Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Market Monopolies

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:32:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
How does the free market prevent the rise of monopolies?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:33:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:32:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How does the free market prevent the rise of monopolies?

By compromising the purity of a "free" market with something like the Sherman act.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:35:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:33:59 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 10:32:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How does the free market prevent the rise of monopolies?

By compromising the purity of a "free" market with something like the Sherman act.

Lol @ the Sherman Act.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:35:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:35:03 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 10:33:59 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 10:32:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How does the free market prevent the rise of monopolies?

By compromising the purity of a "free" market with something like the Sherman act.

Lol @ the Sherman Act.

explain.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:37:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Libertarian: No monopolies exist in a free market society.

LMFAO.

No coercive monopolies may exist, but still monopolies nonetheless.

Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.

Oh, okay. Mhm. Sure. Gotcha.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:39:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:37:14 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Libertarian: No monopolies exist in a free market society.

This is correct by definition.

Murray Rothbard has done great work on this subject in his magnum opus Man, Economy and State.
"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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:40:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:37:14 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Libertarian: No monopolies exist in a free market society.

LMFAO.

No coercive monopolies may exist, but still monopolies nonetheless.

Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.

Oh, okay. Mhm. Sure. Gotcha.

It is a flaw in libertarianism that i have had to deal with and have realized that in practice pure libertarianism is counter productive. Compromises are almost always made in any political ideology lest you have extremism.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:41:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because true monopolies can only exist as a result of government intervention (Intellectual Property, for instance). Take a common example of a 'monopoly' caused by the free market, Standard Oil. Supposedly, Standard Oil was a destructive monopoly and the government needed to intervene. Were they? Yes, they did have a very large share of the market. But that isn't enough for it to be a true monopoly. The destructive monopolies, the ones that actually harm society, not only have a large market share; they also are able to charge outrageous prices and still keep their market share. Standard Oil, on the other hand, got it's market share by offering prices far lower than those of its competitors, and using innovative techniques. (ex. At the time, oil was mainly used for kerosene. Refining it also produced a byproduct, gasoline. Before Rockefeller, oil refineries just dumped the gasoline in rivers. Standard Oil pioneered the idea of actually using it.)
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:51:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:41:45 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Because true monopolies can only exist as a result of government intervention (Intellectual Property, for instance). Take a common example of a 'monopoly' caused by the free market, Standard Oil. Supposedly, Standard Oil was a destructive monopoly and the government needed to intervene. Were they? Yes, they did have a very large share of the market. But that isn't enough for it to be a true monopoly. The destructive monopolies, the ones that actually harm society, not only have a large market share; they also are able to charge outrageous prices and still keep their market share. Standard Oil, on the other hand, got it's market share by offering prices far lower than those of its competitors, and using innovative techniques. (ex. At the time, oil was mainly used for kerosene. Refining it also produced a byproduct, gasoline. Before Rockefeller, oil refineries just dumped the gasoline in rivers. Standard Oil pioneered the idea of actually using it.)

That is a tiny tiny example of what can happen. The opportunity for a monopoly is ripe in a free market. Company X (twice as big as company Y) tells it's suppliers that it must sell at half the price they sell to company Y or they will pull their business. This continues so that costs of company x are substantially lower than company Y, and thus volume of sales increases so that company Y cannot compete. Or...Company X makes a deal with company Y, that if they will not sell to customers in the far north, company x will not sell in the far south (regional monopolies). Or...Company X makes a deal with company Y that they will only sell wigets to client A and they and won't sell gizmos to client A, and vice verse, (market segment monopoly. There are more.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:58:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That is a tiny tiny example of what can happen. The opportunity for a monopoly is ripe in a free market. Company X (twice as big as company Y) tells it's suppliers that it must sell at half the price they sell to company Y or they will pull their business. This continues so that costs of company x are substantially lower than company Y, and thus volume of sales increases so that company Y cannot compete.
Well, so what? For this to push Y out of business, X would have to pass it's savings down to the consumer. Y goes out of business, but the economy as the whole is unhurt. Consumers spend less on whatever X and Y were selling, and thus have more to spend elsewhere, creating jobs to replace those lost at company Y.

