4 ms·

I think Doctorow is missing the elephant in the room: Monopolies can only exist without competition when there is Government power behind them that inadvertentl

I think Doctorow is missing the elephant in the room: Monopolies can only exist without competition when there is Government power behind them that inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) defend them/prop them up by regulation. A natural monopoly can be challenged by any market entry competitor - Unless barriers to entry are created by regulation. Remove the regulation overhead/government enforcement and the next entrepreneur-type that sees a market opportunity will challenge that monopoly. And if that new entry is better, there goes the previous monopoly.

petermcneeley 7y ago
I read though a bunch of your post and thought I would reply to this one. Are you not aware of network effects and economies of scale? Do you actually think monopolies are only a product of government?
- raintrees 7y ago
  Good question. I attempted to draw attention to the government-enforced part. Natural monopolies will occur over and over again. If a good product or service is offered and little effective competition exists, that company/person offering it will likely enjoy a de facto natural monopoly. What I was trying to point out was that when government organizations get involved, monopolies may end up with protection from competition, the most obvious being barriers to entry, typically through legislation/regulation that favors the current position holder. When entrepreneur-types see a profitable market occurring due to that "good product or service" it tends to attract them into wanting to compete to earn some portion of that market. And if the competing product is a better "mouse trap," then the previous monopoly is likely going to be broken up. Those who make up said market are likely going to act in their own self-interests (i.e. better price, quality, availability, etc.). Thanks to very economical communications (the Internet, as the biggest example) a single person with motivation and the appropriate skill (which can be learned from existing examples) has the ability to present themselves as legitimate as other large companies that may be made up of many people - A leveling of the playing field, to me. My bias is that I come from a "voluntaryist" point of view. All who have the opportunity to voluntarily enter into trade agreements with others stand to benefit according to their own values. Does that make sense?
  - raintrees 7y ago
    Edit: And the economical communications would be a method for combating existing network effect/economies of scale challenges. Ford and Standard Oil have been cited by others as examples of perceived natural monopolies that existed without the assistance of government regulation/legislation. https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/ https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-compan...
  - petermcneeley 7y ago
    Sure but it feels like only half the story. Yes new law could favor existing position holder but the more democratic the institution the less likely this is to happen (for obvious self interest motivations). There are some kinds of legislation that almost seem directly targeted at the current position holder, like legal requirements for Interop. Would you be in favor of those kinds of laws?
    - raintrees 7y ago
      What is an example of a "more democratic institution"? And what are the "obvious self interest motivations"? I would like to make sure I am answering the question you are asking... To answer your general question of whether I am in favor of "some kinds of legislation... ...targeted at the current position holder", my general answer is "only for the smallest municipality possible against that entity." First, I am assuming that harm can be proven to have been done against someone(s) within that municipality by that entity. Second, I am making the assumption here that the municipality involved (City? County? State?) is enforcing the will of its constituents as obtained by their appropriate mechanism (i.e. voting or other delegation of power). They are authorized to wield this power over their territory, but no other (scope definition). If an entity spanned multiple territories (Cities, Counties, States) here in the US, or multiple nations, then agreement/consensus must be sought to convince those other municipalities to concur and to mutually enforce the decree at those levels. If the other territories choose not to support the effort, then the legislation can only have effect within the territory that approved it. Power should always be determined and enforced at the smallest possible level, requiring consensus all the way up any possible authority-chain of command. This allows the entity to move its operations to a territory that agrees with the activities, assuming one can be found. This also allows for the most possible satisfaction of the residents of the respective territories. I also hold the opinion that current behavior of US States and of the General Government (Federal) have strayed far too much from the original design of individual sovereigns granting limited powers to representative government. And this is likely the reason for so much of the polemic disagreement (unfortunately to the point of virtriol in many cases) that I witness today. A solution to that (granted, not that you asked for one :) ) would be to reduce the General Government to a tenth of its current size to start, and see if that is enough to have a more satisfied populace. With the understanding that it is immoral to enforce my own ethics upon any other under any measure of coercion; Only through consent between all parties involved. The power hierarchy below this level (State, County, City, Township, etc.) would choose to incorporate that legislation that was formerly being wielded/enforced at a higher level, that is approved by their constituency. Think local, act local. Again, if it is not already obvious, my bias is much more anarcho-capitalist, working towards a voluntarist society. Individual people coming to agreements to conduct trade and agreeing to delegate limited power to representative government. Maybe too much caffeine for me this morning ;)

petermcneeley 7y ago

I read though a bunch of your post and thought I would reply to this one. Are you not aware of network effects and economies of scale? Do you actually think monopolies are only a product of government?

