6 ms·

One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products? The real probl

One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products? The real problem It's not the monopoly it's the Monopoly tax.

eli_gottlieb 4y ago
If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  That does not follow. "The monopolist can do this efficiently" != "the government can do this efficiently". In particular, the monopolist has given evidence of knowing how to run that operation well. The government has given no such evidence. I'm not a fan of monopolies, but your position is flawed.
  - carschno 4y ago
    How do you come to conclude that Organisation A (monopolist) will magically be less good than Organisation A (owned by the state)? If the same organisation is profitable while but state-owned, it could also be an indicator that it's just not operating in a legit way. Note: I think you've also been confusing government and state, but I assume that was not intentionally.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      > Note: I think you've also been confusing government and state, but I assume that was not intentionally. Not intentionally, no. Given that the context was nationalization, what in your view is the difference between government and state?
      - carschno 4y ago
        Ideally, a government (temporally) "steers" a state, which, again ideally, would be the property of its inhabitants.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    If we go from a generic concept of monopoly as consolidation of power instead of a specific instance of monopoly - this company has consolidated power - then it follows that if consolidation of power is more efficient we should just consolidate power. But sure, if it's specific instances of consolidation that are more efficient then you are correct, the specific company has shown it can do it efficiently and thus it does not follow that consolidation with the government would be efficient. but if you have a situation that what determines if a monopoly is efficient is that it is a monopoly and controls its industry then it seems we have just in a round about way gotten back to any consolidation of power is efficient and the government should do it. Unless you can show inefficient consolidation of power that is inefficient in some way other than by losing the power then it seems the argument for nationalization is back on. on edit: on the other hand if you can show an inefficient consolidation of power, like consolidation of majority of shopping through one portal that is yet unable to keep counterfeit products out, then it argues that inefficient consolidation of power should be broken up because it's inefficiencies will not be solved as long as the power is consolidated and competition will hopefully help.
  - datavirtue 4y ago
    Monopolists are non-representative governments.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    The monopolist isn't a person per se, unless you imagine Jeff Bezos micromanaged every aspect of Amazon. 'Run well' like 'efficiently' is up for debate. Amazon is efficient because of its distribution model and allegedly because it exploits its workers to some degree. Many labor practices would be incompatible with standards of government employment, for the good reason that government should uphold the very labor standards it extols to the market. So if Amazon's retail distribution were nationalized, either it would run less efficiently or we'd have to admit that it's profitability depends on practices many consider unsavory or unethical. But let's take ethics out of the equation and suppose you have a highly efficient operation run entirely by robots, which is also a monopoly. In a competitive environment margins should fall within the range of normal profits, but if it's a monopoly then the owner can continue to extract economic rents and you're essentially back to landlordism. In that case there isn't a good argument against nationalization or jacking the marginal tax rate sky high.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    The monopolist is just some asshole with advisors. If the government can't hire advisors, shut it down, it's pointless.
- domador 4y ago
  Not all monopolists are equally efficient at managing their monopolies. Especially monopolies that can bail themselves out by forcing people to subsidize their losses.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - eli_gottlieb 4y ago
    I agree, but I'm also making a point: a truly natural monopoly, one created by circumstances or structural factors, doesn't really require a monopolist, per se. This has been the traditional argument for state ownership or heavy regulation of utility companies, for instance.
biorach 4y ago
There's a large body of economic literature arguing that competition breeds efficiency and better service. Granted it's only starting to grapple with the question of how to regulate the new economy - c.f. Lina Khan's paper on Amazon which made quite an impression [1] So it's not clear that breaking up a digital marketplace monopoly would result in shittier products, tho I agree that the theory is less clear cut than in the case of more traditional businesses. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalela...
- kqr 4y ago
  This is one of those weird things where in principle, a monopoly should be both interested in providing the best possible service (to keep their position indefinitely, even through technology shifts), and in a unique position to invest in research to make it so (under competition, it's harder to invest in research.) In practise, that's not what happens.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    That's not even true in principle. A monopoly's interest is in moatbuilding and maintaining their monopoly. If service and research achieve that, then fine, but if they don't that's also fine.
  - igorkraw 4y ago
    Why would a monopoly be interested in providing the near possible service? They can simply lobby to make upstarts impossible, or buy them, or bleed them dry with localised dumping prices, or steal all of their best ideas given they have more resources. All of these have much higher margins. It's not a "weird thing" it's the inherent reason why anti trust laws and regulations are required for efficient markets, and why rent seekers always argue for free markets
danaris 4y ago
It doesn't matter how good at what they do a particular company is; we still don't let them take over everything. If we were to be organizing our economy based on what is maximally efficient, it would be much more effective to do so with the government in charge...but somehow, the people who talk about letting one efficient company take over everything never seem to think that letting the government do the same thing, but without taking massive profits, would be good.
akira2501 4y ago
What this viewpoint always misses is the labor market. That's a real market with real consequences, and when monopolies roll up entire industries, that's market power that gets used _against_ workers and their wages. I don't think it's worth ignoring that or the loss in real innovations in the name of being deferential to established business and the imagined value of the quality products they create.
pessimizer 4y ago
> One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? It's a good point. My problem with monopolies is that they minimize risk and maximize reward, basically becoming a tax authority. Once you become a monopoly, you should graduate to nationalization.

