4 ms·

This quote below is gold (no pun intended). >"Let’s knock this one out of the way now: despite what people at the mises institute would have you think, not a l

This quote below is gold (no pun intended). >"Let’s knock this one out of the way now: despite what people at the mises institute would have you think, not a lot of couples divorce because of bitter arguments on the convertibility of the dollar to gold." I share a lot of libertarian views, but can't go all in as it's followers have such a black & white view on things that are inherently grey. I agree that the government is inefficient at best and corrupt/murderous at worst (i.e. innocents given the death penalty), but getting rid of everything (e.g. EPA, FDA, USDA...etc) isn't the best thing either as firms will pollute and take health shortcuts as much as possible absent any laws which prevent it. Mainstream economics points out that monopolies are bad because there is no competition, so you either break them up or regulate them. Libertarians frequently adhere to Austrian economics and you have folks like Milei saying a market failure cannot occur and there is nothing wrong with monopolies. There are valid concerns regarding ineffective regulators and those captured by industry too. Unfortunately, neither a full market based anarchy (i.e. government is there to basically only protect your property rights) or extreme regulations (immeasurable beauracracy)are the way to go IMO. What you want is something in between the two extremes. The question becomes where to draw the line (if this is familiar...it's the same argument as the Laffer curve for taxes). Progressives think it needs to shift one way and Conservatives the opposite. The true answer IMO is that some things need a lot more regulation and some things a lot less. A balanced view doesn't make for good sound bites though.

phpisthebest 3y ago
Well the libertarian position is the "Bad" or Exploitive Monopolies, (True Monopolies not "monopolies" like when people say Apple or Amazon are monopolies) only really happen when government protects them, or "regulates" the market to where no competition is possible.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  They say that, but they're wrong. Monopolies happen when one company has enough money to buy out the competition, when one company has enough leverage to lock out the competition, or when it's a "natural monopoly" (and maybe some other situations). None of those requires government protection to create; all require government intervention to avoid and/or control.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    All of that requires government. Show me a "natural" monopoly that was not instituted by government regulation. The most common examples today are utilities which are all 100% government created monopolies. Other examples are Standard Oil, or Bell Telephone, both where also highly protected by government regulations and other laws that prevented competition in those markets
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      No, utilities are not government created monopolies. Take natural gas. Let's say there's a first company that has laid pipes to all the houses in town. Currently, they're a monopoly, just because they were there first. No government involved. They may be pretty profitable, too, in the absence of competition. And they're remain a monopoly until some other company lays pipes to at least some of the houses in town. But no company will do so, because they know that if they do, the first company (who has years of profits to build up their financial reserves) will lower prices to the point that neither company makes money. The new company will go out of business, and the established company can then raise rates back to what they were. It takes government intervention to stop this dynamic. And, with electricity and gas, it usually takes one of two forms - either a public service commission that prevents the monopoly from making too much money, or a requirement to allow competitors to use the existing pipes/wires. But neither of those created the monopoly. They just responded to the fact that natural monopolies are what naturally happen in things like electricity and gas. Your claim was broader than natural monopolies. You said "All of that requires government". How does one company buying out their competitors require government (beyond having money and a legal system)? (And if the claim is "money and a legal system require having government", that's true, but it's true for all companies in general, not just monopolies, so that's pretty much not the topic under discussion.) How does one company using leverage to monopolize a market require government? For a concrete example, when Microsoft was using Windows as leverage to try to monopolize the browser market, how did that take government? It took government (an antitrust court case) to stop them.
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  Yep. I understand their view, but I don't think it always holds. Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense. The whole European Union likely couldn't create a new Apple if they wanted to due to inertia and the insane capital costs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's more of a factor here. I agree with the Libertarian view that a lot of firms don't want to compete, so they lobby for special protections that come out of the tax layers in a somewhat coercive manner. In some cases (national defense) I think it's acceptable, but probably not for all cases.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense That is odd be cause I have never used, and never will use an Apple product and I have access to all the same things that an Apple user does? Apple is in no way a monopoly

phpisthebest 3y ago

Well the libertarian position is the "Bad" or Exploitive Monopolies, (True Monopolies not "monopolies" like when people say Apple or Amazon are monopolies) only really happen when government protects them, or "regulates" the market to where no competition is possible.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
They say that, but they're wrong. Monopolies happen when one company has enough money to buy out the competition, when one company has enough leverage to lock out the competition, or when it's a "natural monopoly" (and maybe some other situations). None of those requires government protection to create; all require government intervention to avoid and/or control.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  All of that requires government. Show me a "natural" monopoly that was not instituted by government regulation. The most common examples today are utilities which are all 100% government created monopolies. Other examples are Standard Oil, or Bell Telephone, both where also highly protected by government regulations and other laws that prevented competition in those markets
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    No, utilities are not government created monopolies. Take natural gas. Let's say there's a first company that has laid pipes to all the houses in town. Currently, they're a monopoly, just because they were there first. No government involved. They may be pretty profitable, too, in the absence of competition. And they're remain a monopoly until some other company lays pipes to at least some of the houses in town. But no company will do so, because they know that if they do, the first company (who has years of profits to build up their financial reserves) will lower prices to the point that neither company makes money. The new company will go out of business, and the established company can then raise rates back to what they were. It takes government intervention to stop this dynamic. And, with electricity and gas, it usually takes one of two forms - either a public service commission that prevents the monopoly from making too much money, or a requirement to allow competitors to use the existing pipes/wires. But neither of those created the monopoly. They just responded to the fact that natural monopolies are what naturally happen in things like electricity and gas. Your claim was broader than natural monopolies. You said "All of that requires government". How does one company buying out their competitors require government (beyond having money and a legal system)? (And if the claim is "money and a legal system require having government", that's true, but it's true for all companies in general, not just monopolies, so that's pretty much not the topic under discussion.) How does one company using leverage to monopolize a market require government? For a concrete example, when Microsoft was using Windows as leverage to try to monopolize the browser market, how did that take government? It took government (an antitrust court case) to stop them.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
7thaccount 3y ago
Yep. I understand their view, but I don't think it always holds. Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense. The whole European Union likely couldn't create a new Apple if they wanted to due to inertia and the insane capital costs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's more of a factor here. I agree with the Libertarian view that a lot of firms don't want to compete, so they lobby for special protections that come out of the tax layers in a somewhat coercive manner. In some cases (national defense) I think it's acceptable, but probably not for all cases.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense That is odd be cause I have never used, and never will use an Apple product and I have access to all the same things that an Apple user does? Apple is in no way a monopoly