4 ms·

>...They set up a legal landscape for their own benefit and everyone else’s detriment. So if I’m understanding correctly, the problem is not a lack of willingn

>...They set up a legal landscape for their own benefit and everyone else’s detriment. So if I’m understanding correctly, the problem is not a lack of willingness to break up/regulate this monopoly, but instead the regulations and lobbying that explicitly facilitated its creation? Are there any inherent facets of a free market that prevent such abuses?

mruts 7y ago
The inherent weakness of any and every society is always going to be the government. As the entity with the monopoly on force, the corruption and influence on government from interest groups will necessarily be the weak point in the system. It's incredibly hard to generate the political will of many people who will slightly be hurt by something against the will of the few who will be significantly hurt even if the aggregate damage is far greater for the many than the few. Almost all legislation follows this sort of calculus: zoning laws, tariffs, minimum wage, etc.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
skohan 7y ago
> Are there any inherent facets of a free market that prevent such abuses? No, there's nothing about free market which will automatically mitigate this issue. Markets are very good at certain things, like delivering goods and services efficiently if certain conditions are met, but they are not some panacea which can magically solve every problem. There are certain cases where markets are not very good at serving a majority of people: for instance in the case of monopolies, or when there are negative externalities which are not priced into the market (for instance it can be profitable for a company to burn a lot of fossil fuels to produce products cheaply, and everyone else suffers the environmental costs). Strict libertarians will disagree with me, but markets alone are not enough. In every example of what we could consider a well-functioning society, the government plays a role in guiding and constraining the market where necessary. Regulatory capture does represent a problem, and is an example of bad government, but that does not negate the need for good government.

mruts 7y ago

The inherent weakness of any and every society is always going to be the government. As the entity with the monopoly on force, the corruption and influence on government from interest groups will necessarily be the weak point in the system. It's incredibly hard to generate the political will of many people who will slightly be hurt by something against the will of the few who will be significantly hurt even if the aggregate damage is far greater for the many than the few. Almost all legislation follows this sort of calculus: zoning laws, tariffs, minimum wage, etc.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

skohan 7y ago

> Are there any inherent facets of a free market that prevent such abuses? No, there's nothing about free market which will automatically mitigate this issue. Markets are very good at certain things, like delivering goods and services efficiently if certain conditions are met, but they are not some panacea which can magically solve every problem. There are certain cases where markets are not very good at serving a majority of people: for instance in the case of monopolies, or when there are negative externalities which are not priced into the market (for instance it can be profitable for a company to burn a lot of fossil fuels to produce products cheaply, and everyone else suffers the environmental costs). Strict libertarians will disagree with me, but markets alone are not enough. In every example of what we could consider a well-functioning society, the government plays a role in guiding and constraining the market where necessary. Regulatory capture does represent a problem, and is an example of bad government, but that does not negate the need for good government.