raintrees 7y ago
Good question. I attempted to draw attention to the government-enforced part. Natural monopolies will occur over and over again. If a good product or service is offered and little effective competition exists, that company/person offering it will likely enjoy a de facto natural monopoly. What I was trying to point out was that when government organizations get involved, monopolies may end up with protection from competition, the most obvious being barriers to entry, typically through legislation/regulation that favors the current position holder. When entrepreneur-types see a profitable market occurring due to that "good product or service" it tends to attract them into wanting to compete to earn some portion of that market. And if the competing product is a better "mouse trap," then the previous monopoly is likely going to be broken up. Those who make up said market are likely going to act in their own self-interests (i.e. better price, quality, availability, etc.). Thanks to very economical communications (the Internet, as the biggest example) a single person with motivation and the appropriate skill (which can be learned from existing examples) has the ability to present themselves as legitimate as other large companies that may be made up of many people - A leveling of the playing field, to me. My bias is that I come from a "voluntaryist" point of view. All who have the opportunity to voluntarily enter into trade agreements with others stand to benefit according to their own values. Does that make sense?
- raintrees 7y ago
  Edit: And the economical communications would be a method for combating existing network effect/economies of scale challenges. Ford and Standard Oil have been cited by others as examples of perceived natural monopolies that existed without the assistance of government regulation/legislation. https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/ https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-compan...
- petermcneeley 7y ago
  Sure but it feels like only half the story. Yes new law could favor existing position holder but the more democratic the institution the less likely this is to happen (for obvious self interest motivations). There are some kinds of legislation that almost seem directly targeted at the current position holder, like legal requirements for Interop. Would you be in favor of those kinds of laws?
  - raintrees 7y ago
    What is an example of a "more democratic institution"? And what are the "obvious self interest motivations"? I would like to make sure I am answering the question you are asking... To answer your general question of whether I am in favor of "some kinds of legislation... ...targeted at the current position holder", my general answer is "only for the smallest municipality possible against that entity." First, I am assuming that harm can be proven to have been done against someone(s) within that municipality by that entity. Second, I am making the assumption here that the municipality involved (City? County? State?) is enforcing the will of its constituents as obtained by their appropriate mechanism (i.e. voting or other delegation of power). They are authorized to wield this power over their territory, but no other (scope definition). If an entity spanned multiple territories (Cities, Counties, States) here in the US, or multiple nations, then agreement/consensus must be sought to convince those other municipalities to concur and to mutually enforce the decree at those levels. If the other territories choose not to support the effort, then the legislation can only have effect within the territory that approved it. Power should always be determined and enforced at the smallest possible level, requiring consensus all the way up any possible authority-chain of command. This allows the entity to move its operations to a territory that agrees with the activities, assuming one can be found. This also allows for the most possible satisfaction of the residents of the respective territories. I also hold the opinion that current behavior of US States and of the General Government (Federal) have strayed far too much from the original design of individual sovereigns granting limited powers to representative government. And this is likely the reason for so much of the polemic disagreement (unfortunately to the point of virtriol in many cases) that I witness today. A solution to that (granted, not that you asked for one :) ) would be to reduce the General Government to a tenth of its current size to start, and see if that is enough to have a more satisfied populace. With the understanding that it is immoral to enforce my own ethics upon any other under any measure of coercion; Only through consent between all parties involved. The power hierarchy below this level (State, County, City, Township, etc.) would choose to incorporate that legislation that was formerly being wielded/enforced at a higher level, that is approved by their constituency. Think local, act local. Again, if it is not already obvious, my bias is much more anarcho-capitalist, working towards a voluntarist society. Individual people coming to agreements to conduct trade and agreeing to delegate limited power to representative government. Maybe too much caffeine for me this morning ;)