you try to say that a power company is not a natural monopoly, blow it out your @ss)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:23:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's true that power companies are frequently monopolies but not because of barriors to entry but rather because power is a non substitutable good. The demand for power is inelastic, and therefor it is worthwhile for a company to lobby for a monopoly. Monopolies don't really occur on the free market, absent a grant of monopoly privilege from the state - even when a company is so competitive that it establishes dominant market share (like Walmart) the threat of competition arising is enough to ensure efficiency.

Rather than blaming California's energy crises on deregulation (Krugman called, he wants his thesis back) the reality is government intervention is to blame. Since the 80's there have been no nuclear power plants, and practically no new coal, oil or hydroelectric power plants either (Reisman, http://mises.org...). Reisman goes on to point out that only plants using natural gas as their fuel have been allowed to be constructed.

who would have thought? You prohibit the supply of power from increasing, and you run into a shortage of power.

Shocking!
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:27:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://mises.org...

DiLorenzo has a great article which absolutely destroys the myth of natural monopolies, and goes into great detail on how historically many power companies did operate, competition did exist, etc.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:35:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:23:54 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
It's true that power companies are frequently monopolies but not because of barriors to entry but rather because power is a non substitutable good. The demand for power is inelastic, and therefor it is worthwhile for a company to lobby for a monopoly. Monopolies don't really occur on the free market, absent a grant of monopoly privilege from the state - even when a company is so competitive that it establishes dominant market share (like Walmart) the threat of competition arising is enough to ensure efficiency.

Rather than blaming California's energy crises on deregulation (Krugman called, he wants his thesis back) the reality is government intervention is to blame. Since the 80's there have been no nuclear power plants, and practically no new coal, oil or hydroelectric power plants either (Reisman, http://mises.org...). Reisman goes on to point out that only plants using natural gas as their fuel have been allowed to be constructed.


who would have thought? You prohibit the supply of power from increasing, and you run into a shortage of power.

Shocking!

How do you create competition in this market?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:38:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
For that matter, how could you have competition in the Water and Sewer markets?

Where would the additional sewer systems go? Above ground? Nice, clear plastic tubes so I could see Company B flush your sh!t away and become jealous at the speed at which it races away from your toilet in comparison to my old, slow, underground sewer system?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:48:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:43:35 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
How do you solve for Natural Monopolies without regulation?

Power companies are natural monopolies because:

1. Setting up power lines that run everywhere they need to go is expensive, and is a barrier to entry into the market.

2. Power running through these lines can't be directed from X power plant to Y house/business, etc. Therefore, without multiple sets of power lines with connections to every house and business, you can't have competition in the market.

As we saw in California, once the power market is deregulated, it can be manipulated in such a way as to destroy the economy of the region in which it was deregulated (plants purposely shut down such that power could be diverted from a far away plant at 5X the kilowatt hour price, when the plant that was shut down had no reason to be shut down).

How do you solve for this issue without the regulation of the state?

(NOTE to DanT - before you try to say that a power company is not a natural monopoly, blow it out your @ss)

There wouldn't be any private ownership without regulation to recognize it, would there? So there couldn't be monopolies.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:54:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:48:04 AM, rross wrote:

There wouldn't be any private ownership without regulation to recognize it, would there? So there couldn't be monopolies.

So, no one would maintain the power grid and it would fall apart, but at least there wouldn't be a monopoly?

I don't get your point.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:56:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Competition would exist in the energy market in the same manner as it exists in any other market. You would have different companies producing power, they would innovate and experiment and attempt to come up with the best and cheapest methods of bringing energy to consumers, and consumers would buy the ones that are the cheapest or highest quality. Likewise with sewer or water. I don't see why all the sewer systems of competing companies couldn't go underground but even if this were technically not possible for whatever reason, the great thing is, the market will find a way to innovate and solve that problem. There is practically no limit to the ingenuity and problem solving ability of entrepreneurs, using the price signal as their guide, when it comes to satisfying consumer demand.

