From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:27:35 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Oct1.154407.17267@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.133439.9712@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>> Well, I *think* my point is supply-related.  E.g. if I don't like the
>> quality of my water, I can't simply go out and tell some other company
>> that I'd prefer theirs, so would they please come out and move my
>> connection to their mains.
>
>Why is this valid? You stop car makers from producing death traps without
>nationlizing them, why can't you just devise a level of acceptable
>cleanliness of water supply and then monitor that. There is also no reason
>(that I can see) why multiple water companies cannot be suppliers through
>the same pipes (which would probably imply that the pipes are handled by an
>infrastructure provider rather than a water provider). Same for 
>electricity, gas etc etc.

I'm going to have a hard time arguing with this, because I can see your
method as being another possibility which could work.  We may be
getting into areas of personal taste.  Fortunately, 'water' is one of
the areas where (I think) my arguments in favour of my feelings are
strongest, so even if I can't 'argue', I can show you how my thinking
works.  (Or doesn't, if you prefer.)

First, indeed, you CAN devise a level of etc, and monitor.  No
argument.  Also, technologically, you COULD have multiple suppliers
sharing the same pipes.  I'll take the second first, as it's easier.

This is technologically possible, and similar methods are used
presently in a lot of the world's major gas/oil pipelines.  Indeed, you
COULD arrange for all commodities which can sensibly be shipped by pipe
(a surprising assortment) to be shipped down a single shared pipe.
However, it is, as a general solution for 'small' deliveries,
inefficient.

It costs a lot, in switching technology in a 'tree' structured pipeline
system, to make sure that, when the delivery of water which I've
ordered from company X arrives at a pipeline branch which leads towards
my house, it gets routed there.  Second, there is an unavoidable waste
owing to mixing, at the interface where the pipeline switches from
shipping one 'product' to shipping another.  Finally, it requires that
I, and each of my neighbours, have large enough storage facilities on
our properties to accept a bulk delivery (probably several day's worth)
of water when it arrives.  An expensive way to solve the problem.

Now, to the first.  Water.  It is, of course, to my advantage to have a
reliable supply of clean water delivered to my house.  Further, as
demonstrated by things like the typhoid epidemics which ultimately led
to 'piped water' in this country, it is to my advantage to have a
reliable supply of water delivered to the house next door, and to the
house next door to them, and ...

Now, admittedly, my interest in any particular house having clean water
is lower as the house involved gets further away, but if you integrate
this over all households in the country, you find that, ultimately, it
is to everyone's benefit that everyone have such a supply.  Further,
see above, 'personalised' delivery is inefficient.  I see no
difficulty, therefore, in the concept that 'society' as a whole should
band together, and decide to save themselves some money, by arranging
to deliver such water to 'society' as a whole, and to cut out the
profit-taking middleman.  Indeed, I see it as the most cost-effective
solution to the problem.  Ergo, government water.  

(As a side note, I also see it as precisely the sort of thing which
this cooperatively chosen thing we call 'government' is supposed to be
doing.  This is about where Celia (voice over -- 'SWP') attacks me
savagely.  I think that government is failing to do a lot of things
which it should do, and, conversely, that it is sticking its nose into
a lot of areas where it has no damned business at all.)

Now, people (Jon, for one) will pop up and say, 'oh, but as a
government industry, it has no competition, so it will become wasteful
and so ultimately more expensive than if we had private water companies
working in competition'.  I have two rebuttals.

The first (and simplest) is that even as a private industry, it will
have no real competition -- you've simply exchanged a national monopoly
for a privately owned one.  Where does that get you?

Second is trickier, but incredibly fundamental.  It is obviously
possible for the government monopoly to be more efficient, and so
cheaper.  If the basic, unavoidable, minimum cost of distributing water
to all the houses in town is X, the government should be able to do it
for X.  The private industry has to charge X+Y for it, where Y
represents the profit to their investors and is required to be
positive.  

Plus, you need the separate governmental quality monitors.  The company
still has to have their own, to make sure they stay within the
guidelines, but you need extra ones to keep them honest.  This is also
going to cost some positive amount, so the total cost is now X+Y+Z.
Thus, the POTENTIAL cheapest solution is for government provision.

The problem?  Well, it requires that the government industry be run by
people who will run it in the most efficient way possible, not because
they'll make loadsamoney out of it, but just because it is the best way
of doing it from the point of view of the country as a whole.  So,
you've got to find such people.

Now, some people will say you simply can't FIND people who will work
their best simply because it is in the public interest.  (Tories are
particularly fond of saying this, but the attitude is definitely not
restricted to them.)  I'd say that if you believe this, you have not
only invalidated the idea of nationalised industry (where appropriate),
but you have actually also totally invalidated the entire concept of
'government'.  Worse, by a slight extension of the argument you have
also invalidated the anarchist's dream world of 'society without
government', and we might as well all move back into the trees, and
take up bashing each other over the head with branches and rocks.

Or, in short, yes, some things are better done by industry.  Some can
be done totally acceptably by 'industry plus monitoring'.  But some
things really are society's responsibility, and so ought to be done
by society as a unit.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132