Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Monopolies

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:05:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is an unregulated economy, some companies can engage in shady business practices that dominate an entire market or industry, making it impossible for any small business to even rise to their level or be successful in any way. Since competition is the pride and joy of laissez-faire capitalism, why wouldn't monopolies pose a threat to this purpose?

A company that holds a monopoly competes with no one, and essentially coerces a public into using their products and dealing with whatever standards and prices they set, or doing without them. In history class last year, while we were on the Gilded Age, we had this game sort of where we would control an industry through horizontal and vertical integration, and some people, creatively enough, picked water. They eliminated all other bottled water companies, then proceeded to eliminate water purification companies by setting prices so low that the other companies ran out of business, and bought all the trucks and planes that would transport their water. When all the competition vanished, they raised the price of a bottle of water to $50.

Is this too far fetched? What would prevent this obviously disastrous scenario from occurring in an economy devoid of regulation?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because essentially anybody can enter the market. It can be an unstable strategy to try to dominate the market because it's a never-ending process. There will always be competitors. Even once you bankrupt a company, your task isn't complete, because the capital to make the goods or services still exist. You'll either have to buy them out or get another competitor to do it. If you buy it out, that's contributing to costs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:31:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:16:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Monopoly is the essence of the state itself.

This. The idea of progressives trying to use a monopoly on the use of force to stop monopolies on anything else from forming is laughable.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:05:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is this too far fetched? What would prevent this obviously disastrous scenario from occurring in an economy devoid of regulation?

It's ahistorical.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:35:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:05:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is this too far fetched? What would prevent this obviously disastrous scenario from occurring in an economy devoid of regulation?

It's ahistorical.

Ike, what specific type of regulation are you referring to that you believe is necessary?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:38:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:31:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:16:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Monopoly is the essence of the state itself.

This. The idea of progressives trying to use a monopoly on the use of force to stop monopolies on anything else from forming is laughable.

Interesting take on that. I believe the solution to such problems would be giving the states more power. However it is unlikely as it affects interstate commerce.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:41:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:38:22 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:31:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:16:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Monopoly is the essence of the state itself.

This. The idea of progressives trying to use a monopoly on the use of force to stop monopolies on anything else from forming is laughable.

Interesting take on that. I believe the solution to such problems would be giving the states more power. However it is unlikely as it affects interstate commerce.

I think state is obviously preferrable to federal power if we must deal in the context of a government as it's much easier to drive a few hours to a more optimal state than moving to a whole new country. But of course, states face the same problem though to a lesser degree. It's a conceptual contradiction for a monopolist to say that monopolies are bad and then proceed to dismember monopolies while hoping everyone turns a blind eye to it's fundamental make-up.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:41:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Come on, 000ike, didn't you know that companies won't become monopolies in a libertarian society? The reason is, um, I don't remember, but I read it on mises.org somewhere.

Besides, why would you want to spend all that money running your competition out of business when you could just fix prices with them?
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:41:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
depends, as if you have enough competition and a free market it is possible that it will self regulate as it will be competing with multiple other countries. You might also look at what lets them abuse the system, as the tax code has loop holes that they utilize that give them huge boosts. So more regulation probably wont help, a free market full of competition will prevent their growth as mcdonalds has to compete with wendys and burger king.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:38:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:35:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:05:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is this too far fetched? What would prevent this obviously disastrous scenario from occurring in an economy devoid of regulation?

It's ahistorical.

Ike, what specific type of regulation are you referring to that you believe is necessary?

breaking up trusts, halting monopolies, establishing fair business standards that secure and maintain for everyone the opportunity to success. This includes a minimum wage and laws on working conditions.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In most areas if a business raises prices too high (even as a monopoly) then new competition can come in and undercut it.

Monopolies can be justified though. An example is that of natural monopolies (something like utilities or transport is an example) where entrance costs are sufficiently high to discourage new competitors from entering. In this case entering the market is not practical.

The problem I have and which you allude to is when the type of business is one based on physical resources and these physical resources are all owned by 1 company. In that case no competitor can enter the market as one can't simply 'create' physical resources. That means that there can be no increase in supply to lower the price. So, the idea that new competitors can always enter a market is somewhat flawed.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:46:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:41:35 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Come on, 000ike, didn't you know that companies won't become monopolies in a libertarian society? The reason is, um, I don't remember, but I read it on mises.org somewhere.