It's noteworthy that despite the government giving away water for free, more and more people turn to the market every day and purchase bottled water because the government water tastes like crap. I couldn't drink my tap water if I didn't put it through a Brita filter first.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:57:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As for energy specifically, this could take the form of different companies competing for who can offer the lower cost to the company which owns the power lines, or it could take the form of multiple power lines... there is no way really to predict how the market will solve the problem - but the solution will be efficient, effective and most importantly, non violent.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:59:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:54:55 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 4:48:04 AM, rross wrote:

There wouldn't be any private ownership without regulation to recognize it, would there? So there couldn't be monopolies.

So, no one would maintain the power grid and it would fall apart, but at least there wouldn't be a monopoly?

I don't get your point.

You're right. Sorry, sorry. I'm still thinking about anarchy, and when I read the OP for some reason I read all that into it. But looking back, it's completely unrelated. I really need to get out of the house.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:04:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:56:03 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Competition would exist in the energy market in the same manner as it exists in any other market. You would have different companies producing power, they would innovate and experiment and attempt to come up with the best and cheapest methods of bringing energy to consumers, and consumers would buy the ones that are the cheapest or highest quality. Likewise with sewer or water. I don't see why all the sewer systems of competing companies couldn't go underground but even if this were technically not possible for whatever reason, the great thing is, the market will find a way to innovate and solve that problem. There is practically no limit to the ingenuity and problem solving ability of entrepreneurs, using the price signal as their guide, when it comes to satisfying consumer demand.


I know that Tesla tried something like this, and he was one of the 3 greatest geniuses in history, and he failed miserably.

Power flows as power flows. You cannot distinguish between power company A's power on a grid, or power company B's power on a grid, and you cannot transmit power wirelessly. You also can't send power from power plant A ONLY to your home on a power grid...it just goes into the grid.

What is the innovation, do you imagine, that would allow for your magical competitive market.

It's noteworthy that despite the government giving away water for free, more and more people turn to the market every day and purchase bottled water because the government water tastes like crap. I couldn't drink my tap water if I didn't put it through a Brita filter first.

What government you live under that gives water away for free? What are you, like 14yo and still think money grows on trees?

Water costs money. That's why your parents have a water meter outside their home.

The thing that makes water taste sh!tty in the vast majority of homes are the old, rusty pipes. In homes with new pipes, these additional filtration systems aren't necessary.

I kept a brita pitcher in my refrigerator with a filter that was 2 years past expiration, and no one noticed...know why? Because it is the temperature of the water that is at issue.

Buy an ice cube tray. You'll save a lot of money that you've been duped into spending for things you don't need.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:07:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:57:41 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
As for energy specifically, this could take the form of different companies competing for who can offer the lower cost to the company which owns the power lines, or it could take the form of multiple power lines... there is no way really to predict how the market will solve the problem - but the solution will be efficient, effective and most importantly, non violent.

Multiple sets of power lines? Where would they go? How many would be enough? As many as the market dictated? The land on which these lines would need to stretch is already owned by people. What if they didn't want to lease it to these companies putting up new power lines at a critical juncture in the lines which meant that they could not reach 90% of their target market with power?

There already are multiple power generation facilities that fuel the power grid.

Try again. Like most libertarian answers, that one was just plain stupid.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:52:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:28:41 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Since I refuse to discuss things with people who resort to personal insults, you "win". Good day.

You refuse to discuss this because you have no reasonable retort based on how silly your arguments are.

You can't discuss this without your whole libertarian world falling apart, so you run away from it and blame the fact that I noted your answers thus far have been unthoughtful and stupid.

Note to self - Libertarians are both stupid and p*ssies (I mean, what? You didn't think you'd get called stupid based on the title of the thread? How did you put it? Oh yeah...SHOCKING!)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 8:19:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree, natural monpolies are bad (or are rather non-optimal). But wherein does another monopoly created to stop it provide a coherent solution to the problem?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:16:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They're not a true monopoly. If you contact your power company and tell them that you would like to buy your power from, say a Canadian company called Dominion, you can do that. They do have a pass through charge that they will attach to your bill, but the power that you buy will be from Dominion and Dominion will get the money that you give to your power company. Dominion is just one example, but there are other companies that you can use. They do have a monopoly on the lines, but not really. They are directed by the state to provide the structure of telephone poles in areas that aren't necessarily profitable, so the state coerces them to make this possible, or they cannot do business in the state. Furthermore, if you embark on creating your own energy through solar or wind, the power company is obligated to buy your surplus back from you as a provider. They aren't really a true monopoly, but they are somewhat socialized in that the state controls much of the production through heavy regulations, and creates obligations. It's a bad example of capitalism, and a bad example of monopolies.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:57:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 8:19:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
I agree, natural monpolies are bad (or are rather non-optimal). But wherein does another monopoly created to stop it provide a coherent solution to the problem?

