• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe in natural monopolies?

Do you believe in natural monopolies?

  • Yes (Explain)

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • No (Explain)

    Votes: 11 57.9%
  • Other (Explain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A simple question to start a discourse.

I do not believe in natural monopolies since they wouldn't exist in a free market. They only exist when the government regulates in favor of established businesses, which bars entry into the marketplace from newer competitors.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,790
Reaction score
8,576
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In certain circumstances over periods of time yes.

Potable water that is piped into your house, rather then being delivered by truck is such a case

It is very unlikely that a secondary water company is going to build a secondary distribution network (ie pipes) to homes an neighborhoods that already have them, The costs are extremely high, for a very low profit margin item
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In certain circumstances over periods of time yes.

Potable water that is piped into your house, rather then being delivered by truck is such a case

It is very unlikely that a secondary water company is going to build a secondary distribution network (ie pipes) to homes an neighborhoods that already have them, The costs are extremely high, for a very low profit margin item
Water companies here are government run, so they fail the natural monopoly thing. I was refering to a business gaining a monopoly over a particular product.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ehh yes and no.
Depends on time and place.

I think power generation is slowly moving away from the natural monopoly set.
Solar and wind, along with personal restrictions on usage(aka efficiency), can eventually eliminate the power monopoly system.

Water can also be done this way, although usage would have to be personally monitored to not outstrip supply.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Water companies here are government run, so they fail the natural monopoly thing. I was refering to a business gaining a monopoly over a particular product.
Oh, well no for the most part.

Almost every single monopoly has formed because of government favoritism or privilege.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A simple question to start a discourse.

I do not believe in natural monopolies since they wouldn't exist in a free market. They only exist when the government regulates in favor of established businesses, which bars entry into the marketplace from newer competitors.
Where did you get your premise that monopolies don't exist in free markets.
And the second.. that the govt creates them.

These are Both False premises.
The govt Routinely Blocks anti-competitive mergers and Prevents Natural monopolies.

It's only the existence of federal anti-trust laws that prevents the airlines, railroads, etc etc, etc, etc, from becoming large natural monopolies.
They would be far more efficient and have more pricing power as one entity but know they can't pull it off due TO the govt.

Google would easily eat it's remaining competition Yahoo if allowed, and even without doing so, Has a virtual monopoly. But they wouldn't even try because of existing anti-trust laws. And only because of them.
This applies in Many industries.

It Was the Federal govt who broke up Standard Oil into most of todays major oil companies.

It was the Federal govt who broke up AT&T into 7 companies 25 years ago to promote competition... FROM it's Natural monopoly state.
But now we're back down to 3 of the 7 due to natural efficiencies of scale and the more successful Naturally eating the less successful.

So the true 'natural state' is kept in check by the govt NOT promoted by it.
Many companies would love to eat each other but know they are not allowed.
 
Last edited:

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Where did you get your premise that monopolies don't exist in free markets.

And the second.. that the govt creates them.

These are Both False premises.
The govt Routinely Blocks anti-competitive mergers and prevents Natural monopolies.

It's only the existence of federal anti-trust laws that prevents the airlines, railroads, etc etc, etc, etc, from becoming large natural monopolies.

Google would easily eat it's remaining competition Yahoo if allowed, and even without doing so, Has a virtual monopoly. But they wouldn't even try because of existing anti-trust laws. And only because of them.
This applies in Many industries.

It Was the Federal govt who broke up Standard Oil into most of todays major oil companies.

It was the Federal govt who broke up AT&T into 7 companies 25 years ago to promote competition... FROM it's Natural monopoly state.
But now we're back down to 3 of the 7 due to natural efficiencies of scale and the more successful Naturally eating the less successful.

So the true 'natural state' is kept in check by the govt NOT promoted by it.
All of the examples you gave are because of government regulation that allowed them to form in the first place. That tells me that there wouldn't be natural monopolies in a free market since the government isn't interferring.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,020
Reaction score
6,500
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Outside products (such as the aforementioned water and power) that are delivered via infrastructure such as wires or pipes, thus greatly limiting (unless infrastructure is publically owned, for one) service provider competition?

I don't know.

IF there are laws preventing the varied actions that could allow a monopoly to keep potential competitors out of the market, THEN no anti-monopoly laws would be necessary.

Assuming, of course, that those laws were enforced in all cases.

As to laws creating/supporting monopolies (thus, unnatural), I have no idea, but I would assume such laws would be on a more state/local level, rather than federal, outside some few. But I know nothing about any such.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A simple question to start a discourse.

I do not believe in natural monopolies since they wouldn't exist in a free market. They only exist when the government regulates in favor of established businesses, which bars entry into the marketplace from newer competitors.
In the so-called free market, businesses tends to be more monopolistic and stifle competition because corporations combine together though mergers and acquisitions.

Just look a banking, the media and the petroleum industry now from what it used to be.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In the so-called free market, businesses tends to be more monopolistic and stifle competition because corporations combine together though mergers and acquisitions.

