|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 21:36:51 GMT
Terror - I stand corrected! *** Ube... I didn't say that, either. *** Lifting a monopoly results in higher employment because there will be many forms of competition. This is always the case. Are you saying that Sweden has absolutely NO private health care at all, in any way shape or form, Ube? Including everything from sales of medication to doctors' practises? *** I missed the Finland line. I can't say I find it very credible that they had monumental problems the instant the govt stopped selling all the strong alcohol, though. More likely the take dropped...
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 30, 2009 22:02:20 GMT
Spain has state licensed liquor selling also, I believe - definetly tobacco, so does France.
Electricity is private (an 'oligarchy' though) in Germany - I concede it's heavily regulated though, with the purpose of opening access to the network to more companies, thus promoting competion. What has (had) been found essential to be in Government hands, was infrastructure - hence the railway system still is, and the postal system and telephone system was government owned. Here privatization was beneficial to the consumer, though not to the employees. One can argue though, that more jobs were created than lost, however with lower average pay.
Medical is sort of a competition between public and private hospitals - actually over all not so bad. The ownership of hospitals is not obviously transparent to patients.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 23:00:00 GMT
I didn't say that, either. The best way to counter that is by qouting you when you say it: A strict govt monopoly amounts to price fixing and is very bad for trade. You'll notice that the govt shops survive by banning competitors outright? Very Soviet. Also ineffective compared to private enterprise because the govt is less motivated to succeed. Now explain how "You'll notice that the govt shops survive by banning competitors outright?" doesn't mean that goverment buissnesses survive by banning competition. Lifting a monopoly results in higher employment because there will be many forms of competition. This is always the case. I'm no fan of using the word "always". Because you only need one example where it doesn't happen to disprove it. I believe Alcohol in Sweden would be one of those cases. The working opportunities created by lifting the monopoly would be marginal, because no new liquor shops will open up. There will still be Systemet (short for Systembolaget), and the newfound competition will come from ordinary grocery stores (mainly Lidl). Because grocery stores already have an infrastructure of shops and experience in this kind of thing (they sell beer), so they wouldn't have to do much to expand into the liquor market. Because it would be so simple for them they can keep down the prize, which would make it very hard for anyone to start a new shop focused only on liquor. It would create more revenue though. But increasing the revenue on alcohol means pepole drink more alcohol... Are you saying that Sweden has absolutely NO private health care at all, in any way shape or form, Ube? Including everything from sales of medication to doctors' practises? I think we have private doctors (IIRC my father has one). And prescription free drugs can be sold everywhere. You can't start hospitals though, and you couldn't sell presciption drugs (though that ban has been lifted). Why do you ask? I missed the Finland line. I can't say I find it very credible that they had monumental problems the instant the govt stopped selling all the strong alcohol, though. More likely the take dropped... (What does the expression "the take dropped" mean?) I'm trying to find a good source online, but I can't even find when it was they abolished their monopoly. So you'll have to make due with this. I'm trying to find where Prime Junta (who's Finnish and knows a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff) talks about the effects of abolishing the monopoly... It's a pity he's not active anymore, otherwise I would just ask him. Oh well. It all comes down to us Scandinavians having a different drinking culture. As it is, all you have is that I remember that a few years back Finland lifted the monopoly on liquor. A year or two later they took the monopoly back. Considering our earlier discussion on how hard it is for politicians to take back their policies, what does this say of how well lifting the alcohol monopoly worked? Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 31, 2009 11:28:54 GMT
Ube... We were talking about one specific case, not everything. You're applying ONE to ALL, which I neither said nor implied. All anyone can do here is guess, as there's utterly no evidence either way. It may be the case that Swedes would not directly compete by opening alcohol specialist shops if they were allowed to do so (Though I doubt it) but foreign businesses undoubtedly would. You said the Swedish govt had a monopoly on health care. I suspected this would not be the case As for the Finn thing, it would appear we have no actual evidence to go on, so best to let it drop. I suspect that a govt monopoly on addictive substances (such as alcohol, though I see by Glance's notes that Spain has gone one better and added tobacco, too!) is a real money spinner for the treasury and that the drop in revenue ('the take dropped') has more to do with the re-establishing of the state monopoly than anything else. But then, I'm a cynical bastard when it comes to believing in govt altruism! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 31, 2009 11:53:20 GMT
I came up with a really profitable state operation!
In several countries in Europe, lotteries are state monopoly!
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 31, 2009 12:33:06 GMT
Very good point, Glance!
It must be admitted that state monopolies on vice - ie gambling and addictive substances - are VERY nice little earners for the state in question.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 31, 2009 14:36:46 GMT
We were talking about one specific case, not everything. You're applying ONE to ALL, which I neither said nor implied. Oh! A simple misunderstanding then! You said the Swedish govt had a monopoly on health care. I suspected this would not be the case It's all but a monopoly. And the way medicines is handled here it's not part of the ordinary health care. The distribution of medicines and the doctors are two different institutions. It's kind of like how the police and the courts aren't the same organisation. As for the Finn thing, it would appear we have no actual evidence to go on, so best to let it drop. To my great annoyance, you appear to be right. I suspect that a govt monopoly on addictive substances (such as alcohol, though I see by Glance's notes that Spain has gone one better and added tobacco, too!) is a real money spinner for the treasury and that the drop in revenue ('the take dropped') has more to do with the re-establishing of the state monopoly than anything else. But then, I'm a cynical bastard when it comes to believing in govt altruism! ;D This is one of those cases where it would be really nice to have a source that stated how much violence, alcohol-related deaths and traffic accidents went up when the monopoly was disbanded. Stupid internet, you have everything but that... Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 31, 2009 15:23:12 GMT
Ube... It would appear so I think that's the same in most Western nations. Had to happen sooner or later! ;D Also the revenue decline for the govt in that period. But yeah, some things just have to stay in the realm of 'unproven', annoyingly. At least as far as you or I could tell from available evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 31, 2009 15:37:31 GMT
The source of my annoyance was the lack of evidence, not you being right. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 31, 2009 15:45:34 GMT
Of course it was, Ube! ;D
|
|