5 ms·

Monopolies are granted by governments Sometimes, sure. But far from exclusively. Monopolies arise naturally in unregulated markets. The free market has a natu

Monopolies are granted by governments Sometimes, sure. But far from exclusively. Monopolies arise naturally in unregulated markets. The free market has a natural solution to monopolies, it's called competition - startups. That’s like saying that natural selection is the solution to hereditary diseases. Not so comforting for those suffering now.

nickpp 9y ago
You're right there, free markets take while to break monopolies. Time is a price we have to pay. Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions. This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies. Exactly what we were running away from. :)
- adamlett 9y ago
  Time is a price we have to pay. By which you mean that time is a price you think we ought to pay. I mean, we do actually have options. Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions. I struggle to come up with any example anywhere, where this is true. This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies I don’t see how that follows from your previous paragraph. But never mind, I get what you are trying to say, and I agree that there are plenty of examples all over the world of regulation that has the effect you describe. Sometimes simply because it’s bad regulation. But other times because it’s a worthwhile trade off. I bet you don’t mind the pharmaceutical industry being regulated. Or how about the aircraft industry. Even taxi medallions serve(d) a purpose.
tooltalk 9y ago
Do you have any examples of monopolies arise naturally in unregulated market?
- adamlett 9y ago
  I’m hesitant to answer you, because the internet has made me jaded, and I foresee getting into a long discussion about what constitutes an unregulated market and what constitutes a monopoly. As to how natural monopolies arise, Wikipedia has a good article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
  - tooltalk 9y ago
    Sure, that's what I thought -- because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies.
    - adamlett 9y ago
      Sure, that's what I thought Wow, that sure make me think we can have a fruitful discussion. because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies. Two points: - What you don't know, is a lot. The inclination to believe that since you don't know of it, it must not exist or – to put it differently – that what you know is all there is to know, is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's a sign that you actually don't know much at all. - Just because a monopoly benefits from certain regulations, it doesn't necessarily mean that those benefits was what helped create the monopoly. All companies benefit from regulation at times. They don't all become monopolies. But you tell me: What in your mind caused At&T to become a monopoly?
      - tooltalk 9y ago
        wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov't. It wasn't until late 50's and 60's when a relentless third party device maker, Thomas Carter, challenged AT&T's (and gov't sanctioned) monopoly that subsequently weakened AT&T's grip on all things communication. The rest is history. So, in your mind what caused AT&T to become a monopoly for so long?

nickpp 9y ago

You're right there, free markets take while to break monopolies. Time is a price we have to pay. Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions. This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies. Exactly what we were running away from. :)

adamlett 9y ago
Time is a price we have to pay. By which you mean that time is a price you think we ought to pay. I mean, we do actually have options. Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions. I struggle to come up with any example anywhere, where this is true. This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies I don’t see how that follows from your previous paragraph. But never mind, I get what you are trying to say, and I agree that there are plenty of examples all over the world of regulation that has the effect you describe. Sometimes simply because it’s bad regulation. But other times because it’s a worthwhile trade off. I bet you don’t mind the pharmaceutical industry being regulated. Or how about the aircraft industry. Even taxi medallions serve(d) a purpose.

tooltalk 9y ago

Do you have any examples of monopolies arise naturally in unregulated market?

adamlett 9y ago
I’m hesitant to answer you, because the internet has made me jaded, and I foresee getting into a long discussion about what constitutes an unregulated market and what constitutes a monopoly. As to how natural monopolies arise, Wikipedia has a good article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
- tooltalk 9y ago
  Sure, that's what I thought -- because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies.
  - adamlett 9y ago
    Sure, that's what I thought Wow, that sure make me think we can have a fruitful discussion. because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies. Two points: - What you don't know, is a lot. The inclination to believe that since you don't know of it, it must not exist or – to put it differently – that what you know is all there is to know, is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's a sign that you actually don't know much at all. - Just because a monopoly benefits from certain regulations, it doesn't necessarily mean that those benefits was what helped create the monopoly. All companies benefit from regulation at times. They don't all become monopolies. But you tell me: What in your mind caused At&T to become a monopoly?
    - tooltalk 9y ago
      wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov't. It wasn't until late 50's and 60's when a relentless third party device maker, Thomas Carter, challenged AT&T's (and gov't sanctioned) monopoly that subsequently weakened AT&T's grip on all things communication. The rest is history. So, in your mind what caused AT&T to become a monopoly for so long?