The free market (not)

In the 19th century the dividing line in politics was between those that believed in free trade, and those that did not. Those defending protectionism tended to be doing so to preserve their privileged status in society, most notably the great aristocratic land owners. They did not want cheaper agricultural products flooding into this country. But these cheaper food stuffs would have directly benefited the working classes. On the whole it is the consumer that benefits from free trade and a free market. This can be seen in the market for mobile phones in which a range of companies compete thereby giving the consumer choice and keeping the price relatively low. However it does not work in other areas of the economy; perhaps in these sectors the free market should just be abandoned altogether. Take for instance the utility companies; competition here is nonsensical and benefits nobody other than highly paid executives. Yesterday I reflected about competition on the railways, which also seems to fail the consumer. Buying a railway ticket across different providers is possible but not straightforward. I went to Flint Railway Station to buy a ticket to Coventry as the on-line system was not working. The price quoted was £120 for two return tickets. I suppose many would have just paid up, but I decided to investigate whether this was the best price. Later using one of the on-line ticket providers I managed to buy a range of shorter journey tickets that cut the overall price to just £48 for the two return tickets. The point I am making, as with the utility market, is that it is far too complex to allow free market benefits to take place. The railways and utility companies are a natural monopoly and we should treat them as such.