3 ms·

Anti-trust laws are not ideal, though. They effectively act as thresholds or hard lower limits on allowed competition, but they don't directly address the econo

Anti-trust laws are not ideal, though. They effectively act as thresholds or hard lower limits on allowed competition, but they don't directly address the economies of scale and barriers to entry that push the market toward a monopoly state.

Nimi 12y ago
Agreed. I have been looking now for a while for a rigorous treatment of how to deal with monopoly-related problems (hopefully this would be a summary of the current consensus among economists), are you by chance familiar with one?
- whatevsbro 12y ago
  > I have been looking now for a while for a rigorous treatment of how to deal with monopoly-related problems http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp there are two, and only two, ways to settle what the prices of goods will be. One is the way of the free market, where prices are set voluntarily by each of the participating individuals. In this situation, exchanges are made on terms benefiting all the exchangers. The other way is by violent intervention in the market, the way of hegemony as against contract. Such hegemonic establishment of prices means the outlawing of free exchanges and the institution of exploitation of man by man—for exploitation occurs whenever a coerced exchange is made. If the free-market route—the route of mutual benefit—is adopted, then there can be no other criterion of justice than the free-market price, and this includes alleged “competitive” and “monopoly” prices, as well as the actions of cartels. In the free market, consumers and producers adjust their actions in voluntary cooperation.
- rcthompson 12y ago
  Haha, no, I'm not. I only have a 1-year undergrad intro econ course plus a mathematics degree and my own intuition. I don't think I've actually read any primary literature in the econ field, only my textbook (and not much of that, either!).
ChuckMcM 12y ago
True, the original impetus for the market monoply exclusions that exist today was to insure that someone coming into the market had a reasonable chance of making their money back. This encouraged people like Comcast to bring cable to the city. What has changed is that the Internet which was a 'ride along' on the Telephone and Cable monopolies has become more of a lifeline service. Further it has gone to the point where it supercedes both, since a home with a 1 - 3mbps Internet connection can get both phone and television services over it. This is the message that I'm bringing to the city, which is that Internet pipes have become like roads, essential for the citizens and the proper functioning of the city itself. And given that, lets move the infrastructure into the same place, city owned/maintained raw pipes, company services accessible by those pipes.

Nimi 12y ago

Agreed. I have been looking now for a while for a rigorous treatment of how to deal with monopoly-related problems (hopefully this would be a summary of the current consensus among economists), are you by chance familiar with one?

whatevsbro 12y ago
> I have been looking now for a while for a rigorous treatment of how to deal with monopoly-related problems http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp there are two, and only two, ways to settle what the prices of goods will be. One is the way of the free market, where prices are set voluntarily by each of the participating individuals. In this situation, exchanges are made on terms benefiting all the exchangers. The other way is by violent intervention in the market, the way of hegemony as against contract. Such hegemonic establishment of prices means the outlawing of free exchanges and the institution of exploitation of man by man—for exploitation occurs whenever a coerced exchange is made. If the free-market route—the route of mutual benefit—is adopted, then there can be no other criterion of justice than the free-market price, and this includes alleged “competitive” and “monopoly” prices, as well as the actions of cartels. In the free market, consumers and producers adjust their actions in voluntary cooperation.
rcthompson 12y ago
Haha, no, I'm not. I only have a 1-year undergrad intro econ course plus a mathematics degree and my own intuition. I don't think I've actually read any primary literature in the econ field, only my textbook (and not much of that, either!).

ChuckMcM 12y ago

True, the original impetus for the market monoply exclusions that exist today was to insure that someone coming into the market had a reasonable chance of making their money back. This encouraged people like Comcast to bring cable to the city. What has changed is that the Internet which was a 'ride along' on the Telephone and Cable monopolies has become more of a lifeline service. Further it has gone to the point where it supercedes both, since a home with a 1 - 3mbps Internet connection can get both phone and television services over it. This is the message that I'm bringing to the city, which is that Internet pipes have become like roads, essential for the citizens and the proper functioning of the city itself. And given that, lets move the infrastructure into the same place, city owned/maintained raw pipes, company services accessible by those pipes.