Care to elaborate? what makes you think this is the case? Any single historical example would be nice.
This is irrelevant to this thread...
Your saying in the US if you have a lot of medical expenses and don't have coverage it doesn't put people into bankruptcy? I promise you.. you are exaggerating I have a public option and I know it works well.
Your assumption is they would receive education for free? This is dishonest to me and subjects the poor to educators with ulterior objectives.. such as religion.
Well that may explain the inefficiency of it.. Plenty of centrally planned education systems turning out extremely talented people for less cost then the partially privatised system.
Any banking industry... Oil.. etc
I'm not sure it is irrelevant in fact I think it is perfectly relevant.
Yes it can but that is not the reason the majority of people file bankruptcy after a major medical event.
It's because they have been out of work and didn't have the money to pay their bills anyway.
I never said free.
I said that it's untrue that "the poor" would receive no education if it weren't for the state education system.
Religion whether you believe it or not, is none of your business.
Suffice to say that even with a state education system, a great many people still believe in creationism, even if the evidence is flimsy at best.
Partial privatization is about as foolish as total state monopoly.
I want a total private system.
Yes free market monopoly capitalism leads to monopolies. That is what it does.. then after the monopoly develops it makes itself a part of the system which is fascist.
Oh the people who are guaranteed to be out of work because of the nature of the system that wants higher unemployment to keep inflation in check? or the people who do work at near min wage to scrape by on a pay check to pay check basis?
I certainly view freedom of religion as freedom from religion and so do most libertarians I know of worth their salt.
I total private system would result in extreme stratification of quality of education with only the wealhty having the best education without some state intervention. This is a terrible idea and irresponsible in my humble opinon
That's not very specific. Any banking industry, or oil...are already under heavy regulation and interference--and have been for a long time. To demonstrate that a "free market," as you say, leads to monopolistic capitalism, you need to identify an actual instance when this has happened. so...
1) Identify a society with a free market.
2) Show how the market developed monopolistic tendencies and eventually true monopolies without any outside interference (free market, right?)
Since you seem so sure of your hypothesis, this should be relatively easy for you. Feel free to take an example from any time in history...good luck!
I was only saying that because the point of this thread was concerning the development of monopolies, not the consequences of them. Don't know what you're trying to prove by inserting the whole fascisim-angle.
Anything that is excludable, but has no rival in consumption is a natural monopoly.
Usually they have a large initial investment cost, but once the infrastructure is in place they cost relatively little to extend to another person (ie low marginal cost). This makes it unprofitable for another firm to enter, and actually reduces economic efficiency if one does. For example a police department. Once they are in place it costs relatively little to protect one more house. TV or pay per view movies are another good example.
Look the market develops on its own or not.. ether way it is monopolistic. If the state favours a particular business then it gain an advantage but that doesn't mean dispite that political gain that the private gain wasn't already present.. In fact it is more likely it already had an edge. I am not arguing for extreme anti market sentiment.. I am arguing for corporate accountability and a separation of state/private affairs.
Microsoft is a perfect example .. I don't need to elaborate on that much.
Fascism is partially the integration of a societies corporations with government.
Now the privatisation of your system will require certain rolls to be filled by private for profit companies which is the real drive behind the libertarian movement. To dismantle all governmental affairs and privatise them in one way or another to reduce the size of the government in particularly fiscal matters... all under the guise of individualism and liberty.
It's possible for a man to patent a truly unique idea and become the sole purveyor of that product.
Pet rocks didn't have much competition that I can recall. Problem with pet rocks was that the pets didn't die, so there was no replacement market.
It's possible for a man to patent a truly unique idea and become the sole purveyor of that product.
Pet rocks didn't have much competition that I can recall. Problem with pet rocks was that the pets didn't die, so there was no replacement market.
Your pet rocks are made in China despite the political bias thanks to the free market.. congrats.
That's true, but also not an example strictly within the context of a completely free market. Patents are enforced by law. (not to be nitpicky or anything)
You are partially right, but with confusion, though. Free market means a place where transaction is done with the condition that the will of the seller and the buyer are fully respected. If it is genuinely so, no law is needed for its protection. Unfortunately, there are always some gangs who want to rob. In robbing, the gangs destroy the genuine free market. The gangs are not part of the free market itself, but the parasites, bacteria, virus, AIDS that must attack the free market for a profit. Unless the proper medicine, i.e, the law, is there, the free market is hijacked. It is not the fault of the free market, but the free market is taken advantaged by those who want to convert it into a place for forced transaction, not free transaction, on the gangs' behalf.Yeah, funny how that works. Free markets are like every other freedom... protected by law.
Duh.
Without law there's no freedom, only anarchy leading to gang rule leading to warlordism leading to feudalism which eventually may lead to law, order, and freedom, after generations of misery, slavery, bloodshed and stagnation.
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.
Ok, since you brought up the "natural world," explain to me how lots of different species evolved from a single organism? By you're logic, we should have started out with lots of different organisms, and the weaker ones would have gotten weeded out until only the single strongest organism survived, giving it a "monopoly" on life.
Clearly this is not the case, which suggests that in the natural world competition for resources breeds variety and more competition.
But you also have to consider how much of the overhead costs are natural (ie. costs based upon meeting the necessity of actually providing the product/service under "normal" free conditions) vs. artificial (costs for liceses, fees, waivers, etc put in place by an entity separate from just what the market demands).
Ask yourself this... Are there any monopolies in a black market that are built solely upon an entitiy's market strategy (ie. monopolies not arising from a black market entity's use of force or violence to oust competitors)?
Question:
If an entity (such as a business), through lawful and fair methods (such as better product, lower price, customer service quality, etc.), can become a monopoly...Is this wrong, and is it necessary to eliminate such a monopoly?
Question:
If an entity (such as a business), through lawful and fair methods (such as better product, lower price, customer service quality, etc.), can become a monopoly...Is this wrong, and is it necessary to eliminate such a monopoly?
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.
Why do you think/know this?Believe me, an entity that can abide lawful and fair methods (such as better product, lower price, customer service quality, etc.) must still be in the process accessing the monopoly but not completely yet. Once it achieves the monopoly position, all its better product, lower price, customer service quality... will be transferred out of the entity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?