08 Sep 09
It's very unpopular to say, but even labor unions try to hold monopolies on labor to maximize their wages, but that damages productivity gains by being a damper on competition. Same for monopolies in any industry. Competition is good for long run growth.
Hence the problems of some countries in experiencing growth.
It is productivity gains through technology encouraged by competition that helps people in the long-run through growth.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusMonopolies are the logical outcome of "capitalism" and the rival-to-democracy "corporatism". So regulations and restrictions and protections of citizens are needed. The debate, I suppose, is not whether monopolies are bad (can't see much mileage in that as a source of disagreement), but instead the debate is where to draw the lines, how to formulate the regulations, how to enforce them, so as to prevent monopolies from coming into being and then how to rein them in if preventing them proves impossible.
It's very unpopular to say, but even labor unions try to hold monopolies on labor to maximize their wages, but that damages productivity gains by being a damper on competition. Same for monopolies in any industry. Competition is good for long run growth.
Hence the problems of some countries in experiencing growth.
It is productivity gains through technology encouraged by competition that helps people in the long-run through growth.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFThe only way to have a monopoly is thru illegal force, or by the government. I don't understand your point that the outcome of capitalism is a monopoly. Monopolies don't occur naturally in a free market.
Monopolies are the logical outcome of "capitalism" and the rival-to-democracy "corporatism". So regulations and restrictions and protections of citizens are needed. The debate, I suppose, is not whether monopolies are bad (can't see much mileage in that as a source of disagreement), but instead the debate is where to draw the lines, how to formulate the regulati ...[text shortened]... s from coming into being and then how to rein them in if preventing them proves impossible.
08 Sep 09
3 edits
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenMonopolies can be built without government assistance. Besides, powerful companies often have the influence to legally pressure the government to assist in the building of a monopoly. Microsoft built a monopoly on PC operating systems legally. I'm sure Standard Oil did the same in its day.
The only way to have a monopoly is thru illegal force, or by the government. I don't understand your point that the outcome of capitalism is a monopoly. Monopolies don't occur naturally in a free market.
The outcome of capitalism in a given industry is not ALWAYS a monopoly, but in a completely unregulated World, monopolies will inevitably pop up from time to time.
Eljifejesus' point about labor unions being monopolies is an interesting one. One difference is that lower end employees are generally at a bargaining disadvantage in dealing with huge corporations and so unions may be necessary to level the playing field. But, the idea of treating unions as monopolies and promoting competition between unions and preventing collusion between unions, etc., is an interesting idea. I'd have to think about it a little more before I determine whether I think it's necessary.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by sh76without government making a monopoly, or illegal force, i don't see how a monopoly would exist in free market capitalism. Could you provide me an example?
Monopolies can be built without government assistance. Besides, powerful companies often have the influence to legally pressure the government to assist in the building of a monopoly. Microsoft built a monopoly on PC operating systems legally. I'm sure Standard Oil did the same in its day.
The outcome of capitalism in a given industry is not ALWAYS a monopol ...[text shortened]... I'd have to think about it a little more before I determine whether I think it's necessary.
As far as labor unions go, yes they do monopolize labor in that you have to be apart of a union to do anything. Also, they are so specalized you need a different union for each task. But that is a production issue is it not? On the retail side you can still buy your products from wherever, correct? I live in Texas so there is not a lot of issues with unions here.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWas Microsoft's operating system monopoly made by the government or done illegally? I don't think so.
without government making a monopoly, or illegal force, i don't see how a monopoly would exist in free market capitalism. Could you provide me an example?
The antitrust cases brought against MS involved tying other products to their OS and other allegedly illegal manners in which they used their OS monopoly. But, I don't recall any allegation that the OS monopoly was obtained illegally in the first place.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by sh76I don't view that as a monopoly. They have a patent, but you can buy a MAC, correct? They have the market share because they developed a great product that most everyone uses, but someone could produce a different one if they wanted, although no one needs it so it probably would not be successful. A monopoly would only exist is no one else was allowed to produce a different software, which MAC already does.
Was Microsoft's operating system monopoly made by the government or done illegally? I don't think so.
The antitrust cases brought against MS involved tying other products to their OS and other allegedly illegal manners in which they used their OS monopoly. But, I don't recall any allegation that the OS monopoly was obtained illegally in the first place.
08 Sep 09
Not all monopolies are anticompetitive. Sometimes there are natural monopolies which occur when due to economies of scale in production and distribution it makes sence to have one single suppier. For example it is expensive to build water and gas pipes electricty or telephone lines so we would prefer to only have one suppier in each locality.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenInteresting you should say this AND be a proponent of "capitalism", don't you think?
The only way to have a monopoly is thru illegal force, or by the government. I don't understand your point that the outcome of capitalism is a monopoly. Monopolies don't occur naturally in a free market.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by quackquackpreference base on expense is not a TRUE monopoly. Neither is one company just being better/cheaper than the others making it more desirable to use them. That is the result of capitalism, competition producing better results for the consumer.
Not all monopolies are anticompetitive. Sometimes there are natural monopolies which occur when due to economies of scale in production and distribution it makes sence to have one single suppier. For example it is expensive to build water and gas pipes electricty or telephone lines so we would prefer to only have one suppier in each locality.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by Nimz-ovichLarsenAre you saying that capitalist entities are pre-programmed to stop behaving like capitalist entities somehow when the competition gets thin on the ground?
not at all. Capitalism produces competition which produces better/cheaper products for the consumer. Please give me examples of how capitalism leads to monopolies.
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenBut that's not the thread's topic. Start one about how 'there has never been any such thing as monopoly so we should not condemn them and we should not protect ourselves from that eventuality' by all means.
don't answer questions by asking one. Tell me, with examples, of how capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies.
You either think monopolies are good or bad. eljefejesus and I and others clearly agree on that. And regulations ought to be in place to protect citizens and participants in an economy from monopolies if they should occur. What's controversial about that?
Monopolies in business and labor are bad for everyone else. Do we agree on this?
08 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFyes i agree with that, of course. But it was you that said "Monopolies are the logical outcome of "capitalism"", so I am simply asking you to explain that to which I disagree.
But that's not the thread's topic. Start one about how 'there has never been any such thing as monopoly so we should not condemn them and we should not protect ourselves from that eventuality' by all means.
You either think monopolies are good or bad. eljefejesus and I and others clearly agree on that. And regulations ought to be in place to protect citizens ...[text shortened]... t that?
Monopolies in business and labor are bad for everyone else. Do we agree on this?