... Yup. Leave it be. The only active thing you want to do politically when dominant market actors appear, is make sure they don t get some sort of governmentMessage 1 of 87 , Dec 19 1:40 AMView Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>Yup. Leave it be. The only active thing you want to do politically when dominant market actors appear, is make sure they don't get some sort of government granted privilege. Market dominance isn't a monopoly. There are plenty of fields where there are relatively few actors, and some specialized fields where there is almost exclusive supply by one single supplier. This need not be a problem for the consumer if the threat and possibility of a new competition is there in the background. So if you start treating your customers badly, raising prices, immediately there is a market opportunity, or the search for subsitutes is heightened. IF, and only if, there are no subsidies or ingenious schemes that give the dominant supplier an edge. What you don't seem to realize, that any scheme to protect existing modes of production or specific favoured groups of businesses, you are creating new barriers to entry. So you want to make up some scheme to protect "high-street bookshops" today, that just creates presedence for "supporting online-retailers that are a part of our community" tomorrow.
> As the Norwegian end of the dialogue I was having over barriers to monopoly has kinda blown a fuse when confronted with evidence of Amazon's market dominance on the level playing field of the Net,perhaps KL ,who is rarely so ad hominem ,can supply some ingenious market based solution.<
>BTW I was referring to London Midland not just to confuse matters by bringing in a natural monopoly but to argue the relevant point that lowering barriers to entry in a market was not a sure way to destroy monopoly as the post Thatcherite Tories explicitly set out to do on straight doctrinaire grounds(British Rail being a previously nationalised service.) The barriers to entry in the now privatised UK railroad service are not " astronomically high" as you assert<Don't make up things, I never said "astronomically high" did I? You won't get any defene of the privatization process of 80's Tory Britain from me, in fact, stop pretending I am a Tory just because I denounce the usual idiocy of the left. I have no good answer to what we are to do about natural monopolies. There are trade-offs in every scheme. Nationalized railways like here does work, although it's a little more crappy and decisions are made politically instead of on efficiency or customer need grounds. Semi-privatized is the UK experience. Total privatization of lock-stock and barrel (or track, rolling stock and ...? in this case) may be another solution, just let the actors do their own thing, take the revenue-maximising price which will be tempered by competition from other modes of transport, and tax them properly for their privilege.
> British people buy these services off the State because the private sector alternatives are too expensive (even in the more prosperous US which is why so many people don't have health cover)<You/we have public health provision on grounds of equality and access, which is fair enough. This carries with it it's own tradeoffs, as I'm sure you've witnessed yourself, as have I. Out of concern for my own family's health, I use private as much as I can afford. I'm not against public provision, as basic insurance it's very good value for money. I'm just not content with certain aspects of it, incidentally the parts that are most amenable to private provision, especially primary care. This ofcourse is a big no-no over here, because I am presumably jumping the queue and killing babies or something by using a doctor that has an appointment when I ask for it and has the time for me when I'm there. That's the consequence of the ideological way of approaching certain issues, which is IMO quite simply anti-humanist.
It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader. Unfortunately, modern schooling isn t great at producing readers so material must be madeMessage 87 of 87 , Dec 30 10:23 PMView SourceIt all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> However, I suppose the short sentence is now
> the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.
Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.