4 ms·
There are two flaws in your argument: 1) As someone previously pointed out the cartel was only possible because of a government created monopoly through the pa
by ancap 12y ago
There are two flaws in your argument:
1) As someone previously pointed out the cartel was only possible because of a government created monopoly through the patent system.
2) You imply that while producers do not have the interests of consumers in mind, that the government somehow does.
- anigbrowl 12y ago'the cartel was only possible because of a government created monopoly'? Absurd on its face, as the cartel participants were not all licensees of the same patent.
- ancap 12y agoWho said anything about a single patent?
- anigbrowl 12y agoIt's implicit in your singular use of the term monopoly, implying a lack of competition. A patent gives you the exclusive right to manufacture something for a period, but it doesn't protect against competition from people with patents of their own serving the same market. Issuance of patents does not lead inevitably to the existence of cartels as you are suggesting.
- ancap 12y agoYou misunderstand. The cartel held a monopoly. The cartel comprised of multiple companies with multiple patents. However you want to phrase the end result, the cartel could only keep out competition under the legal threat the patents provided. Eventually competition was able to come in and break up the cartel, but without the legal monopoly provided through the patents, the cartel would have never lasted as long.
- dllthomas 12y agoBasic business strategy. Barriers to entry increase the incentive for market participants to cooperate.