|
>> Rather, the concern is essentially that
>> monopolists will price at a level well above marginal
>> costs, and thereby cause a cut-back in consumption from an
>> efficient level. Yes - I see your point here. It all comes down to what the monopoly value is. The difference between $0.50c and $10.00 is
pretty extreme. >> let's explore where the alternative put forward
>> by ABL and yourself A nice little story, and one reminicent of the ice-cream seller on the beach scenario**. Yes, let's explore your arguments, but substitute 'petrol station' or 'doctor's surgery' for 'road', and all your reasoning about sunk costs etc still apply. In real life there is noise in the system. People provide similar, but non-identical products, and the market produces better results than even the wisest bureaucrat. Beyond mentioning 'declining costs' several times you have given no reason why roads are different from other products and services. And (politally extreme examples aside), the jury is kind of back on that one. -------------- As an interesting aside, if your reasoning were sound, it would provide a good reason for governments to provide roads, but no reason to prevent private building of new roads. If the gummint thought the toll was unreasonable they could just build another road, like they were thinking of doing in the first place. -------------- ** Anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about - please ask.
| 
