4 ms·

> A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. I'd have to disagree.

> A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. I'd have to disagree. Not many markets have monopolies - where you only have one firm in the market. Tech is an exception. In fact, I'd say that many government policies, while necessary, are a major contributor to monopolies, by imposing high costs to enter markets.

arrosenberg 7y ago
That discounts history far too much. We have more competitive markets today because of antitrust regulation passed over 100 years ago and vigorously enforced up through the 90s. Tech would be more competitive today if the DOJ had completed the Microsoft prosecution instead of settling. Our markets are becoming less competitive today because of government action due to regulatory capture - the intentional weakening of the regulatory state from within. We need more powerful, dedicated regulators in order to maintain competitive, free markets.
gzer0 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
- pdonis 7y ago
  Yes, Standard Oil, whose major "crime" was selling oil more cheaply than all of its competitors.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Don’t forget constantly increasing quality as well as falling prices.
  - gzer0 7y ago
    Standard raised prices to its monopolistic customers but lowered them to hurt competitors, often disguising its illegal actions by using bogus supposedly independent companies it controlled [1]. The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher [2]. [1]. Grayson, Leslie E. (1987). Who and How in Planning for Large Companies: Generalizations from the Experiences of Oil Companies. [2]. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911).
    - kortilla 7y ago
      As if price discrimination isn’t a practice used commonly today.
      - gzer0 7y ago
        I'm unsure what point you are trying to make here? That the practices conducted by Standard Oil were considered acceptable? Or are you stating that because it is done today (wrongfully so, imo), it was okay back then? Please elaborate.
        kortilla 7y ago
        Price discrimination isn’t really a problem. Companies do it all the time with coupons, origin of purchaser, etc. What your comment doesn’t show is why it was bad when standard oil did it.
        gzer0 7y ago
        Your comment, seems to be missing a lot more: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
        kortilla 7y ago
        Wow, super childish. Anyway, the point I was making is that all you managed to show was that standard oil practiced price discrimination as if it was some big revelation. Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. My guess is you just found out that coupons are price discrimination and are still pretty upset about that? If so, I’m sorry to break that news to you.
        gzer0 7y ago
        > Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. Back this up. None of your statements have any backing. Edit: From your comment style and prior history, you have a history of utilizing red herring and slippery slope style comments to get your way without backing a single thing you say. Please, cut the bullshit.
  - veeralpatel979 7y ago
    Didn't they collude with railroads?

arrosenberg 7y ago

That discounts history far too much. We have more competitive markets today because of antitrust regulation passed over 100 years ago and vigorously enforced up through the 90s. Tech would be more competitive today if the DOJ had completed the Microsoft prosecution instead of settling. Our markets are becoming less competitive today because of government action due to regulatory capture - the intentional weakening of the regulatory state from within. We need more powerful, dedicated regulators in order to maintain competitive, free markets.

gzer0 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

pdonis 7y ago
Yes, Standard Oil, whose major "crime" was selling oil more cheaply than all of its competitors.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Don’t forget constantly increasing quality as well as falling prices.
- gzer0 7y ago
  Standard raised prices to its monopolistic customers but lowered them to hurt competitors, often disguising its illegal actions by using bogus supposedly independent companies it controlled [1]. The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher [2]. [1]. Grayson, Leslie E. (1987). Who and How in Planning for Large Companies: Generalizations from the Experiences of Oil Companies. [2]. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911).
  - kortilla 7y ago
    As if price discrimination isn’t a practice used commonly today.
    - gzer0 7y ago
      I'm unsure what point you are trying to make here? That the practices conducted by Standard Oil were considered acceptable? Or are you stating that because it is done today (wrongfully so, imo), it was okay back then? Please elaborate.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        Price discrimination isn’t really a problem. Companies do it all the time with coupons, origin of purchaser, etc. What your comment doesn’t show is why it was bad when standard oil did it.
        gzer0 7y ago
        Your comment, seems to be missing a lot more: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
        kortilla 7y ago
        Wow, super childish. Anyway, the point I was making is that all you managed to show was that standard oil practiced price discrimination as if it was some big revelation. Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. My guess is you just found out that coupons are price discrimination and are still pretty upset about that? If so, I’m sorry to break that news to you.
        gzer0 7y ago
        > Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination. Back this up. None of your statements have any backing. Edit: From your comment style and prior history, you have a history of utilizing red herring and slippery slope style comments to get your way without backing a single thing you say. Please, cut the bullshit.
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  Didn't they collude with railroads?