4 ms·

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.

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.