Natural monopolies are natural.

How do you create competition if you are against regulation (if you are)?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 2:01:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:16:36 PM, innomen wrote:
They're not a true monopoly. If you contact your power company and tell them that you would like to buy your power from, say a Canadian company called Dominion, you can do that. They do have a pass through charge that they will attach to your bill, but the power that you buy will be from Dominion and Dominion will get the money that you give to your power company. Dominion is just one example, but there are other companies that you can use. They do have a monopoly on the lines, but not really. They are directed by the state to provide the structure of telephone poles in areas that aren't necessarily profitable, so the state coerces them to make this possible, or they cannot do business in the state. Furthermore, if you embark on creating your own energy through solar or wind, the power company is obligated to buy your surplus back from you as a provider. They aren't really a true monopoly, but they are somewhat socialized in that the state controls much of the production through heavy regulations, and creates obligations. It's a bad example of capitalism, and a bad example of monopolies.

Dominion isn't feeding your home directly with power. They may be feeding power into the grid, but only when they have excess to feed.

This is a concession through regulation, not a competitor.

If you embark on a power generation folly through solar and wind, you're not going to have excess in the 1st place, but even if you do, then you are faced with a monopsony for selling it.

Where's the competition here? How is it not a monopoly, even in your scenario (30-50% market control)?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 2:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:57:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 8:19:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
I agree, natural monpolies are bad (or are rather non-optimal). But wherein does another monopoly created to stop it provide a coherent solution to the problem?

Natural monopolies are natural.

How do you create competition if you are against regulation (if you are)?

Also, you're not creating another monopoly...you're controlling the one which exists, and which will always exist under current technological constraints.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 2:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 2:01:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:16:36 PM, innomen wrote:
They're not a true monopoly. If you contact your power company and tell them that you would like to buy your power from, say a Canadian company called Dominion, you can do that. They do have a pass through charge that they will attach to your bill, but the power that you buy will be from Dominion and Dominion will get the money that you give to your power company. Dominion is just one example, but there are other companies that you can use. They do have a monopoly on the lines, but not really. They are directed by the state to provide the structure of telephone poles in areas that aren't necessarily profitable, so the state coerces them to make this possible, or they cannot do business in the state. Furthermore, if you embark on creating your own energy through solar or wind, the power company is obligated to buy your surplus back from you as a provider. They aren't really a true monopoly, but they are somewhat socialized in that the state controls much of the production through heavy regulations, and creates obligations. It's a bad example of capitalism, and a bad example of monopolies.

Dominion isn't feeding your home directly with power. They may be feeding power into the grid, but only when they have excess to feed.

I don't understand. You are contracting Dominion for their power, you are paying them their rate, your local company is a pass through because of governmental regulation. If a private company pays another company for the use of their power conduits, where is the problem?

This is a concession through regulation, not a competitor.

It is both an example of how they are not a true monopoly, and how the government has socialized it by preventing true competition.

If you embark on a power generation folly through solar and wind, you're not going to have excess in the 1st place, but even if you do, then you are faced with a monopsony for selling it.

Huh? Why not? Why wouldn't you produce excess, particularly if you create conditions to produce more than needed? And you're faced with what?

Where's the competition here? How is it not a monopoly, even in your scenario (30-50% market control)?

The majority of market control to a given company, is due to government regulations. There is a town not far from where I live that produces it's own energy and doesn't rely on the government sponsored company. If government wasn't the agent in making this happen there would be more competition.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 2:19:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 2:12:17 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:01:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Dominion isn't feeding your home directly with power. They may be feeding power into the grid, but only when they have excess to feed.

I don't understand. You are contracting Dominion for their power, you are paying them their rate, your local company is a pass through because of governmental regulation. If a private company pays another company for the use of their power conduits, where is the problem?

