From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:33:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.160742.14991@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.140406.17196@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
> >I have come to conclusion that it is extremely cost inefficient to leave
> >something as important as power generation in government hands.
> 
> Ah, a political difference.  One of my feelings is that things which
> are basically 'natural monopolies', and which should be (another
> opinion, of course) considered necessities of civilized living, ought
> to be run by (properly-run) nationalised industry.  Particularly in
> cases where, if they are run privately, the government is going to
> 'need' to create a monitoring bureaucracy parallel to the company's
> operational bureaucracy, which feels painfully inefficient.

I am a firm believer that "properly run" and "monopoly" are oxymorons
regardless of whether the monopoly is nationalised or private. The only
'natural monopoly' I can think of is national infrastructure planning (not
implementation), such as road and rail, and even then I have my doubts.

As for governments 'needs' to regulate, I believe that if you set the
guidelines properly then you don't need such heavy bureaucratic watchdogs.
For power you need basic safety (of employees and surrounding residents),
polution control, and maybe some other things, but nothing particular to
the industry that wasn't applicable to many other industries. The
industry would then be monitored in the same way that any other
industry is monitored. The other vital thing is competition, something 
sadly missing from many UK (and European) industries.

> Amongst such things I'd include power, water, sewage disposal, etc.  I
> don't see any particular reason for government ownership of steel
> works, car companies, coal mines, etc.  

The one thing missing here is why these are natural monopolies. The only
reason I would see for any government interference is if a) basic rules
are being broken eg safety/polution problems or b) market forces are
failing to provide enough of a vital product/service (eg drinking water).

> People always then ask me,
> 'what about food?'  I don't see that as a natural monopoly.  On the
> other hand I do think society ought to take on the responsibility for
> making sure everyone has a survival ration.  You can probably also
> think of some goods or services which will confuse me.  I haven't yet
> figured out a completely clean-cut and unambiguous way to describe the
> line I've drawn.

My rule is simple, if in doubt, don't. Unfortunately governments have
traditionally done the opposite. It seems to me that your attitude to food
(ie don't interfere unless people are not getting 'survival rations') is
my approach to all these industries. The main thing is to stop monopolies
which are fundamentally problematical and the biggest weakness to all the
Conservative Party privatizations which solve the national ownership
problem but have rarely introduced real competition.

Simon.

-- 
  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp