25 ms·

What’s the definition of markets being appropriate, and what’s your course of action when you decide they ceased to be?

captainbland 8y ago
Basically wherever there's not a natural monopoly, otherwise markets are generally appropriate. Examples of natural monopolies generally include things like water, rail and healthcare where competition does not easily take place either because of its reliance on exclusive access to limited natural resources, space or just the vast upfront cost of entering into competition because of infrastructure. Where there is, sometimes the state is the right thing to run it (either directly or maybe as a part of an independent body which receives state funding) - sometimes it's better broken down into municiple level entities and run at the local level.
- andrenth 8y ago
  Would you be open to exploring the idea that natural monopolies are in fact anything but natural, being instead a result of government intervention?
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    They are not. Please read up the story on forests and lumber business in the United Kingdom. Also what happened to certain kinds of river transport when cities happened to privatize parts of rivers with tariffs. Or desirable farmland in the United States more recently. (vs bisons) Usually what happened is that the strongest choke point or first mover on a truly limited resource gets to monopolize or.
    - andrenth 8y ago
      Could you provide some links?
  - captainbland 8y ago
    I have explored it and came to the conclusion that it cannot be correct. In the absence of government intervention, companies are free to basically form their own government. They would control labour and resources, hence power, and so create the rules. This is exactly equivalent to large companies lobbying government in their favour, except you cut out the middle man. Look at the City of London (not to be confused with city London that surrounds it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london#Elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london#Elections ) for example. In the square mile, businesses put forward representatives and vote on them, who become aldermen. This is the kind of arrangement you encourage without government intervention. Now you might think "the City of London is pretty successful" - and you'd be right it is a lovely tourist spot, but it is also a hive of massive, global corporations with rents that are totally unaffordable for the majority of people working in the area and office space that is prohibitively expensive for anyone looking to start-up in the area. Trust me, nobody is pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in the City - it's all about climbing greasy poles.

Basically wherever there's not a natural monopoly, otherwise markets are generally appropriate. Examples of natural monopolies generally include things like water, rail and healthcare where competition does not easily take place either because of its reliance on exclusive access to limited natural resources, space or just the vast upfront cost of entering into competition because of infrastructure. Where there is, sometimes the state is the right thing to run it (either directly or maybe as a part of an independent body which receives state funding) - sometimes it's better broken down into municiple level entities and run at the local level.

andrenth 8y ago
Would you be open to exploring the idea that natural monopolies are in fact anything but natural, being instead a result of government intervention?
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  They are not. Please read up the story on forests and lumber business in the United Kingdom. Also what happened to certain kinds of river transport when cities happened to privatize parts of rivers with tariffs. Or desirable farmland in the United States more recently. (vs bisons) Usually what happened is that the strongest choke point or first mover on a truly limited resource gets to monopolize or.
  - andrenth 8y ago
    Could you provide some links?
- captainbland 8y ago
  I have explored it and came to the conclusion that it cannot be correct. In the absence of government intervention, companies are free to basically form their own government. They would control labour and resources, hence power, and so create the rules. This is exactly equivalent to large companies lobbying government in their favour, except you cut out the middle man. Look at the City of London (not to be confused with city London that surrounds it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london#Elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london#Elections ) for example. In the square mile, businesses put forward representatives and vote on them, who become aldermen. This is the kind of arrangement you encourage without government intervention. Now you might think "the City of London is pretty successful" - and you'd be right it is a lovely tourist spot, but it is also a hive of massive, global corporations with rents that are totally unaffordable for the majority of people working in the area and office space that is prohibitively expensive for anyone looking to start-up in the area. Trust me, nobody is pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in the City - it's all about climbing greasy poles.