Put together an electrical system with 2 producing points and 2 consuming points which are all connected together through the same wiring system.

Now, direct power from one production point to one consumption point and ONLY one consumption point.

Then, get ready for a Nobel prize.

This is a concession through regulation, not a competitor.

It is both an example of how they are not a true monopoly, and how the government has socialized it by preventing true competition.

Monopoly doesn't mean 100% control of a market, only enough control as to exert your will on pricing.

If you embark on a power generation folly through solar and wind, you're not going to have excess in the 1st place, but even if you do, then you are faced with a monopsony for selling it.

Huh? Why not? Why wouldn't you produce excess, particularly if you create conditions to produce more than needed? And you're faced with what?

With solar and wind, unless you choose to use only 20% of your current power consumption, your chances of outproducing your needs are negligible.


Where's the competition here? How is it not a monopoly, even in your scenario (30-50% market control)?

The majority of market control to a given company, is due to government regulations. There is a town not far from where I live that produces it's own energy and doesn't rely on the government sponsored company. If government wasn't the agent in making this happen there would be more competition.

The majority is naturally with a company because people don't want 5 power feeds from 5 different electrical grids going to their homes and businesses.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 2:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, the nature of electricity is that it dissipates as it travels, so you got to find nearby pieces of land for all your competitive power plants.

This is ESPECIALLY true of nuclear, and if you know about nuclear power plants and the cancer clusters that pop up around them (I'm sure it's just coincidence), good luck with that.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:46:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 2:19:48 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:12:17 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:01:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Dominion isn't feeding your home directly with power. They may be feeding power into the grid, but only when they have excess to feed.

I don't understand. You are contracting Dominion for their power, you are paying them their rate, your local company is a pass through because of governmental regulation. If a private company pays another company for the use of their power conduits, where is the problem?

Put together an electrical system with 2 producing points and 2 consuming points which are all connected together through the same wiring system.

Now, direct power from one production point to one consumption point and ONLY one consumption point.

Then, get ready for a Nobel prize.


I don't understand why you have a problem with this concept of contracting with another power producer.

This is a concession through regulation, not a competitor.

It is both an example of how they are not a true monopoly, and how the government has socialized it by preventing true competition.

Monopoly doesn't mean 100% control of a market, only enough control as to exert your will on pricing.

Um....no. Monopoly means 100% of control of a market. Mono - meaning 1, the only one.

If you embark on a power generation folly through solar and wind, you're not going to have excess in the 1st place, but even if you do, then you are faced with a monopsony for selling it.

Huh? Why not? Why wouldn't you produce excess, particularly if you create conditions to produce more than needed? And you're faced with what?

With solar and wind, unless you choose to use only 20% of your current power consumption, your chances of outproducing your needs are negligible.

I don't even know what the point of this is.

Where's the competition here? How is it not a monopoly, even in your scenario (30-50% market control)?

The majority of market control to a given company, is due to government regulations. There is a town not far from where I live that produces it's own energy and doesn't rely on the government sponsored company. If government wasn't the agent in making this happen there would be more competition.

The majority is naturally with a company because people don't want 5 power feeds from 5 different electrical grids going to their homes and businesses.

It wouldn't work like that. As I said, there would be a contracted user, and the owner of the poles would get their cut. If the government wasn't regulating it, there would be more competition, and probably better service, as many would begin to provide underground power lines where appropriate, but now aren't able to because of the gov't.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:35:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that the point is that, at this point in time, one entity controlling the grid and selling energy purchased from suppliers (power plants) is the only model which would really work. What I fail to understand is how the intervention of the state is necessary, seeing as the exact same system which we currently have would arise in a market. As for your example, if people are living so far out of the way that it's a loss to run lines out to them then wouldn't it conserve resources to direct power away from them and perhaps allow a smaller energy distribution system to spring up locally, perhaps even to the point of completely localized energy? I fail to see how forcing people to do something wasteful is a good thing.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:54:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:46:56 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:19:48 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:12:17 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:01:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Dominion isn't feeding your home directly with power. They may be feeding power into the grid, but only when they have excess to feed.

I don't understand. You are contracting Dominion for their power, you are paying them their rate, your local company is a pass through because of governmental regulation. If a private company pays another company for the use of their power conduits, where is the problem?

