nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/09/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 3:33 am Feb 7, 1985 > >You're right! I am quite sure that big corporations will not enforce >worker's rights to grievance procedures, the eight hour day, antipollution >laws, or safety regulations in industry. Indeed not. That's why the corporations you're thinking of would *NOT* be the ones asked to enforce antipollution laws. (As for the others, they are clearly matters of contract between workers or unions and the corporations involved). Antipollution laws would be enforced either via nuisance-laws suits or minimal-government action, depending on which type of libertarian society you end up with. It's not hard to see Arbitration becoming as big an industry as Jurisprudence is now, and it's not hard to see arbiters finding for individuals against smokestack industries. >On the other hand, as I have previously pointed out, Standard Oil >at the turn of the century controlled 99% of the oil industry in the >U.S. While free market devotees keep trying to wish this fact away >by somehow ascribing it to "government regulation" they have yet to >specify exactly what government regulations led to this situation. 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 posted a lengthy article showing Cornplanter Refineries growing 20% a year for 10 years before the Antitrust suit against Standard. Libertarians, have not, so far as I know, claimed that Standard's monopoly was due to government regulation (note to mck -- chalk up another Straw Man to Sevener unless he can furnish a quote) but merely that government regulation appears to be the only way to make monopolies stable. >Nor do they specify how the miraculous free market is going to bring >countervailing political pressure to challenge such control. That's easy -- take a look at what's happening to OPEC now. They still control an enormous amount of oil, but have been forced to lower their prices to match non-opec suppliers. I doubt we'll ever see $0.30/barrel oil again -- that price was low, but (and this was headline news in Mass) we've seen under-a-dollar-a-gallon gas again. >We have seen what an amorphous grouping of nations with varying aims >and interests can do to the world economy with the example of OPEC's >oil embargo. What would be the effects of having the entire domestic >oil industry under *one* unified corporation? Every socialist should ask himself (or herself, but I'll drop the distinction from here on in) this question. To phrase it just a little differently: What would be the effects of having the entire domestic industry (oil and otherwise) under *one* body of controllers? Say, the US Congress? Really Tim -- the monopoly implication just doesn't hold up -- take a look at OPEC: there was no "world antitrust law" to shackle them, and yet they're breaking up. >Or how about other >industries which could potentially become monopolies? 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? >IBM has been constrained from even greater control of the computer market >by the successful suit by CDC and other rival computer manufacturers. Well of course! If the antitrust laws exist do you expect people NOT to use them? It's EASIER than competing directly. This does NOT mean that IBM would be able to hold onto a monopoly -- merely that the most convenient way of preventing this was exercised. Good heavens! Do you tell people that you only got breakfast because your butler got it for you? Do you expect them to believe that if you had no butler you would get no breakfast? >I have seen no suggestions for antitrust activity or steps to insure >that the free market assumptions of many buyers and sellers are met in >Libertarian proposals. Tim: we needn't write the law of gravity into legislation in order for it to work, nor do we need a law REQUIRING the NORMAL outcome of economic life. And finally, think about it: the Market works BEST when there are many buyers and sellers, but (and perhaps someone who knows more economics than I can supply more information) it STILL works, and I'll bet, works better than central planning even when there are FEW sellers and buyers. > JCL FOREVER!!!! > >tim sevener whuxl!orb >---------- Nat Howard
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/12/85)
of OPEC: OPEC produces about 35% of the World's oil. The rest of the world is drilling & producing at maximum capacity. If OPEC were to raise the price of their oil, the West would still have to buy it. The reason why they do not do so is to discourage investment into research into alternative power sources (one of them, anyway). While the non-OPEC nations of the world are increasing their output by about 2% per annum, it is left up to OPEC to *cut* back production to absorb this increase, in order to avoid flooding the market and much reducing the price. This puts great strain on such countries as, say, Nigeria, which are almost completely reliant upon oil-revenue to prop up their otherwise unstable economies, and so are none too pleased at having to reduce their income each year. That is why OPEC looks as though it's breaking up. In about 20 years, the West's own oil production will have been reduced to a fraction of its current level, due to exhausted reserves. OPEC will still have hundreds of billions of tonnes in reserve. The West's oil consumption is reducing at a rate of about 1.5% per annum, which rate is *not* increasing according to 1978-1984 figures. Unless the West's oil consumption drops massively very soon, OPEC are going to end up with an effective Monopoly. Again. Which is why OPEC will not break up. All the above is from memory & opinion, and quite open to correction. -Nigel Gale
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/15/85)
>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. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt