I think the French are onto the right idea. There are a whole bunch of technologies now that should be viewed as free public amenities, to be fully and freely funded by the Government because it makes good business sense to do so.
Electricity, gas, telecommunications, water and the Internet are four that leap immediately to mind.
Nobody should make a profit from any of these amenities: they should be viewed as sunk costs, the price that Civilization pays for progress. They should be nationalized and provided at-cost, for the good of the Nation.
Any country bold enough to do that would leap way, way ahead of other countries that insisted on siphoning off “profit” from what should be bare-bones commodity-priced Utilities for the public good.
You just described Cuba.
You need to learn more about the free market and a little history.
When I was in second grade, many moons ago; i.e., 1950s, a phone company representative came to my classroom and showed us a mockup of a wireless phone. This was touted to be available in the near future. After 10 years wireless had not been introduced.
In high school, during the 1960s, I learned about how markets operate and I learned that the phone company had a monopoly granted by the state. It occurred to me then that wireless phones would never be developed by Ma Bell, because the wiring was the only thing that justified their monopoly status!
Low and behold, AFTER the phone monopoly was broken up, two things occurred: long distance phone rates dropped significantly due to competition AND wireless phone networks developed.
Now, being an electrical engineer, I realize that certain technologies required for wireless phones did not exist during the 50’s and 60’s, but my point is that the monopoly holding phone company had NO incentive to develop the technology. I doubt that Bell Labs, who touted some of the finest talent in the country, would have ever come up with the cell system we have today.
Now for the application: Why turn over ANY utility to the government where it is guaranteed to (1) stagnate and (2) be subject to needless overhead.
The problem is that you haven’t clearly defined your terms. You have four things listed, but allow that there are things that you haven’t considered. Eventually, everything will be considered necessary public amenities. Eventually, you will be living in Cuba without the necessity of even getting on a boat or an airplane.
I do like the idea of free stuff, but at the end of the day the government does nothing efficiently, and nothing’s really free.
You get your electricity, gas, telecommunications, and water for free from the government? Where do you live?
Cuba, Venezuala, and the old Soviet Union pop to mind as models for your new utopia.
Electricity, gas, telecommunications, water and the Internet are four that leap immediately to mind.
Quite frankly, I can't think of a worse idea than to do exactly what you describe above. By making it so that governent is the only provider of the utilities you list above, you ensure only that those utilities will become poorer in quality, more expensive, and less reliable. I absolutely shudder at the idea of having to rely on an agency like the Massachuetts Fuel Oil Department to provide my heating oil in the winter . . . such a department would be filled to the gills with nothing but politically-appointed hacks with no vested interest at all in providing a good service and/or product at a good price. Because these hacks know that no matter what kind of job they do, good or bad, they get paid, and they aren't going to get fired because they're connected.
You forgot Healthcare, healthcare should be free too :)
ibtz
Sigh.