The chaps at Mises are Austrians, meaning they use a differs ttys normal definition of monopoly. They define it as forcibly keeping competitors out of the market, not just having a large share of a market, since as Kermit pointed out, competitors can still enter and compete.

Besides, why would you want to spend all that money running your competition out of business when you could just fix prices with them?

Prisoner's dilemma. Set ups like that are extremely unstable since you're basically sending a signal to any other would be competitor as well as those you're in collusion with that all thy have to do is lower their prices ad they can turnyour gambit into an advantage for themselves, leVing you (the price fixer) out to dry.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:48:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:45:47 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
In most areas if a business raises prices too high (even as a monopoly) then new competition can come in and undercut it.

Monopolies can be justified though. An example is that of natural monopolies (something like utilities or transport is an example) where entrance costs are sufficiently high to discourage new competitors from entering. In this case entering the market is not practical.

The problem I have and which you allude to is when the type of business is one based on physical resources and these physical resources are all owned by 1 company. In that case no competitor can enter the market as one can't simply 'create' physical resources. That means that there can be no increase in supply to lower the price. So, the idea that new competitors can always enter a market is somewhat flawed.

Yea, that's the worst kind. De beers is about the best example you can find of a bad monopoly.

Although there are substitute goods.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:41:35 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Come on, 000ike, didn't you know that companies won't become monopolies in a libertarian society? The reason is, um, I don't remember, but I read it on mises.org somewhere.

The gist is a genuine free market is self regulating if there is sufficient competition.
http://mises.org...

Also as I already posted regulation loopholes sometimes fuel their existence.


Besides, why would you want to spend all that money running your competition out of business when you could just fix prices with them?

Thats' my point, you both try to our do the competition which prevents monopolys from hatching.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:42:46 PM, 000ike wrote:

breaking up trusts,

Not really necessary. Trusts create incentives to opt out and undercut the agreement since one can absorb customers turned away through price rises, etc.

halting monopolies,

Monopoly being defined as what share of the market exactly?

establishing fair business standards that secure and maintain for everyone the opportunity to success. This includes a minimum wage and laws on working conditions.

Minimum wage laws cause unemployment of those workers it purports to protect, low skills workers with low utility to their employers. A minimum wage at 1000$ a month puts out of work anyone worth less than that. Low skill workers are out of a job and those who ge to keep theirs were never really in an unfair position to begin with since they were making mire than even what the government designated as fair. Ok working conditions, unions are more than sufficient given that they don't engage in discrimination against the unskilled.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:48:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:45:47 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
In most areas if a business raises prices too high (even as a monopoly) then new competition can come in and undercut it.

Monopolies can be justified though. An example is that of natural monopolies (something like utilities or transport is an example) where entrance costs are sufficiently high to discourage new competitors from entering. In this case entering the market is not practical.

The problem I have and which you allude to is when the type of business is one based on physical resources and these physical resources are all owned by 1 company. In that case no competitor can enter the market as one can't simply 'create' physical resources. That means that there can be no increase in supply to lower the price. So, the idea that new competitors can always enter a market is somewhat flawed.

Yea, that's the worst kind. De beers is about the best example you can find of a bad monopoly.

Although there are substitute goods.

Milton Friedman stated that De Beers was pretty much the only successful monopoly that didn't get assistance from government. It instead got assistance from a culture that viewed diamonds as something nearly irreplacable.

Other than that, there have been none.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:46:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:41:35 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Come on, 000ike, didn't you know that companies won't become monopolies in a libertarian society? The reason is, um, I don't remember, but I read it on mises.org somewhere.

The chaps at Mises are Austrians, meaning they use a differs ttys normal definition of monopoly. They define it as forcibly keeping competitors out of the market, not just having a large share of a market, since as Kermit pointed out, competitors can still enter and compete.

Besides, why would you want to spend all that money running your competition out of business when you could just fix prices with them?

Prisoner's dilemma. Set ups like that are extremely unstable since you're basically sending a signal to any other would be competitor as well as those you're in collusion with that all thy have to do is lower their prices ad they can turnyour gambit into an advantage for themselves, leVing you (the price fixer) out to dry.

Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:00:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:53:49 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:48:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:45:47 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
In most areas if a business raises prices too high (even as a monopoly) then new competition can come in and undercut it.

Monopolies can be justified though. An example is that of natural monopolies (something like utilities or transport is an example) where entrance costs are sufficiently high to discourage new competitors from entering. In this case entering the market is not practical.

The problem I have and which you allude to is when the type of business is one based on physical resources and these physical resources are all owned by 1 company. In that case no competitor can enter the market as one can't simply 'create' physical resources. That means that there can be no increase in supply to lower the price. So, the idea that new competitors can always enter a market is somewhat flawed.

Yea, that's the worst kind. De beers is about the best example you can find of a bad monopoly.

Although there are substitute goods.

Milton Friedman stated that De Beers was pretty much the only successful monopoly that didn't get assistance from government. It instead got assistance from a culture that viewed diamonds as something nearly irreplacable.

Other than that, there have been none.

According to this:

http://www.huppi.com...

The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902. Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3) By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57 percent of America's total industrial production, and a single firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5) And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create U.S. Steel, the result was an international sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:
"The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply." (6)

There are a few links given as well:

3. S. Reid, Mergers, Managers and the Economy 38, 1968.

4. Sean Dennis Cashman, America in the Gilded Age (New York: New York University Press, 1984), p. 38.

5. E. Thomas Sullivan, The Political Economy of the Sherman Act (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 28.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:00:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.

Assuming long term, I'd think it would lend more to my point. Its not probable that a corporation that would stoop to collusion and price fixing would lend a blind eye to the potential short term profits available by undercutting the deal for tha long?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:02:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:00:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.

Assuming long term, I'd think it would lend more to my point. Its not probable that a corporation that would stoop to collusion and price fixing would lend a blind eye to the potential short term profits available by undercutting the deal for tha long?

That would be quite irrational.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:07:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:02:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:00:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.

Assuming long term, I'd think it would lend more to my point. Its not probable that a corporation that would stoop to collusion and price fixing would lend a blind eye to the potential short term profits available by undercutting the deal for tha long?

That would be quite irrational.

I think it would become more rational the more corporations were involved in the trust. Meaning if there are only two, the likelihood of it breaking is comparably less than if twenty firms are in a trust since there are more individual acts to worry about breaking.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:13:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:00:33 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:53:49 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:48:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:45:47 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
In most areas if a business raises prices too high (even as a monopoly) then new competition can come in and undercut it.

Monopolies can be justified though. An example is that of natural monopolies (something like utilities or transport is an example) where entrance costs are sufficiently high to discourage new competitors from entering. In this case entering the market is not practical.

The problem I have and which you allude to is when the type of business is one based on physical resources and these physical resources are all owned by 1 company. In that case no competitor can enter the market as one can't simply 'create' physical resources. That means that there can be no increase in supply to lower the price. So, the idea that new competitors can always enter a market is somewhat flawed.

Yea, that's the worst kind. De beers is about the best example you can find of a bad monopoly.

Although there are substitute goods.

Milton Friedman stated that De Beers was pretty much the only successful monopoly that didn't get assistance from government. It instead got assistance from a culture that viewed diamonds as something nearly irreplacable.

Other than that, there have been none.

According to this:

http://www.huppi.com...

The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902. Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3) By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57 percent of America's total industrial production, and a single firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5) And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create U.S. Steel, the result was an international sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:
"The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply." (6)

There are a few links given as well:

3. S. Reid, Mergers, Managers and the Economy 38, 1968.

4. Sean Dennis Cashman, America in the Gilded Age (New York: New York University Press, 1984), p. 38.

5. E. Thomas Sullivan, The Political Economy of the Sherman Act (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 28.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:14:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:07:14 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:02:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:00:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.

Assuming long term, I'd think it would lend more to my point. Its not probable that a corporation that would stoop to collusion and price fixing would lend a blind eye to the potential short term profits available by undercutting the deal for tha long?

That would be quite irrational.

I think it would become more rational the more corporations were involved in the trust. Meaning if there are only two, the likelihood of it breaking is comparably less than if twenty firms are in a trust since there are more individual acts to worry about breaking.

Well then it becomes a matter of coordination costs and problems. Also it's a different type of game It's a sequential game rather than a simultaneous game, since firms are entering the market at different times. It's difficult to "punish" players for entering the market, at least not in the long run, because the strategy is a bit unstable. Still possible though.

