Re: короче,

Да я эти линки и не запоминал. Но из "истории" браузера вытащил сейчас, например http://www.linkingvictoria.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/transport.nsf/AllDocs/9C2BEAE8331B06A1CA256BAC00214B28?OpenDocument В нем приводится The case against deregulation Among the alternatives investigated by the Government was industry deregulation. This option was discounted after examining other systems around the world where wholesale deregulation already exists and discovering that this approach, for the most part, failed. Documented overseas experience where deregulation of the taxi industry has occurred found that: taxi numbers increased dramatically taxi demand remained stable or declined taxi fares increased productivity and driver income declined standards deteriorated congestion at ranks increased. The practical experience has been supported by worldwide research. For example, Professor Paul Dempsey (Professor of Law and Director of the Transportation of Law Program at the University of Denver) in a report Taxi Industry, Deregulation and Reregulation: the paradox of Market Failure 1996 concluded: "Virtually every major city which has tasted economic deregulation of the taxi industry has lived to regret it, and reversed course. The fundamental question is not whether taxis should be regulated, but how they might best be regulated." Furthermore, a recent Price Waterhouse study of 21 cities with deregulated taxi industries concluded: "Although the supply of taxi services expanded dramatically, only marginal service improvements were experienced by consumers. Prices rose in every instance and service quality declined." All large cities that have deregulated in the United States in the 1970's and 1980's have since re-regulated in a number of important areas. Deregulated systems including the mini-cab industry operating in London and the Darwin taxi network are now returning to a more consistent, regulated approach. Recently, some questions have also been raised about the outcome of deregulation in New Zealand, particularly the adequacy of services for people with disabilities. Deregulation would also lead to further costs to the Government and community. Taxi licences are tradeable commodities with values in excess of $300,000. Deregulation and open entry would raise the need to compensate existing licence owners – this would cost more than $1 billion and would have to be passed onto passengers. Ну и подобных суждений я увидел множество. Можно, конечно, разбирать по косточкам (например, последний абзац выдает этих ребят с головой: в Австралии был установлен судебный прецедент, по которому суд потребовал правительству вернуть жетоновладельцам в одном из штатов stranded costs -- где-то около 240 тысяч ихних баксов каждому владельцу лицензии. То есть вопрос у них закрыт: дерегулирование означает компенсации текущим владельцам жетонов их расходов как минимум на покупку жетонов. А этого штаты себе позволить не могут финансово, вот и перевирают разные отчеты. А потом в разных местах уже последний абзац не читают, а цитируют остальной текст...