-
How is a monopoly good for capitalistic or socialist ideals?
There's not really much of an alternative you can do for rail travel. Splitting it up geographically just creates a bunch of separate isolated monopolies.
You can't have 5 different train companies running services between popular destinations (e.g. Guildford <-> Waterloo).
My point is that where monopolies are very hard to avoid is where you need proper oversight/regulation. Most Governments are weak in this respect and corporations often have better lawyers to work around whatever rules are in place.
Greenbank-
I watched this yesterday, and there's a few nuggets of insight about the various organisational forms over the years. It's from a left perspective, but the guy does at least remain somewhat neutral — he's just a total train nerd, and it's a nice watch.
(the title is a bit clickbait, though…)
-
As you point out, there are natural monopolies, such as water, power, public transport and roads. Where standardisation is needed.
-
You can't have 5 different train companies running services between popular destinations (e.g. Guildford <-> Waterloo).
Some people suggest that this is exactly what should happen. The model would be the same as airlines where (as I understand it) airlines bid for departure slots and it's then on them to make their service as competitive as possible to attract custom and make profit. The claim is that what you end up with is a price war and better and better deals for customers.
I guess where the analogy falls down is that trains are a necessary public service in a way that air connections are not. Therefore you need someone to run services on routes that aren't profitable, and to work out how to incentivise them to do that.
slippers
lynx
ffm
How is a monopoly good for capitalistic or socialist ideals?
I am an Economist. This is shown as I worked as an econmist for some banks economist department. ;) (Hope you understand the reference)