7 ms·

> but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists. So what conclusions do you draw about Libertarian - really in this case Austrian - deregul

> but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists. So what conclusions do you draw about Libertarian - really in this case Austrian - deregulation of markets? Given that: * Comcast exists * It provides service to (IIRC) millions of people * It turns a tidy profit ... it seems like the worst case example you can raise isn't so bad? I mean, if you're citing Comcast as a worst case criticism of Libertarianism, that's a lot better than say the whole of Venezuela as an example of a planned economy.

programmarchy 10y ago
If we had a free market, without laws preventing competition like we do now, then there'd likely be alternatives to choose from, e.g. people could pay more for privacy or get a bargain if they don't care about privacy. Since Comcast uses the state to enforce its monopoly, the artificial scarcity has the effect of locking in users. Comcast is a great example of why free markets should exist -- to give users more choice.
- Osiris 10y ago
  Pure laissez-faire capitalism naturally converges toward monopolies. Without regulation, the only thing that prevents monopolies from developing is if there is a low cost of entry to a market. In an industry where there is a very high cost of entry (like building out a massive telecommunication network), the end result is very assuredly a single monopoly power. Think about it. The telecoms were already broken up once. The continue to attempt to merge (AT&T + T-mobile, TWC + Comcast). Without a regulatory agency disallowing mergers in the name of competition, you wouldn't have choice at all. The end result of competition is no competition at all.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    These are good points but you're leaving off the fact that these companies paid off State legislatures to make competition illegal in various ways. Particularly stopping people in a city or state from using tax dollars to fund something better. It's banned in some with only the local utility able to do it in others. Plus, the big companies got billions in tax subsidies to build their networks with promise of getting broadband to about everyone. Quite a lot of corruption by a cartel of a few instead of laissez-faire.
    - Osiris 10y ago
      Exactly. Businesses will use whatever means at their disposal to remove competition, whether that's government, financial, and even morally reprehensible actions at the expense of others. My point is that even if companies weren't able to leverage government to reduce competition, they'd find other mechanisms to accomplish the same goal, such as just buying up all the competition. Think about it. If you're a competitor and trying to make profit, how better to do that than to consolidate with the big players until one player gains significant control over the market to demand whatever price they wish to maximize their profit?
      - cloverich 10y ago
        I think the counter point is: What's stopping another player from entering the market? They can only keep buying up the competition if the competition is always willing to sell. More over, the ability to buy up the competition presumes a sufficient surplus of profits to be able to do that in perpetuity. Another large actor (say, Google), could recognize this and enter the market without any intention of selling (only of capturing those surplus profits). To be clear I'm not for any ideology here -- my point above is to get at what I want to discuss: Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? (I hope Yes / No / Yes, but don't know!)
        antisthenes 10y ago
        > Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? 1. Yes. Consider the cities where Comcast had to compete with G. Fiber and see how much faster the speeds they are offering are. 2. They exist for good reason for Comcast, not so much for everyone else. And Comcast spent a good deal of money to lobby policymakers to install those regulations in the first place. The government didn't just mandate them out of the blue. 3. You can work on removing them if you have a comparable level of access to policymakers as Comcast does. Do you?
    - 10y ago
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    Austrian Economics - not to mention countless practical examples - say otherwise: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Monopoly http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Monopoly
  - tn13 10y ago
