5 ms·

This thread is confusing State granted monopoly with Market granted monopoly. Economists usually talks about the former.

sevensor 9y ago
> This thread is confusing State granted monopoly with Market granted monopoly. Economists usually talks about the former. Can you really tease those apart in our mixed economy? Look at ISP monopolies, or the bizarre state of the "deregulated" electricity market and what remains of the long-distance telephone market. Or take pharma, where tremendous resources are needed to comply with regulation. Or the -- tremendous scare quotes required -- "marketplace" for health care. In a mixed economy, monopoly exists because of state and market.
- wav-part 9y ago
  In all your examples, state acts as gate-keeper and these are local/national industries. If you have a multi-national company that is monopoly, its very likely to be market granted monopoly. > In a mixed economy, monopoly exists because of state and market. No. We live in global economy. Most companies have to compete globally. You might get favours from few countries but not most. Note whether your home country gives you a boost or not, is irrelevent. The success in a foreign country without its govt's blessing, is the question.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    I'm confused. The article was about the United States, which has an enormous regulatory apparatus. You're saying that's irrelevant to multi-national corporations that operate here?
    - wav-part 9y ago
      No. If some MNC is a global monopoly then the industry is lightly/none regulated by most significant countries. Though, USA is an exception, achived arguably due to history of low market intervention. I would not say that the MNC does not care but achieving global monopoly in heavely regulated industry is very hard. Case in point, in banking industry (the most regulated sector), there is no private (or even public) global monopoly.
zanny 9y ago
There are extremely few natural market monopolies, and almost all of those that exist are the kind that provide the strongest argument for collectivization of that industry - because the vast majority of such monopolies fall under the broad umbrella of infrastructure.

sevensor 9y ago

> This thread is confusing State granted monopoly with Market granted monopoly. Economists usually talks about the former. Can you really tease those apart in our mixed economy? Look at ISP monopolies, or the bizarre state of the "deregulated" electricity market and what remains of the long-distance telephone market. Or take pharma, where tremendous resources are needed to comply with regulation. Or the -- tremendous scare quotes required -- "marketplace" for health care. In a mixed economy, monopoly exists because of state and market.

wav-part 9y ago
In all your examples, state acts as gate-keeper and these are local/national industries. If you have a multi-national company that is monopoly, its very likely to be market granted monopoly. > In a mixed economy, monopoly exists because of state and market. No. We live in global economy. Most companies have to compete globally. You might get favours from few countries but not most. Note whether your home country gives you a boost or not, is irrelevent. The success in a foreign country without its govt's blessing, is the question.
- sevensor 9y ago
  I'm confused. The article was about the United States, which has an enormous regulatory apparatus. You're saying that's irrelevant to multi-national corporations that operate here?
  - wav-part 9y ago
    No. If some MNC is a global monopoly then the industry is lightly/none regulated by most significant countries. Though, USA is an exception, achived arguably due to history of low market intervention. I would not say that the MNC does not care but achieving global monopoly in heavely regulated industry is very hard. Case in point, in banking industry (the most regulated sector), there is no private (or even public) global monopoly.

zanny 9y ago

There are extremely few natural market monopolies, and almost all of those that exist are the kind that provide the strongest argument for collectivization of that industry - because the vast majority of such monopolies fall under the broad umbrella of infrastructure.