nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/20/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 7:34 am Feb 17, 1985 > >>Goodness me. I believe it's been pointed out several times: monopolies >>may exist, but they are short-lived in the free market. I myself >> ... >>You'd better demonstrate that "monopoly" can be other than a short-lived >>condition before you start asking people to worry about it, or do you >>LIKE misrepresenting the situation? > >I'm not sure I buy the argument about monopolies being unstable >in a free market. It seems to rely on linearizations that may not >be justified. But that's not the point of this note. > >When a large company has a monopoly, that they are using to charge >prices higher than their costs warrant, they will be unwilling to >see their market share drop (much; some token sharing might be good PR). >I suspect that not all their directors or middle-line managers will >be good ethical libertarians, and some might like to do something >about the situation such as a few tacks on the driveway of the competitor, >a little rumour about safety, or perhaps a bomb or two. Nothing that >could be pinned on the company, of course: "just an unfortunate >incident by a misguidedly enthusiastic subordinate, Mr. Nixon." >Perhaps one or two people are hung out to spin in the wind, or whatever >the expression was. But the competition is somewhat reduced in its >ability to compete. > >Another point that leads to the suspicion that monopolies might be >more stable than the equations suggest: knowledge is power, and who >has the knowledge tends to get more powerful. > >Whether monopolies based on fair competition and good production and >pricing practices are good or bad is a totally different question. >The arguments against state subsidies are that the state is a stable >monopoly creating unfair competition. Why shouldn't a fair monopoly >break the competition by selling (for a while) at ruinously low prices? >Once the competition is forced out, prices can go back up to cover it, >can't they? This (quite probable) behaviour leads to the suggestion >that in a free market without Government intervention or regulation >monopolies might well be both stable and bad. I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not regulated or otherwise helped by government. I agree that your logic with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such monopolies. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking about the dangers of monopoly.
wallace@ucbvax.ARPA (David E. Wallace) (02/21/85)
In article <1977@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: [Embedded quotation omitted] . . . > >I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a >point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not >regulated or otherwise helped by government. I agree that your logic >with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but >my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such >monopolies. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking >about the dangers of monopoly. Hmmm. I'm not the original poster here, but I don't like the flavor of this argument. Try applying such logic to a discussion on the consequences of WWIII: I agree that your logic with your assumptions COULD lead to a somewhat-more-destructive superpower thermonuclear exchange, but my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such exchanges. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking about the dangers of such exchanges. Riiiight. Moral: Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it never will, especially if basic conditions change (the original discussion was about the potential evolution of monopoly power under a perfectly free economy, which has never existed yet either, right?). Dave Wallace (...!ucbvax!wallace, wallace@Berkeley)
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/25/85)
>I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a >point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not >regulated or otherwise helped by government. I agree that your logic >with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but >my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such >monopolies. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking >about the dangers of monopoly. (1) I didn't talk about the "dangers" of monopoly, but about their theoretical stability, which is the issue DKMcK was pushing. I believe you agree with me that his logic was insufficient to demonstrate the inherent instability of a monopoly in Libertaria. (2) Inasmuch as no society has existed without some level of Gevernment regulation (to the degree that the communication technology of the time permitted), there could *in principle* be no examples of a monopoly sustained in its absence. Your rhetorical demand is rather like McK's promise to give back any land he owned to any Indian who could *prove* an individual title to that land. Apart from the documentary problem, the Indian position on land ownership would not permit such a situation to arise. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt