5 ms·

There is no evidence of natural monopolies ever actually arising naturally as you're describing. In every instance, government either acted pre-emptively and es

by pitaj 7y ago

There is no evidence of natural monopolies ever actually arising naturally as you're describing. In every instance, government either acted pre-emptively and established a monopoly itself or the monopoly was a result of other government regulations and policies (for instance, patents and copyright).

scarface74 7y ago
Do you really want 10 different companies installing power lines, electrical wiring, etc? Also, without a government granted monopoly, private corporations would only compete in the most affluent areas. They wouldn’t offer services at an affordable rate if at all to less dense areas.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  Exactly, there may be some play when it comes to internet but that argument does not apply to water, power. It’s a highly disingenuous argument to say that we’d be better off with a fully private water market.
- pitaj 7y ago
  > Do you really want 10 different companies installing power lines, electrical wiring, etc? Yeah, that sounds amazing. Do you think there should be zero alternative firms? > Also, without a government granted monopoly, private corporations would only compete in the most affluent areas. That's a ridiculous assertion and doesn't apply to any other good. There may be more options for the affluent, but that's not the same thing. > They wouldn’t offer services at an affordable rate if at all to less dense areas. And why should they? People should be living efficiently in cities anyways where they're more productive and have less carbon footprint.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Yeah, that sounds amazing. Do you think there should be zero alternative firms Now imagine a picture of a city with 10 sets of power lines, gas lines, and water lines. Each having to ask for right away to dig up streets and right of way... That's a ridiculous assertion and doesn't apply to any other good. There may be more options for the affluent, but that's not the same thing. It’s not an “assertion” it already happens with internet and cable. No one is going out of their way to offer gigabit internet to rural America. Before, the government forced utility companies to offer service everywhere for phone lines, electricity, and to a lesser extent water. And why should they? People should be living efficiently in cities anyways where they're more productive and have less carbon footprint. Right, who needs silly stuff like farms....
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the carbon footprint if every human being just killed themselves? Personally, that sounds like a better option than living in a city.
hollerith 7y ago
In the 1980s there were many operating systems for PCs: Commodore had one, Amiga, etc. PCs became important for white-collar work with the result most prospective white-collar workers would learn how to use an OS to make it easier to find a job. Which OS did most of them learn how to use? Well, if you are a prospective software dev in 2019 which version-control software do you learn how to use to make yourself more attractive to prospective employers? git of course -- even if you think Mercurial or Fossil is better -- because git is the one most employers use. And employers will standardize on git partly because that is what their prospective employees are most likely to know. Same thing happened with personal-computer OSes in the 1980s and 1990s with the result that by 1997 Microsoft Windows had 95% or 98% of the market. (Apple was in danger of going out of business in 1997 when Microsoft publicly invested $150 million in Apple stock. Microsoft's motivation here was probably to make Microsoft look less like a monopoly to governments, reporters and voters.) Is it not possible that this mechanism by which the most popular product is the most attractive one (to prospective employees and employers in our example; in another example it might be people wanting to make phone calls) -- thereby making that product even more popular -- could create what grandparent referred to as a "natural monopoly" even in a completely unregulated market? You might reply that Microsoft could not have achieved its monopoly without the enforcement of copyright laws by governments. Well, consider an alternative reality in which there is no copyright law, but Windows is distributed only with new PCs and runs inside a cryptographically-secure enclave. In other words, there are purely technical ways to achieve the same business goal that was in actuality achieved by copyright law.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Apple was in danger of going out of business in 1997 when Microsoft publicly invested $150 million in Apple stock. Microsoft's motivation here was probably to make Microsoft look less like a monopoly to governments, reporters and voters This is apocryphal and not what happened. At the time that Microsoft invested $150M in Apple, Apple had $4 billion in the bank through loans. Also, Apple turned around and in that same quarter, paid $100 million to buy out Power Computing’s Mac license. Apple also continued to lose money for the next two or three years. The net $50 million wouldn’t have made a difference.

by pitaj 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

Do you really want 10 different companies installing power lines, electrical wiring, etc? Also, without a government granted monopoly, private corporations would only compete in the most affluent areas. They wouldn’t offer services at an affordable rate if at all to less dense areas.

tehwebguy 7y ago
Exactly, there may be some play when it comes to internet but that argument does not apply to water, power. It’s a highly disingenuous argument to say that we’d be better off with a fully private water market.
pitaj 7y ago
> Do you really want 10 different companies installing power lines, electrical wiring, etc? Yeah, that sounds amazing. Do you think there should be zero alternative firms? > Also, without a government granted monopoly, private corporations would only compete in the most affluent areas. That's a ridiculous assertion and doesn't apply to any other good. There may be more options for the affluent, but that's not the same thing. > They wouldn’t offer services at an affordable rate if at all to less dense areas. And why should they? People should be living efficiently in cities anyways where they're more productive and have less carbon footprint.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Yeah, that sounds amazing. Do you think there should be zero alternative firms Now imagine a picture of a city with 10 sets of power lines, gas lines, and water lines. Each having to ask for right away to dig up streets and right of way... That's a ridiculous assertion and doesn't apply to any other good. There may be more options for the affluent, but that's not the same thing. It’s not an “assertion” it already happens with internet and cable. No one is going out of their way to offer gigabit internet to rural America. Before, the government forced utility companies to offer service everywhere for phone lines, electricity, and to a lesser extent water. And why should they? People should be living efficiently in cities anyways where they're more productive and have less carbon footprint. Right, who needs silly stuff like farms....
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the carbon footprint if every human being just killed themselves? Personally, that sounds like a better option than living in a city.

hollerith 7y ago

In the 1980s there were many operating systems for PCs: Commodore had one, Amiga, etc. PCs became important for white-collar work with the result most prospective white-collar workers would learn how to use an OS to make it easier to find a job. Which OS did most of them learn how to use? Well, if you are a prospective software dev in 2019 which version-control software do you learn how to use to make yourself more attractive to prospective employers? git of course -- even if you think Mercurial or Fossil is better -- because git is the one most employers use. And employers will standardize on git partly because that is what their prospective employees are most likely to know. Same thing happened with personal-computer OSes in the 1980s and 1990s with the result that by 1997 Microsoft Windows had 95% or 98% of the market. (Apple was in danger of going out of business in 1997 when Microsoft publicly invested $150 million in Apple stock. Microsoft's motivation here was probably to make Microsoft look less like a monopoly to governments, reporters and voters.) Is it not possible that this mechanism by which the most popular product is the most attractive one (to prospective employees and employers in our example; in another example it might be people wanting to make phone calls) -- thereby making that product even more popular -- could create what grandparent referred to as a "natural monopoly" even in a completely unregulated market? You might reply that Microsoft could not have achieved its monopoly without the enforcement of copyright laws by governments. Well, consider an alternative reality in which there is no copyright law, but Windows is distributed only with new PCs and runs inside a cryptographically-secure enclave. In other words, there are purely technical ways to achieve the same business goal that was in actuality achieved by copyright law.

scarface74 7y ago
Apple was in danger of going out of business in 1997 when Microsoft publicly invested $150 million in Apple stock. Microsoft's motivation here was probably to make Microsoft look less like a monopoly to governments, reporters and voters This is apocryphal and not what happened. At the time that Microsoft invested $150M in Apple, Apple had $4 billion in the bank through loans. Also, Apple turned around and in that same quarter, paid $100 million to buy out Power Computing’s Mac license. Apple also continued to lose money for the next two or three years. The net $50 million wouldn’t have made a difference.