= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Houshalter comments on Open Thread: June 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
What if you had a dozen different companies that provided services like that. They would have a monopoly in different areas, however, the local governments would still be able to choose which one they wanted, and at any time they were displeased they could switch. Actually, this is a good idea!
You can probably go further than that. Municipal services can be unbundled and can operate without a geographical monopoly. This is already widely done for cable and telecoms in the US and UK and for electricity and gas in the UK. Some countries do it for water and sanitation services. There are examples worldwide of it being done for transportation, refuse collection, health and education. Arguments that such services are a 'natural monopoly' are usually promoted most strongly by those who wish to operate that monopoly with government protection.