Beginning of the video.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:26:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:14:43 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:07:14 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:02:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:00:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.

Assuming long term, I'd think it would lend more to my point. Its not probable that a corporation that would stoop to collusion and price fixing would lend a blind eye to the potential short term profits available by undercutting the deal for tha long?

That would be quite irrational.

I think it would become more rational the more corporations were involved in the trust. Meaning if there are only two, the likelihood of it breaking is comparably less than if twenty firms are in a trust since there are more individual acts to worry about breaking.

Well then it becomes a matter of coordination costs and problems. Also it's a different type of game It's a sequential game rather than a simultaneous game, since firms are entering the market at different times. It's difficult to "punish" players for entering the market, at least not in the long run, because the strategy is a bit unstable. Still possible though.



Beginning of the video.

I agree there's more to upholding a trust then keepin it together. You also have to manage new competition entering the market. My point was that with more actors in the trust, the uncertainty regarding whether or not at least one of them will break to absorb the market grows proportionately. This seems like a natural check on trusts even notwithstanding that the market still remains open to new firms from entering the market.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:31:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:26:45 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:14:43 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:07:14 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:02:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:00:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/19/2012 11:55:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh, how I hate to destroy your argument, but the prisoner dilemma assumes a one-shot game. A game that exists for a long time makes cooperation a more stable strategy.

Assuming long term, I'd think it would lend more to my point. Its not probable that a corporation that would stoop to collusion and price fixing would lend a blind eye to the potential short term profits available by undercutting the deal for tha long?

That would be quite irrational.

I think it would become more rational the more corporations were involved in the trust. Meaning if there are only two, the likelihood of it breaking is comparably less than if twenty firms are in a trust since there are more individual acts to worry about breaking.

Well then it becomes a matter of coordination costs and problems. Also it's a different type of game It's a sequential game rather than a simultaneous game, since firms are entering the market at different times. It's difficult to "punish" players for entering the market, at least not in the long run, because the strategy is a bit unstable. Still possible though.



Beginning of the video.

I agree there's more to upholding a trust then keepin it together. You also have to manage new competition entering the market. My point was that with more actors in the trust, the uncertainty regarding whether or not at least one of them will break to absorb the market grows proportionately. This seems like a natural check on trusts even notwithstanding that the market still remains open to new firms from entering the market.

Some firms with high barriers to entry due to economics of scale and networking effects might be able to pull it off, since the amount of competitors are naturally low anyways.

There are also markets with such high barrier to entry, networking effects, and capital costs that it essentially leads to one market. Examples include utilities.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:46:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Monopolies can form under economic contingency. That is, by entering first and establishing certain holds. They can also form when one firm is able to pass the others and then set up a block to keep them out (examples below like exclusivity or economies of scale).

For instance, if a company is able to capture certain resources early on (for instance, in colonial america, a company which buys up all the land surrounding a lake could create a local monopoly for shipping since they own the docking land). Just the ability of a company to "get in the market first" can give an advantage which cannot be gained by the second and third firms to enter a market. For instance, economies of scale would allow a monopoly to produce good x at such a price that no start-up firm can match price without equaling infrastructure costs of an already-profitable company. That barrier to entry makes it almost impossible for a firm to enter the market.

Another example would be exclusivity agreements. If, early on, a company making good x creates exclusivity deals with suppliers of resource y, then when the incoming company wishes to create good x, they have no access to resource y.

A sort of reverse example of this is the current movie industry: movie theaters (which supply studios with consumers) can't buy features one at a time. They must make package deals with studios to buy a set of films over the year.

That means that, if you aren't one of the big four or five studios, you literally CANNOT have your feature shown in most commercial theatres. The only way in is to give a studio distribution rights. In all fairness to studios, without package deals a theatre chain can buy individual movies based on how well they already do, making the bad movies suffer even worse declines in profit. The package gives those films a chance (though it's questionable what effect this has on movie quality).

Note that these rarely involves conscious predatory practices.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:09:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:13:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:



You a fan of Austrian economics in general or when it's convenient?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 9:42:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
My whole answer to this thread is this: http://www.debate.org...

Yes we all know you're now an anarcho capitalist.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.