View Poll Results: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (Explain)

    12 46.15%
  • No (Explain)

    14 53.85%
  • Other (Explain

    0 0%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 114

Thread: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

  1. #91
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 04:13 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    486

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    So we wouldn't need anti-trust laws if we had laws that somehow prevented those negative methods directed at preventing/eliminating competition which you speak of?
    Don't you think "laws that somehow prevented those negative methods directed at preventing/eliminating" is one form of anti-trust laws? I believe anti-trust law is absolutely necessary. Making such law is an indispensible function and an inescapable responsibility of a healthy capitalist government.

    Healthy capitalism means healthy free market in which all transactions are genuinely free. By free, it means that the will of both the seller and the purchaser in any trade is fully respected. Once monopoly appears, such respect gradually disappears; free market is gradually losing its true free nature, free trade is eroded.

    One big misfortune and misconception in today's society is that, when people talk about monopoly, they only pay attention to capital monopoly, but completely ignore the monopoly of labor force. Not only that, they even encourage and promote monopoly of labor force by law, glamorize such monopoly in every way, in morality, in public opinion.

    Labor force monopolization is far more dangerous to the human future than monopolization of capital. Capitalism is dying under our nose; the main culprit is labor force monopolization.

    If America wants to survive like what she was (not "is"), she must apply anti-trust law to labor force monopolization with ten times of strength as what she has done to the capital monopolization. Otherwise, all of us must prepare to live in a Socialist America very soon.

    Socialism, a social system that condemns and subsequently expels free market, must be a system that embraces forced trade. She has no other choice. Can you think of other form of trade besides free trade and forced trade? Forced trade means one hundred percent of enslaving. Do you see other choice?

  2. #92
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,754

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    First, let me say I have very little (perhaps no) formal knowledge of how the economy/business/whatever works.


    What I say is, as a result, based on knowledge in other areas, and what I use for common sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    Don't you think "laws that somehow prevented those negative methods directed at preventing/eliminating" is one form of anti-trust laws?
    Of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    I believe anti-trust law is absolutely necessary. Making such law is an indispensible function and an inescapable responsibility of a healthy capitalist government.
    Depending on how, exactly, those laws go about preventing trusts, I would agree that they are necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    Healthy capitalism means healthy free market in which all transactions are genuinely free. By free, it means that the will of both the seller and the purchaser in any trade is fully respected. Once monopoly appears, such respect gradually disappears; free market is gradually losing its true free nature, free trade is eroded.
    Interesting point.


    My take on this is that instead of making laws that punish partial or full “trusts”, make laws that prevent them from forming and/or sustaining themselves (in the form of a trust, that is) if they already exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    One big misfortune and misconception in today's society is that, when people talk about monopoly, they only pay attention to capital monopoly, but completely ignore the monopoly of labor force. Not only that, they even encourage and promote monopoly of labor force by law, glamorize such monopoly in every way, in morality, in public opinion.
    I don’t.


    Monopoly of labor can probably be just as bad, depending on varied factors I don’t have full knowledge of.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    Labor force monopolization is far more dangerous to the human future than monopolization of capital. Capitalism is dying under our nose; the main culprit is labor force monopolization.
    That’s your opinion, and you may be correct. I have no way of knowing one way or the other.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    If America wants to survive like what she was (not "is"), she must apply anti-trust law to labor force monopolization with ten times of strength as what she has done to the capital monopolization. Otherwise, all of us must prepare to live in a Socialist America very soon.
    That might be a bit of a stretch…


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    Socialism, a social system that condemns and subsequently expels free market, must be a system that embraces forced trade. She has no other choice. Can you think of other form of trade besides free trade and forced trade? Forced trade means one hundred percent of enslaving. Do you see other choice?
    Those last few phrases are a bit incoherent…

    As I understand the concept of socialism, it relies on everyone involved being willing (not forced) to give all that they produce/possess to a collective poll that everyone then draws from.