Put together an electrical system with 2 producing points and 2 consuming points which are all connected together through the same wiring system.

Now, direct power from one production point to one consumption point and ONLY one consumption point.

Then, get ready for a Nobel prize.


I don't understand why you have a problem with this concept of contracting with another power producer.

I don't have a problem with it, but if they pour their power onto the grid, it doesn't matter if people buy it or not, and "their power" doesn't come to my home. Just power.

He who control the spice (the power lines) controls the universe. (If I put a shunt on the line going to your home, you can't buy power from anyone)

This is a concession through regulation, not a competitor.

It is both an example of how they are not a true monopoly, and how the government has socialized it by preventing true competition.

Monopoly doesn't mean 100% control of a market, only enough control as to exert your will on pricing.

Um....no. Monopoly means 100% of control of a market. Mono - meaning 1, the only one.

Oh really, mono means one? I had no idea. There is a definition of monopoly that is literal that no economist or court of law follows and there i the actual definition.

Anyone who chooses the literal definition is an idiot.


If you embark on a power generation folly through solar and wind, you're not going to have excess in the 1st place, but even if you do, then you are faced with a monopsony for selling it.

Huh? Why not? Why wouldn't you produce excess, particularly if you create conditions to produce more than needed? And you're faced with what?

With solar and wind, unless you choose to use only 20% of your current power consumption, your chances of outproducing your needs are negligible.

I don't even know what the point of this is.

No individual is a surplus energy producer, and this argument brought up by YOU is stupid.

Where's the competition here? How is it not a monopoly, even in your scenario (30-50% market control)?

The majority of market control to a given company, is due to government regulations. There is a town not far from where I live that produces it's own energy and doesn't rely on the government sponsored company. If government wasn't the agent in making this happen there would be more competition.

The majority is naturally with a company because people don't want 5 power feeds from 5 different electrical grids going to their homes and businesses.

It wouldn't work like that. As I said, there would be a contracted user, and the owner of the poles would get their cut. If the government wasn't regulating it, there would be more competition, and probably better service, as many would begin to provide underground power lines where appropriate, but now aren't able to because of the gov't.

Really? More power lines would magically appear? Where are these new power lines in CA? Government regulation was removed and yet nothing you are predicting was even in the planning stages, which given the ridiculous, above market prices people were being charged, seems strange.

What happened? Why didn't the market correct?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:56:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:35:52 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that the point is that, at this point in time, one entity controlling the grid and selling energy purchased from suppliers (power plants) is the only model which would really work. What I fail to understand is how the intervention of the state is necessary, seeing as the exact same system which we currently have would arise in a market. As for your example, if people are living so far out of the way that it's a loss to run lines out to them then wouldn't it conserve resources to direct power away from them and perhaps allow a smaller energy distribution system to spring up locally, perhaps even to the point of completely localized energy? I fail to see how forcing people to do something wasteful is a good thing.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before you post these idiotic arguments, do you bother to Google them to see if anything has already been written on the subject? There is a wealth of information about natural monopolies around...
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:21:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:03:57 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Before you post these idiotic arguments, do you bother to Google them to see if anything has already been written on the subject? There is a wealth of information about natural monopolies around...

Yes, those arguments don't account for reality.

Give me one of them (in your own words). Watch it crumble like the house of cards which is libertarianism.

Wanna debate? That's why I'm posting these threads - to see if I can find a libertarian dumb enough to debate me.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:24:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm sure there is a wealth of information out there written by retards on a number of subjects. Not knowing it is simply a testament to my disregarding of retards.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:21:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:03:57 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Before you post these idiotic arguments, do you bother to Google them to see if anything has already been written on the subject? There is a wealth of information about natural monopolies around...

Yes, those arguments don't account for reality.

Give me one of them (in your own words). Watch it crumble like the house of cards which is libertarianism.

Wanna debate? That's why I'm posting these threads - to see if I can find a libertarian dumb enough to debate me.

I don't debate an-cap resolutions for the simple fact that it just becomes a back and forward of "this is what would happen", "no, this is what would happen" and never gets anywhere.

But so far, I haven't been impressed with your responses enough and other people seem to have this covered without me needing to repeat myself.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...