Click to get your own widget

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

If They Agree Barriers To Entry Are Bad In Other Businesses, Why Are TheWestminster Cartel Keen On Them For Themselves?

  "Barriers to entry" are a bête noire for anybody who supports free markets. Basically this means anything which stops a new competitor entering a market, which thus makes it easier for the current dominant companies to maintain a monopoly or more often oligopoly. Examples would be the difficulty of getting together skilled workers and managers in an area where neither are established or decades of government regulation effectively mandating designs and processes common to established players.

    Douglas Carswell correctly takes a stand that the lack of such barriers has been very beneficial to the supermarket industry and the Lidl & Aldi's entrance has been possible and beneficial because of it.

I took the money quote from his remarks and built a comment about the oligopoly of Westminster politics and their reliance on the corrupt first past the post electoral system:

"After years of faux competition, the customer is starting to see some real bargains. And it makes us realise quite what a cartel we've had all these years.

It's not just supermarkets, either. It’s much the same with energy providers and retail banks. Cliques of providers provide on their, not necessarily the punters, terms.

Part of the problem is that the barriers to entry are high. It's hard to start a supermarket, retail bank or energy company from scratch"
Yes but the most outrageous and damaging cartel is in Westminster.

The first past the post electoral system is a massively high barrier to entry, deliberately maintained by the ruling cartel. Which is why Cameron would clearly much prefer the next government be a Labour one, wholly within the cartel, on 30% of the vote, than a deal between UKIP & the Tories, with 55%.

If it is useful that we get a choice in supermarkets it is vital that we get one in who runs the country. I simply do not think any democrat can disagree. Our current electoral system is obviously and undeniably corrupt.

  Note that the entire argument of politicians of all parties that the "energy producers" rather than them depends on their being such an oligopoly there (their comparatively low profit margins say there isn't or at least they don't use such power)  caused by a "market failure" (the reduction in power suppliers is because of government pressure and the prevention of new nuclear players entering is because of a government veto) and that barriers to entry are a bad thing (correct). Except they enthusiastically support such barriers in Westminster, even implying that supporting electoral reform is unpatriotic.

 I could also have mentioned how the state broadcasting monopoly, or at least the way it is used in despite of the legal requirement that it be balanced, to censor dissent is equally destructive but I believe I have made that point before.

Labels: , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.