4 ms·

I doubt it. If you don't ban monopoly power, people sometimes get it (like Rockefeller sort of did). You don't get all of the nice properties of free markets un

by yakiv 14y ago

I doubt it. If you don't ban monopoly power, people sometimes get it (like Rockefeller sort of did). You don't get all of the nice properties of free markets unless some conditions are met, like the absence of monopolies. Edit: That being said, government can get involved in the wrong ways and cause problems with subsidies and bad regulation.

javert 14y ago
Actually, monopolies come from the government explicitly banning or regulating away competition. Yes, it's true that you can't get the nice properties of a free market without some conditions being met. Specifically, you need the government to be the arbiter of physical force between people. Otherwise, you have gang warfare (anarchism).
- aharrison 14y ago
  You might be interested in this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly All economic discussions of free markets that I have ever heard have implicitly or explicitly stated that one of the necessary oversights of government is to break up or regulate natural monopoly-prone industries.
  - javert 14y ago
    It's not like I've never heard of that. It's just that it's a false concept that doesn't actually exist. Take electricity, for example. First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines. Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.) Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something. So, in conclusion, a "natural monopoly" is not a true monopoly. It's a false concept.
    - tossacct 14y ago
      >>> It's not like I've never heard of [the concept of natural monopolies]. You have the benefit of the doubt from me, but your specific arguments leave out the installation phase of the electrical grid, which I'm sure you are very familiar with. >>>First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines. Agree, but capital isn't the only thing. You have to put the electrical lines into the ground, disrupting traffic. The costs and capital of the electrical system are not what makes it a natural monopoly, the physical reality of our current technology does (pending wireless transmission as you mention later). The current physical reality is solved by having the government own the last mile(for some definition of mile), while electrical providers can connect at hubs. This is how it works in places where the population understands the specifics of natural monopolies. >>>Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something. The biggest problem is that these technologies do not yet exist. Maybe in the future they will be stymied by regulation, but if they were invented today I can't think of an electrical grid regulation that would stop them. Remember, consumers can hook up power generating technology to the grid already: solar panels. >>>Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.) Businesses are in the business of making money. When a corporation thinks it can make money by suing municipalities that form broadband networks, they do so. Like in Lafayette. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60150 http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60150 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/broadband-telecom-lafayette/52920278/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/... Want to know why this isn't all over the news, with the competing ISPs and cable companies badmouthing these bad corporate actions? Because the cable companies and the ISPs and the media companies are largely owned by the same people, and collude monopolistically. This is a very recent accomplishment: regulations existed to prevent it but were overturned by the deregulation achieved through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownershi...
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >Otherwise, you have gang warfare (anarchism). Wow, way to punctuate a diatribe of ignorance with equating anarchism with gang warfare.
  - javert 14y ago
    If you can explain to me how anarchism would work "in practice" so as to not be gang warfare, or point me to an explanation, I'd appreciate it. So far, nobody has ever taken me up on this. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I'd like to see good arguments against my own position.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      Probably no one has ever "taken you up on this" because the body of literature on Anarchy is enough to be a library on it's own. Since you've somehow managed to miss it means you're unlikely to read anything anyone would point you at. But for anyone else who might happen on this comment and be truly curious, here's a good starting point: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-edi... It's heavily cited so you can go as deep as you care to. P.S.: The short answer is: the "gang warfare" scenario comes from bartering, whether with money or direct bartering (e.g. trade 100 loafs of bread for a bicycle). For Anarchism to work, you'd need to get rid of capitalism and bartering completely. Think Star-trek. Also note, I'm not arguing for anarchism but rather against ignorance. I personally don't think the world is ready for anarchism but at least I know what it actually is.

by yakiv 14y ago

javert 14y ago

Actually, monopolies come from the government explicitly banning or regulating away competition. Yes, it's true that you can't get the nice properties of a free market without some conditions being met. Specifically, you need the government to be the arbiter of physical force between people. Otherwise, you have gang warfare (anarchism).

aharrison 14y ago
You might be interested in this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly All economic discussions of free markets that I have ever heard have implicitly or explicitly stated that one of the necessary oversights of government is to break up or regulate natural monopoly-prone industries.
- javert 14y ago
  It's not like I've never heard of that. It's just that it's a false concept that doesn't actually exist. Take electricity, for example. First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines. Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.) Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something. So, in conclusion, a "natural monopoly" is not a true monopoly. It's a false concept.
  - tossacct 14y ago
    >>> It's not like I've never heard of [the concept of natural monopolies]. You have the benefit of the doubt from me, but your specific arguments leave out the installation phase of the electrical grid, which I'm sure you are very familiar with. >>>First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines. Agree, but capital isn't the only thing. You have to put the electrical lines into the ground, disrupting traffic. The costs and capital of the electrical system are not what makes it a natural monopoly, the physical reality of our current technology does (pending wireless transmission as you mention later). The current physical reality is solved by having the government own the last mile(for some definition of mile), while electrical providers can connect at hubs. This is how it works in places where the population understands the specifics of natural monopolies. >>>Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something. The biggest problem is that these technologies do not yet exist. Maybe in the future they will be stymied by regulation, but if they were invented today I can't think of an electrical grid regulation that would stop them. Remember, consumers can hook up power generating technology to the grid already: solar panels. >>>Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.) Businesses are in the business of making money. When a corporation thinks it can make money by suing municipalities that form broadband networks, they do so. Like in Lafayette. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60150 http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60150 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/broadband-telecom-lafayette/52920278/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/... Want to know why this isn't all over the news, with the competing ISPs and cable companies badmouthing these bad corporate actions? Because the cable companies and the ISPs and the media companies are largely owned by the same people, and collude monopolistically. This is a very recent accomplishment: regulations existed to prevent it but were overturned by the deregulation achieved through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownershi...
flyinRyan 14y ago
>Otherwise, you have gang warfare (anarchism). Wow, way to punctuate a diatribe of ignorance with equating anarchism with gang warfare.
- javert 14y ago
  If you can explain to me how anarchism would work "in practice" so as to not be gang warfare, or point me to an explanation, I'd appreciate it. So far, nobody has ever taken me up on this. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I'd like to see good arguments against my own position.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Probably no one has ever "taken you up on this" because the body of literature on Anarchy is enough to be a library on it's own. Since you've somehow managed to miss it means you're unlikely to read anything anyone would point you at. But for anyone else who might happen on this comment and be truly curious, here's a good starting point: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-edi... It's heavily cited so you can go as deep as you care to. P.S.: The short answer is: the "gang warfare" scenario comes from bartering, whether with money or direct bartering (e.g. trade 100 loafs of bread for a bicycle). For Anarchism to work, you'd need to get rid of capitalism and bartering completely. Think Star-trek. Also note, I'm not arguing for anarchism but rather against ignorance. I personally don't think the world is ready for anarchism but at least I know what it actually is.