4 ms·

This is flatly incorrect. 1) Property. If you have a monopoly on the property in a given area you can charge whatever you want for rent, and no competition wil

by revscat 13y ago

This is flatly incorrect. 1) Property. If you have a monopoly on the property in a given area you can charge whatever you want for rent, and no competition will be around to add competition. 2) Vertical monopolies. If your company buys out not just the competition, but the entire supply chain, and there is a high cost of entry to being able to enter the market -- say automobiles -- then you can quash competition as it arises. 3) Coal mines. If the only job you can get is in a coal mine, and the operator of said mine owns all the mines in your geographic region, you don't have much of a choice. This is especially true if you are working 12+ hours a day 7 days a week for a pittance, or are a minor child. 4) This is libertarian fantasy and rightfully deserves the scorn and ridicule it has so far received in this thread. There are many, many ways to abuse the market to the detriment of the workers, both with and without regulation.

Xdes 13y ago
If a monopoly raises the price too high then the consumer will seek a substitute or simply not purchase the good. This is true regardless of the form of the monopoly. 1) If rent is too high then renters will leave. 2) If an automobile is too expensive then consumers will use mass transit or carpool. 3) If there is a coal shortage due to labor conditions then consumers will use natural gas or other alternative sources of energy.
- huxley 13y ago
  "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman Your hypothesis doesn't take into account the complexities of people's lives which often overwhelm simple economic models. 1. 26.4% of all US renters spend over 50% their income on rent. The most commonly agreed-upon sustainable percentages are between 25-33%. 2. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be much correlation between the cost of transportation (car purchase, gasoline, car maintenance) and mass transit/car pooling increases. In North America, the idea of status being linked to the automobile is a strong counterincentive to mass transit/car pooling. People would rather be poorer than to be thought as too poor to drive. 3. Switching from one fuel to another is not a simple choice for homeowners, you need to switch your furnace (which may be tied to a long-term contract with the fuel supplier), you need to have a local supplier, and you will inevitably face the fact that as demand in the new fuel increases, so will its price.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  This is simplistic: there are not always viable alternatives, even in a free market. 1) Rent is too high, where do I go? Do I leave my job to live in the country side without one? 2) Public transportation has to exist to be an alternative to the automobile, and often requires public intervention to be viable. 3) Did someone build the pipelines necessary for gas to reach my house? Does the same company own both coal and gas supplies? How do I keep from freezing to death this winter?
  - Xdes 13y ago
    1) You move where the cost of travelling to your job doesn't outweight the savings from lower rent. 2) There is more than public transit such as van pools, bicycles, motorcycles, and trains. 3) There are several way to produce energy to heat a house (electricity, natural gas, wood burning stove).
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      1) Ah, so its a constraint optimization problem where a solution is guaranteed to exist? This sounds more than a bit optimistic. 2) You must live in a first-world country. 3) I know this first hand living in Beijing, part of the reason we have seriously bad pollution in the winter is because all the farmers in the surrounding Hebei country side burning whatever to stay warm.
- leot 13y ago
  What, precisely, do you want your economic system to do for you? What does everyone, speaking openly, attest to when speaking of their common economic goals? Once you've answered those questions, on what time scale would you like those goals to be realized? The "long run" won't cut it, because there's no such thing (and because in any case, the universe won't stand still and wait for the system to reach equilibrium).
Mikeb85 13y ago
> 1) Property. If you have a monopoly on the property in a given area you can charge whatever you want for rent, and no competition will be around to add competition. Then people can move elsewhere. People won't tolerate it forever. This can be seen in the real estate market in the city I live in. Several downtown blocks in prime locations have a single owner. She charged outrageous rents, and now half of these (prime) locations are empty, and new businesses have cropped up in the neighborhoods around the downtown core. > 2) Vertical monopolies. If your company buys out not just the competition, but the entire supply chain, and there is a high cost of entry to being able to enter the market -- say automobiles -- then you can quash competition as it arises. While this is possible in theory, it hasn't happened in a free market. > 3) Coal mines. If the only job you can get is in a coal mine, and the operator of said mine owns all the mines in your geographic region, you don't have much of a choice. This is especially true if you are working 12+ hours a day 7 days a week for a pittance, or are a minor child. I live in a country where people will travel 4000 KM for a job. People will move if they perceive economic conditions to be unfavourable. If enough people do this, the mine owner will be forced to raise wages or face a shortage of labour. > 4) This is libertarian fantasy and rightfully deserves the scorn and ridicule it has so far received in this thread. Only Americans would make an accusation of political bias in a discussion such as this, using such terms (libertarian). Fact is, the study of economics is the same whether you're in a market economy or a controlled economy (and likewise whether you vote right, left, or centre). And most economies are mixed BTW.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  > Then people can move elsewhere. People won't tolerate it forever. Are you referring to emigration? Ya, that happens for particularly bad governments, who don't have a monopoly on power in the world. Of course, moving can be tough, you might have to slug it out in a boat to reach Australia. > While this is possible in theory, it hasn't happened in a free market. Of course it has. Pre-sherman anti-trust act it happened all the time. > I live in a country where people will travel 4000 KM for a job. People will move if they perceive economic conditions to be unfavourable. If enough people do this, the mine owner will be forced to raise wages or face a shortage of labour. I live in a communist country where people will do the same. They might even move out of country. > Only Americans would make an accusation of political bias in a discussion such as this, using such terms (libertarian). Fact is, the study of economics is the same whether you're in a market economy or a controlled economy (and likewise whether you vote right, left, or centre). And most economies are mixed BTW. Your opinions do not match the universal truths of an economist, of which I know many (of different nationalities). Libercrazians like to pretend that they are supported by economists, most of whom (barring the Austrians) think they are whackos.

