choice of models of society

[Brooke King]

In article <60 at loria.crin.fr> tombre at weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes:
|This discussion has quickly evolved into a discussion about
|models of society.

So lets take it out of alt.sources and news.admin!

|All the technical reasons for the pricing practices here on
|Eunet have been given now, I think. Basically, we can say that
|the problem comes from monopolies and high telecom pricings.
|Now, a lot of people (especially from the USA) have condemned
|these monoplies over here in Europe and praised free
|competition. BUT I think there is a choice of the model of
|society you wish which lies behind all that. 

I condemn legally imposed monopolies anywhere!  Why should any
group or individual be granted ANY special economic advantage by 
government?  Such advantages mean someone else is being forced to
pay for it, either through taxes, higher prices or buying a
service s/he wouldn't otherwise buy.  What's moral about that?

|You probably are right that free competition among several companies
|would lower prices ***** for big telecom users *****. Sure it will.

Most users of telecommunications are small users in the US.  They
are residences and small businesses.  It would serve
communications suppliers to compete in the market for small
users, too.  Lo and behold, they do!  Unfortunately the market is
not yet free with respect to local service unless one can afford
a private branch exchange.

Also, unless one is served by a former AT&T local company one
does not have complete freedom of choice in long distance service
because the AT&T divestiture was effected by a court edict which
affected only AT&T directly and was not aimed at simply allowing
competition in the telecommunications industry.  There would be
better service for all had the court not ordered divestiture but
ordered an end to special protections such as legally determined
prices and service areas.

|But remember the situation over here is not a private company having a
|monopoly, but a PUBLIC SERVICE run by the government. For instance, if
|I don't make a mistake, every French citizen pays the same fee for
|getting connected to the phone network: if you live in the midst of a
|city or out in the wilderness, several kilometers from the nearest
|phone line, you just pay THE SAME, and the telecoms set up the
|connection line to your house. Alas, nothing is perfect, and this is

Great.  So everyone in France is forced to subsidize this guy's
hookup to the network.  In some remote areas of the US local
telephone companies are also forced to run lines out to people
for the same price as urban customers.  Some companies aren't. 
In the latter areas, people either are not served, pay extra in
dollars and/or effort for the wire link, use amateur radio or use
radio-telephones.  They choose to live remotely.  Others ought
not be forced to pay to subsidize them in a any way.  On the
other hand, people ought to be free to help them if they want.

|not the case with electrical power lines (you must pay a share if a
|new line is to be set up).

SOME sanity!

|Take also postal service. Would a private postal company let you pay
|just the same for one letter if you are a big company sending tons of
|mail or if you are a farmer in a remote place sending ONE letter per
|month ??? Sure it won't. But a state-run postal services delivers mail
|FOR THE SAME PRICE to all citizens, regardless how much the
|send/receive and where they live !!!! Doesn't it occur to anybody that
|this could also be seen as a good thing ???

Take a look at a map.  Compare the size of the USA with the size
of France.  Does it even make sense to charge the same price for
every letter of the same dimensions no matter how far it travels?
It could if the simplicity of the schedule of charges made the
service less expensive, but that's the only reason I can think
of.  Why do I think of that?

Because competition is allowed in the USA in every class of mail
except first class (regular letters).  There are several private
overnight, express and parcel services which compete
successfully.  Each of them charges the same prices for whole
regions of destinations -- perhaps because the simplicity of the
schedule lowers cost over having a separate schedule for each
destination.  UPS delivers about 1/3 of its parcels to rural 
areas and charges no more than for urban areas in the same
region.  People often use UPS instead of the US Postal Service
(USPS) because UPS is less expensive or better or both.  I'd say
that UPS provides a better public service.

People also use private post offices (I do) because they are more
convenient and offer more services than the USPS post offices. 
The biggest reason I chose to use a private post office is
because it will accept mail from any carrier, unlike USPS post
offices which accept only USPS mail.  Mine also has better hours
and MANY more services.

|Now a public service must also be run without too much loss (or let us
|say at least that globally a country should be run without deficit -
|any comments, US citizens over there ? -;). That means that the big

The USA government's deficit is even larger than is publicized,
if one includes the approximately $13 billion in unfunded
liabilities it has in programs like government retirement
pensions.  It is absolutely demonstrative of the irresponsibility
of our government with regard to its fiduciary duties.

|users probably pay more than their share to support the small users.

Why does keeping cost down mean this?  Why does keeping cost down
mean monopolies are required?

|That also means that the public service should have a more or less
|complete monopoly... if all the big users go to the private companies,
|the public service can't continue only with the small users... I
|for one don't feel uncomfortable about that. Should it be considered

I can see that if a company loses a significant portion of its
business, say its largest customers, it might compete less
effectively because of lost economies of scale.  However, if it
loses business to its competitors in such a large way, perhaps it
does not deserve to stay in business.  Perhaps the competitors
are better.  Perhaps the remaining customers ought to be allowed
to change suppliers, too.