eli_gottlieb 4y ago

If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
That does not follow. "The monopolist can do this efficiently" != "the government can do this efficiently". In particular, the monopolist has given evidence of knowing how to run that operation well. The government has given no such evidence. I'm not a fan of monopolies, but your position is flawed.
- carschno 4y ago
  How do you come to conclude that Organisation A (monopolist) will magically be less good than Organisation A (owned by the state)? If the same organisation is profitable while but state-owned, it could also be an indicator that it's just not operating in a legit way. Note: I think you've also been confusing government and state, but I assume that was not intentionally.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > Note: I think you've also been confusing government and state, but I assume that was not intentionally. Not intentionally, no. Given that the context was nationalization, what in your view is the difference between government and state?
    - carschno 4y ago
      Ideally, a government (temporally) "steers" a state, which, again ideally, would be the property of its inhabitants.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  If we go from a generic concept of monopoly as consolidation of power instead of a specific instance of monopoly - this company has consolidated power - then it follows that if consolidation of power is more efficient we should just consolidate power. But sure, if it's specific instances of consolidation that are more efficient then you are correct, the specific company has shown it can do it efficiently and thus it does not follow that consolidation with the government would be efficient. but if you have a situation that what determines if a monopoly is efficient is that it is a monopoly and controls its industry then it seems we have just in a round about way gotten back to any consolidation of power is efficient and the government should do it. Unless you can show inefficient consolidation of power that is inefficient in some way other than by losing the power then it seems the argument for nationalization is back on. on edit: on the other hand if you can show an inefficient consolidation of power, like consolidation of majority of shopping through one portal that is yet unable to keep counterfeit products out, then it argues that inefficient consolidation of power should be broken up because it's inefficiencies will not be solved as long as the power is consolidated and competition will hopefully help.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  Monopolists are non-representative governments.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  The monopolist isn't a person per se, unless you imagine Jeff Bezos micromanaged every aspect of Amazon. 'Run well' like 'efficiently' is up for debate. Amazon is efficient because of its distribution model and allegedly because it exploits its workers to some degree. Many labor practices would be incompatible with standards of government employment, for the good reason that government should uphold the very labor standards it extols to the market. So if Amazon's retail distribution were nationalized, either it would run less efficiently or we'd have to admit that it's profitability depends on practices many consider unsavory or unethical. But let's take ethics out of the equation and suppose you have a highly efficient operation run entirely by robots, which is also a monopoly. In a competitive environment margins should fall within the range of normal profits, but if it's a monopoly then the owner can continue to extract economic rents and you're essentially back to landlordism. In that case there isn't a good argument against nationalization or jacking the marginal tax rate sky high.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The monopolist is just some asshole with advisors. If the government can't hire advisors, shut it down, it's pointless.
domador 4y ago
Not all monopolists are equally efficient at managing their monopolies. Especially monopolies that can bail themselves out by forcing people to subsidize their losses.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  I agree, but I'm also making a point: a truly natural monopoly, one created by circumstances or structural factors, doesn't really require a monopolist, per se. This has been the traditional argument for state ownership or heavy regulation of utility companies, for instance.

biorach 4y ago

There's a large body of economic literature arguing that competition breeds efficiency and better service. Granted it's only starting to grapple with the question of how to regulate the new economy - c.f. Lina Khan's paper on Amazon which made quite an impression [1] So it's not clear that breaking up a digital marketplace monopoly would result in shittier products, tho I agree that the theory is less clear cut than in the case of more traditional businesses. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalela...

kqr 4y ago
This is one of those weird things where in principle, a monopoly should be both interested in providing the best possible service (to keep their position indefinitely, even through technology shifts), and in a unique position to invest in research to make it so (under competition, it's harder to invest in research.) In practise, that's not what happens.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  That's not even true in principle. A monopoly's interest is in moatbuilding and maintaining their monopoly. If service and research achieve that, then fine, but if they don't that's also fine.
- igorkraw 4y ago
  Why would a monopoly be interested in providing the near possible service? They can simply lobby to make upstarts impossible, or buy them, or bleed them dry with localised dumping prices, or steal all of their best ideas given they have more resources. All of these have much higher margins. It's not a "weird thing" it's the inherent reason why anti trust laws and regulations are required for efficient markets, and why rent seekers always argue for free markets

danaris 4y ago

It doesn't matter how good at what they do a particular company is; we still don't let them take over everything. If we were to be organizing our economy based on what is maximally efficient, it would be much more effective to do so with the government in charge...but somehow, the people who talk about letting one efficient company take over everything never seem to think that letting the government do the same thing, but without taking massive profits, would be good.

akira2501 4y ago

What this viewpoint always misses is the labor market. That's a real market with real consequences, and when monopolies roll up entire industries, that's market power that gets used _against_ workers and their wages. I don't think it's worth ignoring that or the loss in real innovations in the name of being deferential to established business and the imagined value of the quality products they create.

pessimizer 4y ago

> One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? It's a good point. My problem with monopolies is that they minimize risk and maximize reward, basically becoming a tax authority. Once you become a monopoly, you should graduate to nationalization.