Até Mais, Lisbon

[Martin Naef]

Peter Korsten wrote:
> Again, I can't comment about other European countries, because I don't 
> know the situation there, but in the Netherlands the 'free for all' 
> attitude is already on the way out, and you see more and more powerful 
> government agencies (usually called 'authority') that are there to 
> ensure that no party gets a virtual monopoly or oligopoly (which, by the 
> way, is a very strange word if you think about it). Examples are the EU 
> action against roaming tariffs for mobile phones, and the actions 
> against Microsoft.

Well, it works in growing markets or where the infrastructure 
requirements are "reasonable" - e.g. mobile. But for something like 
railways, gas, power or even wired phones it just doesn't make sense to 
have several distribution networks in parallel - hence there is no free 
market because the entry barriers are just way too high. And unless you 
have something like ten players with equal shares, the whole "free 
market" theories just don't work - and the need for these powerful 
regulation agencies proves that point. But these, almost by definition, 
can only step in *after* things have gone wrong. That's why I'd rather 
leave the government monopoly intact there (and yes, I still consider 
myself a liberal).

> Infrastructure should be government owned or government run, and this is 
> even the case in the UK these days, after the disastrous privatisation 
> by the Thatcher government.

Erm, I don't see that here. What I see is that I have two different 
(private) bus companies serving the same line, and I can't even buy a 
return ticket that is valid on the other...

Bye
Martin