Give the customers and suppliersfreedom to choose and to compete
and see what THEY choose.  Don't force them take what you know is
best for them.  Forcing people to take what is best for them and
removing their freedom of choice is an elitist attitude.  M.
Tombre doesn't seem to fit the elitist mold since he does seem to
be genuinely concerned about his fellow man.  He ought to
reevaluate his position on this matter.

|as the perfect model to have the capitalistic view that you are
|FREE... to starve to death if you have no money for buying food,
|whereas others are free to exploit the neighbour as much as they can ?
|Isn't it a RIGHT of EVERY human being to LIVE, for instance ?

That may be Reaganism or Thatcherism or what Republicanism and
Thatcherism have become, but it is not capitalism.  Capitalism as
an economic policy says nothing about charity.  It is a way of
doing business which does a lot of good for everyone in a
capitalistic society.  It is only when the government distorts
the markets that the powerful take from the voiceless without the
latters' consent.  The best system under which to allow
capitalism is one under which the government lets the economy
alone and merely tries to guarantee every citizens' rights to
life, property and freedom of action.

There.  I have said it.  Everyone has the right to life.  But I
did not say that everyone has the right live even if it means
forcibly taking from someone else.  The USA does not have a free
economy, but it is the freest and most capitalist large economy
in the world.  It is also one of the most charitable nations in
the world -- because of its wealth which has been derived via
capitalism is such that it can afford to be charitable.

There are a lot of wealthy people, like Jesse Jackson, who are
not very charitable and give only 1% or less of their income to
charity, but most Americans are not wealthy by American standards
and they STILL give assistance to their fellow men.  They can
afford to do this because they do have enough wealth to spend
some on others.  I think it's natural for most people to want to
help others or it would not happen so much.

|I won't say that any model is perfect, or that the pricing policies of
|our European telecom companies can't be improved. But I see nothing
|basically wrong in the fact that some benefits from one public service
|can be used for paying another public service, such as free AND EQUAL
|health care to all, for instance. I certainly prefer the health system
|in our countries than that in the USA, where basically you can get the
|best doctor and the best care if you can afford it, and you only get
|minimal service if you are poor. On this net, most of us may be among
|the more affluent part of the population, but I for one like the fact
|that here in France everyone is equal (well, hmmm, let's say more
|equal than in the US... nothing is perfect ;-) with respect to health care.

This is a popular misconception.  Certainly there are people in
the USA who do not receive needed medical attention.  This is
reprehensible.  The free market is not to blame for this.  This
is an expected effect of 1) enormous regulation of the medical
industry coupled with 2) huge awards for mal-effects which are
not resultant from malpractice as well as 3) subsidization of the
medical industry by forcing many employers to provide insurance
and 4) government medical expense assistance programs.

1 causes obviously higer costs.  It also causes more deaths by
not allowing experimental drugs for terminal patients.  Perhaps
you have heard of anguished AIDS patients clamoring for more
freedom to choose to take drugs their doctors tell them about?

2 is an abuse of the legal system that has been with us in a big
way since about 1962.  I don't think I need to explain how it
raises costs.  Malpractice MUST be punished, but mal-effects are
among the risks for almost every medical procedure and ought not
be punishable except indirectly through development of better
procedures.

3 raises costs by making more people pay for insurance they might
not have chosen otherwise.  Very generally healthy people might
do better with individual coverage than with group coverage, but
the market has been distorted but the market has been distorted
by government intervention so we cannot know.  Such blanket insura
ce reduces the incentive to individuals to shop around or be more
prudent about what care to seek.  This yields higher demand and
raises costs.

4) raises costs for the same reasons as 3 and because there is
more abuse of such assistance than of private insurance because
it is easier to stick it to the government as a consequence of 
the government's less strict oversight and the government's
appearance to some of being some everflowing well of money.

|Of course, others may hold a different view on that matter; that's
|their right. But let us remember that the present discussion has no
|sense if it isn't seen in the global context : the model of society in
|most European countries is different from the American one (one
|exception seems to be Thatcher who at any price wants to apply
|Reaganomics to the British economy... poor British citizens ;-).

I agree.  Reaganomics as implemented and what I have heard of
some of the scandalous means of privatization under Thatcher are
reprehensible.

|No model is perfect, and you can like one better than the other. But
|as our European countries as well as the USA are democracies, the model of
|society can be said to be a choice of the people in each country (all
|this relatively of course...) and should be respected as such.

Correct.  No model is perfect.  As libertarians like to say,
"Utopia is not an option."  I respect the choices of others,
unless they are choices which force me or someone else to lose
her or his choice.  Then I get agitated.  How much depends on how
big is the outrage.

|--- Karl Tombre @ CRIN / INRIA Lorraine
|EMAIL : tombre at loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
-- 

J. Brooke King
brooke at ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824