by revscat 13y ago

Xdes 13y ago

If a monopoly raises the price too high then the consumer will seek a substitute or simply not purchase the good. This is true regardless of the form of the monopoly. 1) If rent is too high then renters will leave. 2) If an automobile is too expensive then consumers will use mass transit or carpool. 3) If there is a coal shortage due to labor conditions then consumers will use natural gas or other alternative sources of energy.

huxley 13y ago
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman Your hypothesis doesn't take into account the complexities of people's lives which often overwhelm simple economic models. 1. 26.4% of all US renters spend over 50% their income on rent. The most commonly agreed-upon sustainable percentages are between 25-33%. 2. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be much correlation between the cost of transportation (car purchase, gasoline, car maintenance) and mass transit/car pooling increases. In North America, the idea of status being linked to the automobile is a strong counterincentive to mass transit/car pooling. People would rather be poorer than to be thought as too poor to drive. 3. Switching from one fuel to another is not a simple choice for homeowners, you need to switch your furnace (which may be tied to a long-term contract with the fuel supplier), you need to have a local supplier, and you will inevitably face the fact that as demand in the new fuel increases, so will its price.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
This is simplistic: there are not always viable alternatives, even in a free market. 1) Rent is too high, where do I go? Do I leave my job to live in the country side without one? 2) Public transportation has to exist to be an alternative to the automobile, and often requires public intervention to be viable. 3) Did someone build the pipelines necessary for gas to reach my house? Does the same company own both coal and gas supplies? How do I keep from freezing to death this winter?
- Xdes 13y ago
  1) You move where the cost of travelling to your job doesn't outweight the savings from lower rent. 2) There is more than public transit such as van pools, bicycles, motorcycles, and trains. 3) There are several way to produce energy to heat a house (electricity, natural gas, wood burning stove).
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    1) Ah, so its a constraint optimization problem where a solution is guaranteed to exist? This sounds more than a bit optimistic. 2) You must live in a first-world country. 3) I know this first hand living in Beijing, part of the reason we have seriously bad pollution in the winter is because all the farmers in the surrounding Hebei country side burning whatever to stay warm.
leot 13y ago
What, precisely, do you want your economic system to do for you? What does everyone, speaking openly, attest to when speaking of their common economic goals? Once you've answered those questions, on what time scale would you like those goals to be realized? The "long run" won't cut it, because there's no such thing (and because in any case, the universe won't stand still and wait for the system to reach equilibrium).

Mikeb85 13y ago

> 1) Property. If you have a monopoly on the property in a given area you can charge whatever you want for rent, and no competition will be around to add competition. Then people can move elsewhere. People won't tolerate it forever. This can be seen in the real estate market in the city I live in. Several downtown blocks in prime locations have a single owner. She charged outrageous rents, and now half of these (prime) locations are empty, and new businesses have cropped up in the neighborhoods around the downtown core. > 2) Vertical monopolies. If your company buys out not just the competition, but the entire supply chain, and there is a high cost of entry to being able to enter the market -- say automobiles -- then you can quash competition as it arises. While this is possible in theory, it hasn't happened in a free market. > 3) Coal mines. If the only job you can get is in a coal mine, and the operator of said mine owns all the mines in your geographic region, you don't have much of a choice. This is especially true if you are working 12+ hours a day 7 days a week for a pittance, or are a minor child. I live in a country where people will travel 4000 KM for a job. People will move if they perceive economic conditions to be unfavourable. If enough people do this, the mine owner will be forced to raise wages or face a shortage of labour. > 4) This is libertarian fantasy and rightfully deserves the scorn and ridicule it has so far received in this thread. Only Americans would make an accusation of political bias in a discussion such as this, using such terms (libertarian). Fact is, the study of economics is the same whether you're in a market economy or a controlled economy (and likewise whether you vote right, left, or centre). And most economies are mixed BTW.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
> Then people can move elsewhere. People won't tolerate it forever. Are you referring to emigration? Ya, that happens for particularly bad governments, who don't have a monopoly on power in the world. Of course, moving can be tough, you might have to slug it out in a boat to reach Australia. > While this is possible in theory, it hasn't happened in a free market. Of course it has. Pre-sherman anti-trust act it happened all the time. > I live in a country where people will travel 4000 KM for a job. People will move if they perceive economic conditions to be unfavourable. If enough people do this, the mine owner will be forced to raise wages or face a shortage of labour. I live in a communist country where people will do the same. They might even move out of country. > Only Americans would make an accusation of political bias in a discussion such as this, using such terms (libertarian). Fact is, the study of economics is the same whether you're in a market economy or a controlled economy (and likewise whether you vote right, left, or centre). And most economies are mixed BTW. Your opinions do not match the universal truths of an economist, of which I know many (of different nationalities). Libercrazians like to pretend that they are supported by economists, most of whom (barring the Austrians) think they are whackos.