"Iain Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>If the cost of a boat navigating a km is £nil, what is the cost of >>>mooring? >> >> The two situations are very different, so different economic rules >> apply to them. >> >> 1. Where by consuming a product (particularly one for which there is a >> large potential over-supply) a consumer imposes costs on the >> (monopoly) supplier, it is reasonable for the user to pay a cost-plus >> price for it. > >What cost does the moorer impose on the supplier? (If we include the capital >cost of rings,etc., the argument that the cost of moving is £nil is >untenable.)
My point was that principle 1 does *not* apply to moorings. However principle 2 (below) *does* > >> 2. Where a consumer consumes a product in limited supply (such as >> moorings), then it is reasonable for him to pay the market-clearing >> price for it. Usually, if that price is higher than the cost of >> providing additional supply, that supply will be created. For >> moorings, the cost of providing additional ones is actually rather >> high, as BW found when it created the basin at Llangollen. > >I actually find myself agreeing with this, provided that the moorings in >question actually are in limited supply and subject of high demand. >> >> 3. BTW there is a third situation, which is when the consumer >> purchases a supply of a product in advance of use. In this case, he >> should pay for only the amount of the product he wants to purchase >> (i.e. expects to use). It is violation of this rule that is a major >> flaw in BWAF's proposals to charge wider craft more. The owners of >> those craft want to buy access to only the wider waterways; BWAF is >> insisting they also buy access to the narrow ones, which they can't >> use. > >This looks horribly like an argument for tolls to replace licence. The >amount paid would then closley match the amount of product the purchaser >expects to use. (Also, the subject has changed!) It isn't. An argument for tolls fails because the marginal cost to BW of a boat's navigating is ~£nil. The proposal in 3. is not for tolls. It is for prepaid unlimited access to a set of waterways for a given period.. >If there is a demand for "rivers only", then I agree the restaurant should >keep it on the menu. And if there is a demand for "broad and wide waterways only"? >But you expect to pay a bit more for the larger size. Why? Obviously, there is a shorter total distance of (broad and wide waterways) than of (all waterways". So if you buy access to only the former, surely you should actually expect to pay less. > I can see the logic of varying the licence cost by length Then please state it, because I can't see it at all. > these were the rules when we started to play, after all. Yes. But we are not talking about changing the rules, so that isn't relevant. > I can also see the logic of charging by area, or displacement. Again, why? BW's costs do not vary with either of those parameters. > Including "area available to cruise" is more difficult, and, >if taken any distance at all leads to all sorts of unfortunate outcomes, >which would upset a lot of people. A canoe should pay a lot less than a >cruiser, not more, as would the ase if the licence was based on "available >area" :-} Changing to this principle would indeed produce "winners and losers", and of course the losers will grumble. However, under the current sizist regime, larger boats have been paying (a lot) too much for years. Correcting this injustice, which means also correcting the unreasonably (slightly) low charges smaller boats have been paying, is surely the, er, principled thing to do. A canoe *would* still pay less then a cruiser, as the charge would be payable only for the days it was in the water. Most canoes are kept out of the water in sheds for most of the year, not at moorings. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