Or...Company X makes a deal with company Y, that if they will not sell to customers in the far north, company x will not sell in the far south (regional monopolies). Or...Company X makes a deal with company Y that they will only sell wigets to client A and they and won't sell gizmos to client A, and vice verse, (market segment monopoly. There are more.
Companies have tried to do this, and other cartel schemes, many times. It always fails, because one company (or several companies) always cheats.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:06:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:37:14 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Libertarian: No monopolies exist in a free market society.

LMFAO.

No coercive monopolies may exist, but still monopolies nonetheless.

Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.

Oh, okay. Mhm. Sure. Gotcha.

Point to one monopoly that existed through the free market and not through any government intervention, and had a disastrous effect on a country.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:11:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:58:19 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
That is a tiny tiny example of what can happen. The opportunity for a monopoly is ripe in a free market. Company X (twice as big as company Y) tells it's suppliers that it must sell at half the price they sell to company Y or they will pull their business. This continues so that costs of company x are substantially lower than company Y, and thus volume of sales increases so that company Y cannot compete.
Well, so what? For this to push Y out of business, X would have to pass it's savings down to the consumer. Y goes out of business, but the economy as the whole is unhurt. Consumers spend less on whatever X and Y were selling, and thus have more to spend elsewhere, creating jobs to replace those lost at company Y.

You are proving theL's point "Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.". Monopolies are bad because they eliminate copetition, and control the prices and dictate to the consumer, thus upsetting the supply demand ratio, because a monopoly would control both.


Or...Company X makes a deal with company Y, that if they will not sell to customers in the far north, company x will not sell in the far south (regional monopolies). Or...Company X makes a deal with company Y that they will only sell wigets to client A and they and won't sell gizmos to client A, and vice verse, (market segment monopoly. There are more.
Companies have tried to do this, and other cartel schemes, many times. It always fails, because one company (or several companies) always cheats.
They try this and go to jail, at least since 1890.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:17:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:06:18 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Point to one monopoly that existed through the free market and not through any government intervention, and had a disastrous effect on a country.

First of all, Ragnar Jr. Jr. Jr. (I'm sure there are more of you but I'll stop there) -- that would be impossible because we've ALWAYS had government intervention. Second, define "disasterous?" I never said disasterous. I said I just don't like monopolies, even if they're not coercive (i.e. existing via guvmint).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:18:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:11:09 AM, innomen wrote:
You are proving theL's point "Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.". Monopolies are bad because they eliminate copetition, and control the prices and dictate to the consumer, thus upsetting the supply demand ratio, because a monopoly would control both.

Their response is that another company will magically come along to compete. This is so idealistic. A company would have to have an exceptional amount of start-up income to compete making it near impossible. The "you have to have money to make money" ideology is one of the reasons I've abandoned completely laissez faire capitalism.
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:20:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:17:20 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:06:18 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Point to one monopoly that existed through the free market and not through any government intervention, and had a disastrous effect on a country.

First of all, Ragnar Jr. Jr. Jr. (I'm sure there are more of you but I'll stop there) -- that would be impossible because we've ALWAYS had government intervention. Second, define "disasterous?" I never said disasterous. I said I just don't like monopolies, even if they're not coercive (i.e. existing via guvmint).

You never said disastrous but implied the free market was bad because they create monopolies Karl Marx jr. jr. jr.

I have an economic textbook in front of my with the page on monopolies open. Make my day.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:25:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:18:44 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:11:09 AM, innomen wrote:
You are proving theL's point "Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.". Monopolies are bad because they eliminate copetition, and control the prices and dictate to the consumer, thus upsetting the supply demand ratio, because a monopoly would control both.

Their response is that another company will magically come along to compete. This is so idealistic. A company would have to have an exceptional amount of start-up income to compete making it near impossible. The "you have to have money to make money" ideology is one of the reasons I've abandoned completely laissez faire capitalism.

Let's see someone compete against Walmart.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:26:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.

Right, because it's not like companies hire them to analyze market conditions or anything...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:26:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.

We haz argument from authority on our side. Economist > Average Worker
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:27:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:25:03 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:18:44 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:11:09 AM, innomen wrote:
You are proving theL's point "Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.". Monopolies are bad because they eliminate copetition, and control the prices and dictate to the consumer, thus upsetting the supply demand ratio, because a monopoly would control both.

