Bill Brown wrote:
These first three sound like you are saying that it is impossible to
effectively enforce a PPA anti-trust metalaw. If so, this is clearly
the most important point to discuss more. If you grant enforcement,
then by assumption monopolies & malicious oligopolies are not a problem.
>> What subtle schemes/problems do you have in mind that would not be
>> handled by my proposed "PPA anti-trust law"?
>
>I think I've done this before, but here's a short sampling. I'm not going
>to include the full reasoning behind each point here - if you think I'm
>wrong about a particular point, let me know and I'll fill in more detail.
>
>1) IMO, normal competitive forces will give you markets with a fairly small
>number of relatively large PPAs. ...
>2) The nature of the law enforcement business makes it easy for PPAs to
>create geographical monopolies and cartels, ...
>3) PPAs are not immune to creeping authoritarianism - especially if they are
>monopolistic.
>4) The consequences of even a momentary lapse in coverage are catastrophic.
It would seem a straightforward to sign up for backup PPAs, so one is always covered.
>5) The customer is at the mercy of the PPA, not vice versa.
Is this the same sense that a patient is at the mercy of a doctor?
>6) A private law regime with dozens of PPAs, each with multiple law products
>and complex inter-company enforcement contracts, would be a legal regime far
>more complex than the one we now live in. ...
This is a more serious objection in my view. But noting how people want simplicity is often a major argument for nationalizing industries. Those pushing to nationalize health care, for example, talk a lot about how unreasonable it is to expect people to learn enough to know which health plan to choose. And how much it troubles consumers to have to try.