From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:45:50 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:

#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.

Nope, because you don't need to have single small deliveries. The
company that owns the pipes hires a quality regulation company to check
out suppliers. If a supplier doesn't pass muster then it isn't allowed
to put its water into the pipes. It can build its own or ship its water
out in bottles *if* there are customers who don't require their water to
pass the distribution companies' standard.

Having done that, the distribution company can just ship metered water
to whoever wants some. The folks receiving the water have just gotta
have paid someone to supply it and the supplier must have put a certain
amount into the distribution system. So long as all the suppliers pass
muster for quality, there's no problem mixing the water.

OK, it's not quite this simple, but it isn't as complicated as
delivering specific water from A to B either.

Problem solved. Competition of supply, without government interference.

#(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.)

We're agreed in principle then. We probably just have different views on
which things government should be involved in.

#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?

Well, in the above scenario there is a distribution monopoly. But that
isn't the same as a supply monopoly. Not ideal, but better.

#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.  

This assumes that any government capital tied up in this business comes
free of charge. Wrong. Government capital has an opportunity cost just
as any other capital. 

#Plus, you need the separate governmental quality monitors.

You could have a private company do this. Or even hire Greenpeace. I'd
trust Greenpeace a damn site more than I'd trust a government outfit.

#  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. 

The distributor could test the water of suppliers before allowing them a
supply contract.

# 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.

I'm not against a government company competing as a supplier against the
rest *provided* that it raises capital on the markets and is permitted
no subsidies. If it can then compete and win. Fair enough.

#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.)

Not me. I believe there are such people.

#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.

I don't think that this follows. Want to argue it more clearly?

#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.

Well, you haven't made a case that water provision is one of these yet.

#-- 
#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

FoFP