Why aren't there more private roads? - Page 13

pvn · #**121** 07-04-2007, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not in this thread,

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, please STFU then.

[ QUOTE ]
since your question is a distraction from (and less interesting than) the OP. Also, you haven't answered this question yet:

"If I have understood correctly AC'ists don't really offer any solution to natural monopolies, just claim that statists don't solve them neither?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My question is part of the process of doing that. I can't answer that question until I figure out what a "natural monopoly" is. And I can't do that until I figure out what a "monopoly" is. Are you going to help me or are you going to continue to derail this thread?

BCPVP · #**122** 07-04-2007, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He's claiming that my legitimate comment/question about buying and selling of roads is "a bullet of pure nonsense fired to kill serious debate". Re-read the thread and see if you find support for this claim. (Obviously, he didn't provide it in the above snip.) If not, it's a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]
He dismissed your argument because he (probably not just him) thinks it's nonsense. That's not what trolling is. Trolling involves posting something inflammatory just to provoke a response from people. For example, if I made a post in SMP about whether God exists saying "atheists are [censored] stupid" and left it at that.

NeBlis · #**123** 07-04-2007, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Side note: how many ACers on this board are in college?

[/ QUOTE ]
All of them. Even the ones who teach there.

[/ QUOTE ]

im not in college .. but im a minarchist

Arnfinn Madsen · #**124** 07-04-2007, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]

My question is part of the process of doing that. I can't answer that question until I figure out what a "natural monopoly" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

A natural monopoly is caused by economics of scale. It is typical for products that have a high cost for the first produced unit and low cost for the marginal produced unit. Roads is a good example since building a road and have 1 customer will cost you almost as much as building a road and having 1,000 customers, especially if you i.e. have to cross river, mountains etc.. Thus the person owning the only road can charge high prices, but the 2nd entrepeneur considering to build a second road will conclude it is unprofitable.

pvn · #**125** 07-04-2007, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My question is part of the process of doing that. I can't answer that question until I figure out what a "natural monopoly" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

A natural monopoly is caused by economics of scale. It is typical for products that have a high cost for the first produced unit and low cost for the marginal produced unit. Roads is a good example since building a road and have 1 customer will cost you almost as much as building a road and having 1,000 customers, especially if you i.e. have to cross river, mountains etc.. Thus the person owning the only road can charge high prices, but the 2nd entrepeneur considering to build a second road will conclude it is unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there should only be one road? I'm not sure I get it. I want to go more than one place.

jogger08152 · #**126** 07-04-2007, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not in this thread,

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, please STFU then.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the second time you've said that to me, PVN, and it's no more appropriate here than it was last time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since your question is a distraction from (and less interesting than) the OP. Also, you haven't answered this question yet:

"If I have understood correctly AC'ists don't really offer any solution to natural monopolies, just claim that statists don't solve them neither?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My question is part of the process of doing that. I can't answer that question until I figure out what a "natural monopoly" is. And I can't do that until I figure out what a "monopoly" is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hope this helps: monopoly, natural monopoly.

jogger08152 · #**127** 07-04-2007, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's claiming that my legitimate comment/question about buying and selling of roads is "a bullet of pure nonsense fired to kill serious debate". Re-read the thread and see if you find support for this claim. (Obviously, he didn't provide it in the above snip.) If not, it's a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]
He dismissed your argument because he (probably not just him) thinks it's nonsense. That's not what trolling is. Trolling involves posting something inflammatory just to provoke a response from people. For example, if I made a post in SMP about whether God exists saying "atheists are [censored] stupid" and left it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain how one can think "discussing existing houses and roads" in a thread about "houses and roads" is nonsense intended to destroy legitimate debate. Perhaps you think he is stupid? I do not, which is one of the reasons I believe he was trolling, rather than merely expressing an ignorant viewpoint.

BCPVP · #**128** 07-05-2007, 12:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's claiming that my legitimate comment/question about buying and selling of roads is "a bullet of pure nonsense fired to kill serious debate". Re-read the thread and see if you find support for this claim. (Obviously, he didn't provide it in the above snip.) If not, it's a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]
He dismissed your argument because he (probably not just him) thinks it's nonsense. That's not what trolling is. Trolling involves posting something inflammatory just to provoke a response from people. For example, if I made a post in SMP about whether God exists saying "atheists are [censored] stupid" and left it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain how one can think "discussing existing houses and roads" in a thread about "houses and roads" is nonsense intended to destroy legitimate debate. Perhaps you think he is stupid? I do not, which is one of the reasons I believe he was trolling, rather than merely expressing an ignorant viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]
He made a pretty good point, imo, that you quickly dismissed. And you have the gall to demand that your arguments be addressed just so? Why do you deserve any better treatment than what you've given?

I think I'm done with this hijack. I just wanted to needle you the same way you've been trying to do to others here.

Phil153 · #**129** 07-05-2007, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hope this helps: monopoly, natural monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The historical example is interesting for free market advocates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...orical_example

Arnfinn Madsen · #**130** 07-05-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My question is part of the process of doing that. I can't answer that question until I figure out what a "natural monopoly" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

A natural monopoly is caused by economics of scale. It is typical for products that have a high cost for the first produced unit and low cost for the marginal produced unit. Roads is a good example since building a road and have 1 customer will cost you almost as much as building a road and having 1,000 customers, especially if you i.e. have to cross river, mountains etc.. Thus the person owning the only road can charge high prices, but the 2nd entrepeneur considering to build a second road will conclude it is unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there should only be one road? I'm not sure I get it. I want to go more than one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a problem if you are choosing where to go and have similar alternatives. Thus it wasn't a problem probably with the initial railroads etc.. The problem is when there is a demand for driving on that exact road. The natural monopoly will lead to that people who are willing to pay more than their share of the production cost on the road will be barred from driving.