    That, obviously (at least to me), can never happen. Human nature prevents it.


    I believe you are thinking more of Communism, or at least the form practiced in the former USSR.
    ---------

    But really, it all depends on how you define things.

    I could argue that if you create any laws regulating/restricting trade, it would no longer be “free trade”.

    I take your point, though.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #93
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 04:13 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    486

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post

    My take on this is that instead of making laws that punish partial or full “trusts”, make laws that prevent them from forming and/or sustaining themselves (in the form of a trust, that is) if they already exist .
    Prevention is always more ideal, but ideal things are always less possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    As I understand the concept of socialism, it relies on everyone involved being willing (not forced) to give all that they produce/possess to a collective poll that everyone then draws from.
    That is the society, pictorial only, though, with which the socialists lure people to follow.

    Don't forget, to get to that society, people need leaders. For the leaders to function well, they need power and form a leading core to operate the power; such a power cannot tolerate a second leading core. Here is how power monopolization develops and comes into play. Just imagine, once the "ideal" society is realized, will the political core that has led the people to build a new society dismiss itself? The nature and essence of politics will only tell you "NO"; they will stay in power forever, as long as it could.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    That, obviously (at least to me), can never happen. Human nature prevents it.
    You get it right, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I believe you are thinking more of Communism, or at least the form practiced in the former USSR.
    According to the socialists, Communism is a more advanced and thus more perfect model of Socialism. Actually, it is the same criminal but having advanced from a father to a grandfather. The essence of both is monopolization of power. Absolute power monopolization naturally means absolute enslaving to its subjects.

    My overall comment to your overall comment is: If everyone in America can think in the way you think, we would have been able to remove at least one half of the Socialist danger that this country is facing. Thanks, sincerely.
    Last edited by crebigsol; 08-12-10 at 06:27 PM.

  4. #94
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,754

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    Prevention is always more ideal, but ideal things are always less possible.
    I don’t mean prevention exclusively.

    I mean…indirect restrictions, if you will.

    Not “your business cannot exceed X% of the market, as determined by us”, but rather “your business cannot engage in x, y, and z actions (which actions would allow them to easily reach that state of partial or complete monopoly).

    I think, personally, that if there were laws protecting smaller businesses from being eliminated by larger, more people would try to challenge the bigger businesses, creating competition, and preventing monopolies.

    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    That is the society, pictorial only, though, with which the socialists lure people to follow.
    But of course. An idealistic vision is quite attractive…Hell, if it were viable, I would ascribe to it as well, it would make the various things I wish I had the money for perhaps easier to achieve…but I know that such is not the case. Indeed, in such a society, my wishes would likely have not occurred to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    Don't forget, to get to that society, people need leaders. For the leaders to function well, they need power and form a leading core to operate the power; such a power cannot tolerate a second leading core. Here is how power monopolization develops and comes into play. Just imagine, once the "ideal" society is realized, will the political core that has led the people to build a new society dismiss itself? The nature and essence of politics will only tell you "NO"; they will stay in power forever, as long as it could.
    That’s one plus side to the current multiple power cores in the USA – Government, business, labor...Are there any more? Unless I’m incorrect, and it’s all one whole – but rather than the current setup, that seems to be the direction it’s moving towards.


    Bla.


    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    You get it right, too.
    I hope so.

    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    According to the socialists, Communism is a more advanced and thus more perfect model of Socialism. Actually, it is the same criminal but having advanced from a father to a grandfather. The essence of both is monopolization of power. Absolute power monopolization naturally means absolute enslaving to its subjects.
    Not all socialists. I’m fairly sure there’s at least one on this forum who would disagree.

    But some, assuredly.

    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol View Post
    My overall comment to your overall comment is: If everyone in America can think in the way you think, we would have been able to remove at least one half of the Socialist danger that this country is facing. Thanks, sincerely.
    Which is probably why I get pissed at about half of the US population from time to time.