Just look a banking, the media and the petroleum industry now from what it used to be.
All of the examples you've cited are like they are because of the government got involved.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A simple question to start a discourse.

I do not believe in natural monopolies since they wouldn't exist in a free market. They only exist when the government regulates in favor of established businesses, which bars entry into the marketplace from newer competitors.
I don't quite get the point of your question. Does it mean that natural monopolies wouldn't exist in a free market? If it does mean so, I may have to disagree. Free market, if genuinely free, means genuine competition in business. In any kind of competition, in the natural world or in human society, governed by intelligence or not, eliminating the weak so that the strong one potentially becomes stronger is spontaneous. The end result must be funneled to monopoly. This is natural. In the wild nature, there is nothing to stop it until a top predator appears. In human society, we can stop it, but it must take a government's action; and indeed, only governmental force can take care of this kind of problem. But, then, the unfortunate thing is how to have such a government that can be trusted by all interest groups. Since at the international level, there is not a central government to regulate, the "market" at this level is the most "genuinely" free place, and the competition thee is getting as fierce as it can get. Watch how the monopolies appear and grow in the free "market". Indeed, at one time, the Communist Bloc almost monopolized half of the Europe and half of the Asia. Had the leading core of the Soviet Bloc not made some mistake, the world would still feel the choking pressure today.
 
Last edited:

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Monopolies happen because the corporation is more efficient then small business. That’s just the way it is.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It is not true that the big old monopolies formed because of government involvement. That is a complete misreading of history.

It is true that most businesses will run more efficiently if they are consolidated, but it is not always true. Where it is true, monopolies will form, unless the government steps in to stop them or break them up.

Monopolies form most easily and stay in place longer where the barriers to entry are high. Government can indeed form high barriers to entry, and can therefore induce the creation of monopolies. But, to make the wild leap that Gov't interference is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of monopolies is simply that: A wild leap.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is not true that the big old monopolies formed because of government involvement. That is a complete misreading of history.

It is true that most businesses will run more efficiently if they are consolidated, but it is not always true. Where it is true, monopolies will form, unless the government steps in to stop them or break them up.

Monopolies form most easily and stay in place longer where the barriers to entry are high. Government can indeed form high barriers to entry, and can therefore induce the creation of monopolies. But, to make the wild leap that Gov't interference is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of monopolies is simply that: A wild leap.
I really don't feel like doing this argument again but it can be shown that government has protected and supported those monopolistic institutions in a lot of scenarios.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It is not true that the big old monopolies formed because of government involvement. That is a complete misreading of history.

It is true that most businesses will run more efficiently if they are consolidated, but it is not always true. Where it is true, monopolies will form, unless the government steps in to stop them or break them up.

Monopolies form most easily and stay in place longer where the barriers to entry are high. Government can indeed form high barriers to entry, and can therefore induce the creation of monopolies. But, to make the wild leap that Gov't interference is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of monopolies is simply that: A wild leap.
This is a lie. Your completely wrong. Corporations develop from small to large and seek to monopoly the market whenever they can .. that is what they do. The only way it is prevented is when government intervenes and breaks the monopoly.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I really don't feel like doing this argument again but it can be shown that government has protected and supported those monopolistic institutions in a lot of scenarios.
The reason government has done that is because corporations are super successful.
 
Last edited:

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Hmm, well do you think it's alright for the government to deploy soldiers to force employees to work?
What does this have to do with corporations running your country? How are corporations accountable to the people outside of being profitable? The state is not a business.. it is a democratically elected group of paid servants. This is something Americans don't understand in a country ran by free market mentality.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What does this have to do with corporations running your country? How are corporations accountable to the people outside of being profitable? The state is not a business.. it is a democratically elected group of paid servants. This is something Americans don't understand in a country ran by free market mentality.
Well a business got the government to issue national guard troops in order to force workers to end their strike.

I pretty sure that counts as government propping up business.

No we've already go round and round about your supposed belief what the "free market" is.
You've been shown to be extremely wrong.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Well a business got the government to issue national guard troops in order to force workers to end their strike.

I pretty sure that counts as government propping up business.

No we've already go round and round about your supposed belief what the "free market" is.
You've been shown to be extremely wrong.
Sounds like what your saying big business got the government to do something. The free market won't ever be whatever you propose it might be never has been since the financiers of the economy became organised. They determine who gets the loans for what. Since they are unregulated guess where free market goes? It goes the way they want it to.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sounds like what your saying big business got the government to do something. The free market won't ever be whatever you propose it might be never has been since the financiers of the economy became organised. They determine who gets the loans for what. Since they are unregulated guess where free market goes? It goes the way they want it to.
I'm sorry but the market is not unregulated.
It has never been like that.

The difference is that my idea prevents giving select businesses privilege and subsidy with the current and previous market giving them lots of those.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I'm sorry but the market is not unregulated.
It has never been like that.

The difference is that my idea prevents giving select businesses privilege and subsidy with the current and previous market giving them lots of those.
Which like say blackwater?
 
Top Bottom