Re: where should the watts come from
I'm a bit hazy on the details, but wasn't Enron faking demand for energy to artificially inflate the prices in a rather deregulated market? And with things like Oil and other fossil fuels - the usage was higher when the price was at $140+ than it is now, I don't think that it cuts demand all that much when people feel they *need* the product.
Or entry costs are prohibitively high and make any potential competitor uncompetitive due to high start up costs. E.g. - try buying up land and constructing a new railway to compete with an existing one. If the guy who built the existing railway also built the existing highway too then you're SOL if you plan to use transportation by road to avoid the high cost of transportation by rail. And good luck buying up land and constructing a road that will be competitive with either the existing road or rail systems.
You also sound rather fanatical - Private cartels are a force for good as they lead to resources being conserved, but government services provided at the same cost are bad because they are overpriced. Likewise no competition is apparently a good sign (except is does not explain how competition is providing you with a cheaper product...) unless it's the government. It looks like you're ready to excuse just about anything by the private sector regardless of which way they go - ruthless competition = good, no competition = good, cartels price fixing = good. WTF?
With the notable exception of largely private medical systems, though the more enthusiastic on here seem to argue that the higher cost of privatized medicine is a good thing because it apparently subsidizes the rest of the world to buy drugs at a fraction of the cost it costs American citizens, rather than being a sign that the good folks in the US are being ripped off. And ignoring that if the drug companies are actually making money then the 'real' market cost would have to be more or less what the drugs are sold for in the ROTW anyway.
E.g. A few years ago a friend of mine quit the public sector to work in the private sector doing essentially the same job and working about the same hours. She took a 30% pay cut in doing so - AFAIK she hasn't cut her productivity by 30% - hence she is providing more efficient work for the government than she was for her employer in the private sector.
there are less efficient companies in the free market, not everything is perfect. but the market sorts it out and prevents this kind of behaviour from being widespread, unlike governments.
on entry costs: its rather an issue of the company in control of a large amount of infrastructure producing losses if he asks for rates above the optimal: people will take other routes, roads instead of railway, a slightly longer route or whatever. not a big loss for the customer, but a big loss for the infrastructure operator that operates the expensive road that loses a lot of traffic and thus money if he asks more than the competitors, needs to be repaired and kept up to date. also, when a company attempts to buy everything(corner the market) then he faces ever increasing prices for buying the remaining structure due to opposition realising that their infrastructure, as one of the few alternatives, has a big value if it operates more cheaply than the big company, and diminishing returns from his own new capital as it becomes more poorly managed due to increasing bureaucracy within his ever growing firm and thus less competitive services.
So called "privatizations" of railroads during recent years, have still been very regulated. You cannot build a railroad in for example the UK without detailed permissions from the government, so competition isvery restricted. Mostly, such "privatizations" is only for certain operationas services, while the government keeps its monopoly of buying railroad services (to guarantee traffic also in the unprofitable wilderness). The construction of power plants, especially of the most cost efficient kinds, hydroelectrical and nuclear, is not allowedin most countries. How free is a market when supply is restricted like that? Not strange that prices soar.
Free markets invented electricity and railroads, and ran them perfectly until these industries were nationalized all over the world in the 1930s or during or after WW2. Since then, the same industries have stagnated with soaring costs and lowered quality.
When the price of oil really starts to roar(500$?), believe me, people will use less. Not pleasant, but better than the alternative of shortages in the case of government control. I dunno anything about Enron, cant help you there
Btw try to avoid using ad hominem arguments, theyre pointless.
