3 ms·

Actually, it's not. The idea of a natural monopoly is something that was made up to justify state takeovers of certain key services. If a natural monopoly actua

Actually, it's not. The idea of a natural monopoly is something that was made up to justify state takeovers of certain key services. If a natural monopoly actually existed, we wouldn't have Google Fiber expanding across the country, because it wouldn't be cost effective to do so. In fact, Google Fiber's biggest impediment to expansion has been government regulators. The same goes with water provision - if it was a natural monopoly, we wouldn't have alternatives such as bottled water available on the market (which thank goodness we do to provide to the citizens of Flint right now). Using Russia as an example of free market failures is like using Communist China as an example of what the free market will do to wages if we don't implement a minimum wage here in the States.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>If a natural monopoly actually existed, we wouldn't have Google Fiber expanding across the country Internet access isn't a natural monopoly, it just has very, very, very, very high barriers to entry. You actually can run multiple cables down the same pipe easily enough (unlike water). It still approximates a monopoly, as can be seen by the fact that the barriers to entry have prevented even a company like Google with exceptionally deep pockets from muscling in. >In fact, Google Fiber's biggest impediment to expansion has been government regulators. Did you really think Verizon and Comcast were going to let their duopoly go without a fight? >The same goes with water provision - if it was a natural monopoly, we wouldn't have alternatives such as bottled water available on the market Bottled water is an entirely different market with a very limited level of substitution with tap water. >Using Russia as an example of free market failures Is entirely appropriate since they were advised by elite "free market economists" (the kind whom you would cite as justification for your opinions) to follow the policy course that they did. Unlike China, which followed the advice of its own (rather smarter) economists.
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  Fiber internet was installed in my parent's neighborhood a few months ago. It involved multiple crews digging trenches through EVERYONE's backyard, taking more than a month to complete. I don't know where they run multiple cables down the same pipe, but it certainly isn't where my parents live. Back to the original point, somehow or another, people managed to get water before the City of Flint decided it was something they needed to control. The City did not come into being because the City Government had started providing water. Furthermore, the citizens of Flint right now are being forced to pay for water that they can't use, because it is part of their city utility bills. They can't refuse service, unlike a natural monopoly where the customer could still refuse to purchase the product if it wasn't sufficient to meet his or her needs. This is the worst part of a government monopoly, and the risk we all face when the government fails to provide a service it has promised us.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I was fascinated by this concept of natural monopoly as a conspiracy theory, I found this article that goes into the details: https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly Apparently the solution to multiple gas/phone/electric companies digging up the streets is private ownership of the streets.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the gas companies he is talking about from the 19th century covered different portions of the city and had gentlemen's agreements (that occasionally broke down) not to muscle in on one another's territory - similar to gang warfare dynamics. Thus even in the beginning they effectively had a series of mini monopolies which overlapped a little, causing 'zones' of competition. The point that flew over mises head was that this was an unstable arrangement that provided the competition that proved beneficial for a time to consumers, but eventually such situations 'stabilize' and a clear winner emerges who can basically impose a tax on everybody and collect enormous profits in the process. Mises just sort of pretends that the last part never happens unless a government steps in to force it to happen. Which is rubbish - you can easily use economies of scale and predatory pricing to drive smaller competitors out of business in such industries.
escape_goat 11y ago
Sir, I understand you to be saying that you wash your dishes, your clothing, your body exclusively in bottled water?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

crdoconnor 11y ago

>If a natural monopoly actually existed, we wouldn't have Google Fiber expanding across the country Internet access isn't a natural monopoly, it just has very, very, very, very high barriers to entry. You actually can run multiple cables down the same pipe easily enough (unlike water). It still approximates a monopoly, as can be seen by the fact that the barriers to entry have prevented even a company like Google with exceptionally deep pockets from muscling in. >In fact, Google Fiber's biggest impediment to expansion has been government regulators. Did you really think Verizon and Comcast were going to let their duopoly go without a fight? >The same goes with water provision - if it was a natural monopoly, we wouldn't have alternatives such as bottled water available on the market Bottled water is an entirely different market with a very limited level of substitution with tap water. >Using Russia as an example of free market failures Is entirely appropriate since they were advised by elite "free market economists" (the kind whom you would cite as justification for your opinions) to follow the policy course that they did. Unlike China, which followed the advice of its own (rather smarter) economists.

bsbechtel 11y ago
Fiber internet was installed in my parent's neighborhood a few months ago. It involved multiple crews digging trenches through EVERYONE's backyard, taking more than a month to complete. I don't know where they run multiple cables down the same pipe, but it certainly isn't where my parents live. Back to the original point, somehow or another, people managed to get water before the City of Flint decided it was something they needed to control. The City did not come into being because the City Government had started providing water. Furthermore, the citizens of Flint right now are being forced to pay for water that they can't use, because it is part of their city utility bills. They can't refuse service, unlike a natural monopoly where the customer could still refuse to purchase the product if it wasn't sufficient to meet his or her needs. This is the worst part of a government monopoly, and the risk we all face when the government fails to provide a service it has promised us.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

I was fascinated by this concept of natural monopoly as a conspiracy theory, I found this article that goes into the details: https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly Apparently the solution to multiple gas/phone/electric companies digging up the streets is private ownership of the streets.

crdoconnor 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the gas companies he is talking about from the 19th century covered different portions of the city and had gentlemen's agreements (that occasionally broke down) not to muscle in on one another's territory - similar to gang warfare dynamics. Thus even in the beginning they effectively had a series of mini monopolies which overlapped a little, causing 'zones' of competition. The point that flew over mises head was that this was an unstable arrangement that provided the competition that proved beneficial for a time to consumers, but eventually such situations 'stabilize' and a clear winner emerges who can basically impose a tax on everybody and collect enormous profits in the process. Mises just sort of pretends that the last part never happens unless a government steps in to force it to happen. Which is rubbish - you can easily use economies of scale and predatory pricing to drive smaller competitors out of business in such industries.

escape_goat 11y ago

Sir, I understand you to be saying that you wash your dishes, your clothing, your body exclusively in bottled water?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]