Indaswamp wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:But your examples are monopolies literally designed by the government. However, I think in most states you can buy your natural gas from multiple vendors and they have done a decent job of actually creating a competitive market.Indaswamp wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:Raping is a crime, so who does not believe it should be prevented whether literal or figurative?Glimmerjim wrote:ou are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged.We do not. Because unlike literal rape, a business cannot force you to buy their product, they cannot prevent you from starting a competitive business. If someone is "raping" the consumers, without government intervention, why would every corporation not invest in that and return the profits back to normal economic profits?Glimmerjim wrote:We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention.
they can when they have a literal monopoly by design. most people can not chose who they buy their electric power from, though they can elect not to buy any at all and go off the grid. Same with natural gas.
Depends on if the gas is not pipped to the house, but put in tanks. houses that use tanks probably have a choice where to buy.
No you literally have a choice of gas suppliers. The distribution is a monopoly, but the supply is not. I believe this is a good model. A small fraction of the cost is distribution, but the largest societal impact is putting in the pipes, etc. Distribution as a regulated monopoly and supply as free market competition. Then you have both the regulators and the suppliers working to keep the distributors honest and efficient.