Their response is that another company will magically come along to compete. This is so idealistic. A company would have to have an exceptional amount of start-up income to compete making it near impossible. The "you have to have money to make money" ideology is one of the reasons I've abandoned completely laissez faire capitalism.

Let's see someone compete against Walmart.

Well, ignoring the fact that Costco and K-Mart DO compete with Walmart, there really isn't much reason to. They are run efficiently and thus able to sell goods at extremely low prices.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:27:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:25:03 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:18:44 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:11:09 AM, innomen wrote:
You are proving theL's point "Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.". Monopolies are bad because they eliminate copetition, and control the prices and dictate to the consumer, thus upsetting the supply demand ratio, because a monopoly would control both.

Their response is that another company will magically come along to compete. This is so idealistic. A company would have to have an exceptional amount of start-up income to compete making it near impossible. The "you have to have money to make money" ideology is one of the reasons I've abandoned completely laissez faire capitalism.

Let's see someone compete against Walmart.

K-mart do, last time I checked.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:29:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:26:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.

Right, because it's not like companies hire them to analyze market conditions or anything...

Companies don't hire economists to analyze market conditions. You think that the Sherman act is a joke? It's simply not true. There are serious consequences in some of the most subtle of violations.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:31:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:29:47 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:26:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.

Right, because it's not like companies hire them to analyze market conditions or anything...

Companies don't hire economists to analyze market conditions. You think that the Sherman act is a joke? It's simply not true. There are serious consequences in some of the most subtle of violations.

Yeah...serious consequences like forcing CEOs to run the smaller, broken up companies via proxy.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:31:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:29:47 AM, innomen wrote:
Companies don't hire economists to analyze market conditions.

Are you kidding me?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:33:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:31:15 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:29:47 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:26:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.

Right, because it's not like companies hire them to analyze market conditions or anything...

Companies don't hire economists to analyze market conditions. You think that the Sherman act is a joke? It's simply not true. There are serious consequences in some of the most subtle of violations.

Yeah...serious consequences like forcing CEOs to run the smaller, broken up companies via proxy.

Like salesmen going to jail.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:35:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:31:49 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:29:47 AM, innomen wrote:
Companies don't hire economists to analyze market conditions.

Are you kidding me?

Maybe a consult, but hire an actual economist for market conditions? That would be a waste of money. Maybe you should name some. Hiring someone with an economics background is different than 'hiring an economist'.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:37:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:29:47 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:26:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:24:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:22:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Even most non-libertarian economists today agree that anti-trust is a crock of sh*t.

Most economists haven't actually worked in the market.

Right, because it's not like companies hire them to analyze market conditions or anything...

Companies don't hire economists to analyze market conditions. You think that the Sherman act is a joke? It's simply not true. There are serious consequences in some of the most subtle of violations.

Yes, the serious consequences for the most subtle of violations is the big problem with anti-trust law. The law is so vague that it becomes impossible for businesses to know if they are going to be prosecuted, because they could arguably be breaking the law at any time. Low prices? Monopolistic behavior because it could force competitors out of the market. High prices? Also monopolistic behavior (price gouging). Since there's no objective standard that could be used to determine who's breaking the law, the government can just prosecute basically any large firm they want for any reason under anti-trust law.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:37:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:27:51 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:25:03 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:18:44 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/20/2010 11:11:09 AM, innomen wrote:
You are proving theL's point "Libertarian: Oh... well... So? Monopolies aren't always a bad thing.". Monopolies are bad because they eliminate copetition, and control the prices and dictate to the consumer, thus upsetting the supply demand ratio, because a monopoly would control both.

Their response is that another company will magically come along to compete. This is so idealistic. A company would have to have an exceptional amount of start-up income to compete making it near impossible. The "you have to have money to make money" ideology is one of the reasons I've abandoned completely laissez faire capitalism.

Let's see someone compete against Walmart.

Well, ignoring the fact that Costco and K-Mart DO compete with Walmart, there really isn't much reason to. They are run efficiently and thus able to sell goods at extremely low prices.

As a start up, as TheL was explaining, let's see you go up against Walmart.