If free competition is an objective in its own right, then anything that can be protrayed as "more competitive" ... such as a profiteering private duopoly replacing a public not-for-profit monopoly ... is a "step" toward the objective.
No, that does not follow. It is entirely conceivable that a system with limited competition is worse off than a system with no competition, as long as the no-competition system is also non-profit (a point that seems to escape many fiscal liberals). But I think that without a doubt, a system with more competition is better off than a system with limited competition.
Besides, it does not address what I were saying... I were saying that if we make the political decision to leave a sector to the market, then competition becomes an objective. We can then have a political discussion about which sectors should be left to the market (rather fewer than presently are, if you ask me).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I were saying that if we make the political decision to leave a sector to the market, then competition becomes an objective.
Part of the political process of "deciding" to leave a sector to the market is often the semantic game of labelling anything left to the market as more competitive than anything performed by the public sector. If competition stands as an objective in its own right, quite independent of whether it helps or harms the welfare of EU citizens, that provides more leverage to that semantic game.
As a development economist, I am quite sensitive to this particular game, since the IMF and World Bank are long time players. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I was not addressing what logically follows, but what follows politically.
Oh. Ok. Then you're probably completely right.