    Depends on what king of monopolies those are. We are better off with an Apple (smartphone) and Google (search) monopoly because they are pretty good in their quality. If they slip (like blackberry or yahoo) someone will throw them out pretty quickly in a free market. In a non-free market government will eventually help someone accumulate lot more power and money without a competition is sight. Government is the reason why Google fiber is not available in Sunnyvale.
    - cm2187 10y ago
      It's one thing to replace a mobile phone that you replace every two years anyway. It is another to pull a fibre optic cable through half of your neighbourhood all the way to your living room. The acquisition cost of a new client for utility companies is prohibitive, so it is biasing capitalism a lot (very little competition).
    - darpa_escapee 10y ago
      I can't think of a situation in which a monopoly has benefitted consumers over time. I'd kill for a 2003-2008 era Google search product, but the competition is slim. Not to mention, Google likes to use its monopoly to encroach upon other markets. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      > We are better off with [...] Google (search) monopoly because they are pretty good in their quality. Better off compared to what alternative ?
      - tn13 10y ago
        Alternatives are the are trying to compete. Samsung or Bing in above case.
  - coupdetaco 10y ago
    Wouldn't a large monopoly just swallow the competition, and the competition would be internal? Its competition between humans that makes companies see success.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  You definitely have that completely backwards.
pjc50 10y ago
I do like how libertarians play the false dichotomy. Everything must be either Full Libertarianism or Full Communism. No room for the inconvenient realities of a functioning mixed economy.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  How did you get that, from what I posted? Either I was unclear, or you meant to reply to someone else?
  - pjc50 10y ago
    The irrelevant mention of Venezuela?
    - duncan_bayne 10y ago
      Okay, it was me being unclear :) The OP said he thought Comcast was the worst example of free market policies in action that he could think of. Leaving aside that Comcast is not operating in anything like a free economy, I was trying to make the point that if it was truly the worst example he could think of, then he should probably reconsider his criticism of free market policies. I cited Venezuela as the worst (contemporary) example of a planned economy that I could think of, as a counterpoint to his worst example in Comcast. But yes, the facts are that: * Almost all economies today are mixed (that is, neither entirely free or entirely planned). * They mostly work pretty well, in the sense that people nowadays are much better off, by almost every conceivable measure, than in the past. My argument is that: * Nations are better off to the extent that their markets are free (e.g. Denmark vs. Cuba). * Leaving aside the economic outcomes, coercion in economic matters is as morally wrong as in others (e.g. forcing someone to take a customer they don't want is as wrong as prohibiting them from taking a customer they do want; for concrete examples, think gay wedding cakes and legislated segregation on buses).
      - pjc50 10y ago
        Yeah, if the worst thing that's happened to you under capitalism is being overcharged by Comcast, you're still having a pretty good day and should look for worse examples. All sorts of things from the US healthcare system to Philip "unacceptable face of capitalism" Green might count as worse. Thankyou for acknowledging those facts. It's interesting that you choose to mention Denmark. My point was that suggesting applying even the tiniest bit of regulation to a near-monopoly market participant immediately brings out the comparison to Venezuela; it's just hyperbole in the opposite direction. I don't think people are arguing that the US should become more like Venezuela in order to reduce their broadband bills; more that it should learn from Denmark. My experience of libertarianism is people arguing that any amount of abuse of power by private actors is fine, it's just that government is magic and any use of its power will immediately collapse into abuse. This rests on contorted definitions of "coercion" that don't include restriction of economic options or even anti-market actions by private actors. "Free market" and "unlimited power for market actors" aren't quite the same thing.

programmarchy 10y ago

If we had a free market, without laws preventing competition like we do now, then there'd likely be alternatives to choose from, e.g. people could pay more for privacy or get a bargain if they don't care about privacy. Since Comcast uses the state to enforce its monopoly, the artificial scarcity has the effect of locking in users. Comcast is a great example of why free markets should exist -- to give users more choice.

Osiris 10y ago
Pure laissez-faire capitalism naturally converges toward monopolies. Without regulation, the only thing that prevents monopolies from developing is if there is a low cost of entry to a market. In an industry where there is a very high cost of entry (like building out a massive telecommunication network), the end result is very assuredly a single monopoly power. Think about it. The telecoms were already broken up once. The continue to attempt to merge (AT&T + T-mobile, TWC + Comcast). Without a regulatory agency disallowing mergers in the name of competition, you wouldn't have choice at all. The end result of competition is no competition at all.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  These are good points but you're leaving off the fact that these companies paid off State legislatures to make competition illegal in various ways. Particularly stopping people in a city or state from using tax dollars to fund something better. It's banned in some with only the local utility able to do it in others. Plus, the big companies got billions in tax subsidies to build their networks with promise of getting broadband to about everyone. Quite a lot of corruption by a cartel of a few instead of laissez-faire.
  - Osiris 10y ago
    Exactly. Businesses will use whatever means at their disposal to remove competition, whether that's government, financial, and even morally reprehensible actions at the expense of others. My point is that even if companies weren't able to leverage government to reduce competition, they'd find other mechanisms to accomplish the same goal, such as just buying up all the competition. Think about it. If you're a competitor and trying to make profit, how better to do that than to consolidate with the big players until one player gains significant control over the market to demand whatever price they wish to maximize their profit?
    - cloverich 10y ago
      I think the counter point is: What's stopping another player from entering the market? They can only keep buying up the competition if the competition is always willing to sell. More over, the ability to buy up the competition presumes a sufficient surplus of profits to be able to do that in perpetuity. Another large actor (say, Google), could recognize this and enter the market without any intention of selling (only of capturing those surplus profits). To be clear I'm not for any ideology here -- my point above is to get at what I want to discuss: Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? (I hope Yes / No / Yes, but don't know!)
      - antisthenes 10y ago
        > Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? 1. Yes. Consider the cities where Comcast had to compete with G. Fiber and see how much faster the speeds they are offering are. 2. They exist for good reason for Comcast, not so much for everyone else. And Comcast spent a good deal of money to lobby policymakers to install those regulations in the first place. The government didn't just mandate them out of the blue. 3. You can work on removing them if you have a comparable level of access to policymakers as Comcast does. Do you?
  - 10y ago
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Austrian Economics - not to mention countless practical examples - say otherwise: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Monopoly http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Monopoly
- tn13 10y ago
  Depends on what king of monopolies those are. We are better off with an Apple (smartphone) and Google (search) monopoly because they are pretty good in their quality. If they slip (like blackberry or yahoo) someone will throw them out pretty quickly in a free market. In a non-free market government will eventually help someone accumulate lot more power and money without a competition is sight. Government is the reason why Google fiber is not available in Sunnyvale.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    It's one thing to replace a mobile phone that you replace every two years anyway. It is another to pull a fibre optic cable through half of your neighbourhood all the way to your living room. The acquisition cost of a new client for utility companies is prohibitive, so it is biasing capitalism a lot (very little competition).
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    I can't think of a situation in which a monopoly has benefitted consumers over time. I'd kill for a 2003-2008 era Google search product, but the competition is slim. Not to mention, Google likes to use its monopoly to encroach upon other markets. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    > We are better off with [...] Google (search) monopoly because they are pretty good in their quality. Better off compared to what alternative ?
    - tn13 10y ago
      Alternatives are the are trying to compete. Samsung or Bing in above case.
- coupdetaco 10y ago
  Wouldn't a large monopoly just swallow the competition, and the competition would be internal? Its competition between humans that makes companies see success.
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
You definitely have that completely backwards.

pjc50 10y ago

I do like how libertarians play the false dichotomy. Everything must be either Full Libertarianism or Full Communism. No room for the inconvenient realities of a functioning mixed economy.

duncan_bayne 10y ago
How did you get that, from what I posted? Either I was unclear, or you meant to reply to someone else?
- pjc50 10y ago
  The irrelevant mention of Venezuela?
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    Okay, it was me being unclear :) The OP said he thought Comcast was the worst example of free market policies in action that he could think of. Leaving aside that Comcast is not operating in anything like a free economy, I was trying to make the point that if it was truly the worst example he could think of, then he should probably reconsider his criticism of free market policies. I cited Venezuela as the worst (contemporary) example of a planned economy that I could think of, as a counterpoint to his worst example in Comcast. But yes, the facts are that: * Almost all economies today are mixed (that is, neither entirely free or entirely planned). * They mostly work pretty well, in the sense that people nowadays are much better off, by almost every conceivable measure, than in the past. My argument is that: * Nations are better off to the extent that their markets are free (e.g. Denmark vs. Cuba). * Leaving aside the economic outcomes, coercion in economic matters is as morally wrong as in others (e.g. forcing someone to take a customer they don't want is as wrong as prohibiting them from taking a customer they do want; for concrete examples, think gay wedding cakes and legislated segregation on buses).
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Yeah, if the worst thing that's happened to you under capitalism is being overcharged by Comcast, you're still having a pretty good day and should look for worse examples. All sorts of things from the US healthcare system to Philip "unacceptable face of capitalism" Green might count as worse. Thankyou for acknowledging those facts. It's interesting that you choose to mention Denmark. My point was that suggesting applying even the tiniest bit of regulation to a near-monopoly market participant immediately brings out the comparison to Venezuela; it's just hyperbole in the opposite direction. I don't think people are arguing that the US should become more like Venezuela in order to reduce their broadband bills; more that it should learn from Denmark. My experience of libertarianism is people arguing that any amount of abuse of power by private actors is fine, it's just that government is magic and any use of its power will immediately collapse into abuse. This rests on contorted definitions of "coercion" that don't include restriction of economic options or even anti-market actions by private actors. "Free market" and "unlimited power for market actors" aren't quite the same thing.