Are monopolies actually a good thing?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess the point im trying to make is that a lot of people (not me) think the total opposite of what DiLorenzo writes. Just the other day I was reading slashdot, and somebody made a post referencing 'monopolistic robber barons'. It doesnt seem like anyone is willing to make any arguements for that point of view.

I'm trying to come up with arguements that would refute DiLorenzo (mabey that makes my post sound a little schizo) just to see if they can hold up. I was hoping to get some back and forth going with this post, doesnt seem like it is going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you should have phrased the OP differently if this was your goal. I believe that unchecked capitalism (at least under conditions of non-anarchy-just said to avoid the AC rampage) creates many monopolies-capitalism leads to a massive concentration of wealth property and power. However, while this is quite clearly bad ethically and undermines democracy, it doesn't seem that under current conditions this neccesarily leads to higher prices for consumers, but this could simply be because the threat of government intervention exists to provide an incentive against monopolies/oligopolies becoming harmful. Monopoly or oligopoly certainly leads to less choices (or at least less salient, reasonable choices) for consumers, however

Labor market power is a different story altogether.

[cambraceres]

[/ QUOTE ]
No one wants war. It doesn't make you richer.

[/ QUOTE ]
War can make a country quite rich, germany had the choice of war or bankruptcy in 1939, it had long since been decided though. Caesar got very rich specifically from warfare. Countries get rich off of technological large scale wars, individuals get rich off of small skirmishes in destitute areas.



[/ QUOTE ]
Without the presence of war and violence, the government cannot convince people that it has any reason to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good observation, I happen to believe that if my government can't protect me reasonably well,then it just ceased to be my government.

Cambraceres

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should have phrased the OP differently if this was your goal. I believe that unchecked capitalism (at least under conditions of non-anarchy-just said to avoid the AC rampage) creates many monopolies

[/ QUOTE ]

How? Without state intervention, how can a firm prevent other firms from entering a market?

[ QUOTE ]
-capitalism leads to a massive concentration of wealth property and power.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? In "unchecked" capitalism, all transactions are voluntary - and each trader benefits from each transaction.

[ QUOTE ]
However, while this is quite clearly bad ethically and undermines democracy,

[/ QUOTE ]

What's inherently bad about undermining democracy?

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't seem that under current conditions this neccesarily leads to higher prices for consumers, but this could simply be because the threat of government intervention exists to provide an incentive against monopolies/oligopolies becoming harmful. Monopoly or oligopoly certainly leads to less choices (or at least less salient, reasonable choices) for consumers,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you see no problem with (and you advocate the expansion of power of) the biggest monopoly of all, the monopoly which creates all other monopolies.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Countries get rich off of technological large scale wars,

[/ QUOTE ]

So we should increase the activity in Iraq to make money flow into the coffers?

Of course, there can be individual winners and losers in war - however, it's a negative-sum game, and it's possible (even likely) that there are no winners.

Refer to a previous post of mine:

[ QUOTE ]
War is always -EV. It can't possibly be +EV.

Let's look at the aspects of war.

There's control of resources (land, oil fields, whatever). This is basically EV neutral - either you control it or I do, we can't magically make more appear. Some of these resources will be destroyed during the conflict, but we'll account for that later.

There is the production aspect (tanks, bullets, bombs, etc). If this were +EV, why wouldn't we just build a bunch of bombs and constantly drop them in the ocean? Then we would get the supposed benefits of the increased production without killing anyone. Obviously, this production (in and of itself) is not beneficial, or else it would be conducted outside of war.

Next, there is the destruction (of buildings, infrastructure, etc). This obviously must be -EV, or else we would indiscriminately destroy things all the time. Of course, we do destroy buildings outside of war, but only when the alternative use of the property is higher than the value of the existing building. War destroys these useless buildings, but also destroys useful infrastructure (and in fact, seeks to destroy the most useful things).

Finally, there is the killing. Pretty clearly this is -EV. I hope that isn't up for debate.

So, every aspect of war is basically -EV (or neutral at *best*). On top of that, every aspect of war also violates human rights. Force is not a legitimate means of controlling property; taxation is not a legitimate means of increasing production; destruction of others' property is criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[LadyWrestler]

AT&T's Bell monopoly ='d good, cheap standard phone service. Forced breakup ='s poor, expensive standard phone service...according to my parents, who are smart enough to understand and discount inflationary trends...and have no reason to lie to me about it.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This leads me to accept the idea that unchecked capitalism..

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoooooooo... Easy, horsy. Un'checked' capitalism? Are you kidding me? A monopolist group of criminals has nothing to do with 'checking'.

Generally, people are affraid that without the govt a group of criminals will take what they want by force and eventually become unstoppable. Unfortunately they don't realize that's exactly what 'government' is.

A free society/market always selects against violence, and a monopoly on violence always grows in power (breeds violence).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! I kneel before Nielsio! [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This leads me to accept the idea that unchecked capitalism..

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoooooooo... Easy, horsy. Un'checked' capitalism? Are you kidding me? A monopolist group of criminals has nothing to do with 'checking'.

Generally, people are affraid that without the govt a group of criminals will take what they want by force and eventually become unstoppable. Unfortunately they don't realize that's exactly what 'government' is.

A free society/market always selects against violence, and a monopoly on violence always grows in power (breeds violence).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! I kneel before Nielsio! [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont, hes an idiot. give it time, you will see.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Dont, hes an idiot. give it time, you will see.

[/ QUOTE ]

While he may not express himself in the most eloquent manner, he is almost always right.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont, hes an idiot. give it time, you will see.

[/ QUOTE ]

While he may not express himself in the most eloquent manner, he is almost always right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way! I got news for you, I am almost always right.

If I say it does it make it true? Or do I need someone to say it forme?

[ QUOTE ]
AT&T's Bell monopoly ='d good, cheap standard phone service. Forced breakup ='s poor, expensive standard phone service...according to my parents, who are smart enough to understand and discount inflationary trends...and have no reason to lie to me about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Long distance rates came WAY down during and after the breakup period. Long distance used to cost fifty cents a minute...and that was when money was worth more, not less. So the inflationary effect does not apply in this case in the direction you are thinking...rather, it means that back then, rates were even higher in real terms than they were in absolute terms. And as above, they were a lot higher way back when.

Your parents are right that some services were of less quality after the breakup, and that there were some kinks to be ironed out. But overall the effect was to bring rates way down.