    /shrug
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #95
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,898

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    View Post
    Healthy capitalism means healthy free market in which all transactions are genuinely free. By free, it means that the will of both the seller and the purchaser in any trade is fully respected. Once monopoly appears, such respect gradually disappears; free market is gradually losing its true free nature, free trade is eroded.
    The era of "Free Capitalism" died at the end of the 19th century. The tendency of competition to transform into monopoly and the accumulation of capital killed that off long ago. Yes, there have been laws that have opposed the direct and open power of monopolies (such as the time leading up to WWI) but that does not mean that monopolies no longer exist, nor does it mean that we live in an era of "free competition".

    Capitalism has a tendency to transform free competition into monopoly capital. It is built into the way that the system works. There is no "stopping" it.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  6. #96
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 04:13 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    486

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Which is probably why I get pissed at about half of the US population from time to time.
    Hope some of them wake up soon before too late. Cheer!

  7. #97
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    The era of "Free Capitalism" died at the end of the 19th century. The tendency of competition to transform into monopoly and the accumulation of capital killed that off long ago. Yes, there have been laws that have opposed the direct and open power of monopolies (such as the time leading up to WWI) but that does not mean that monopolies no longer exist, nor does it mean that we live in an era of "free competition".

    Capitalism has a tendency to transform free competition into monopoly capital. It is built into the way that the system works. There is no "stopping" it.
    I don't know about that.

    Two of the most favorite to quote monopolies, we're starting to crumble by the time the feds started to take action.
    U.S. steel lost market share, not because of federal intervention but because such an unwieldy organization loses efficiency.

    The same thing was happening to Standard Oil.
    But then again they benefited directly from another granted monopoly.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #98
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 04:13 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    486

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    The era of "Free Capitalism" died at the end of the 19th century.
    This is a typical view that can be found in almost all the classic writings for Communism, serving to legitimate the power usurpation movement launched by the Socialists. The fact is that the most typical government of Capitalism, the USA, is working hard aiming at pushing forward various anti-trust laws during this period, although not completely successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    The tendency of competition to transform into monopoly and the accumulation of capital killed that off long ago. Yes, there have been laws that have opposed the direct and open power of monopolies (such as the time leading up to WWI) but that does not mean that monopolies no longer exist, nor does it mean that we live in an era of "free competition".
    Capitalism does have her weak points. One of the weak point is that she may lead to monopolization. However, there are two types of monopolization in the same society: Monopolization of capital and monopolization of labor force. As far as monopolization of capital is concerned, she does have shown to the world that she is more than willing to self-improve and self-restrict through laws and regulations. No political system of any other kind has ever shown such flexibility, if not benevolence, in human history. As far as monopolization of labor force is concerned, extremely unfortunate to capitalism, not only she has no law to restrict it, but she even has law to protect, guarantee, encourage such monopolization. The public glamorizes the monopolization of labor force through morality and opinion.

    Yes, what we can see now is that capitalism is dying. However, what leads to her death is not the monopolization of capital; it is the monopolization of labor force that strangles her. It is a typical case that a murderer accused a victim, who starts with a helpful nature, of plotting the inevitable death scene.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Capitalism has a tendency to transform free competition into monopoly capital.
    Again, it is only half (or even only 1/8) way true. Do not forget the monopoly of labor force. It is the monopoly of labor force that is the far more destructive factor to destroy capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It is built into the way that the system works. There is no "stopping" it.
    All kind of anti-trust law and law suit have told us what you said is not true as far as monopoly of capital is concerned. What you said is so far correct, as far as labor force monopolization is concerned.

    Have you ever pondered that monopolization of labor force is far more dangerous to human future than capital monopolization? While capitalist society does enact law to restrict capital monopolization, have you ever seen any Socialist country enacting law to restrict absolute power monopolization, in which capital is only one small item to be monopolized?

  9. #99
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,898

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by HG
    I don't know about that.
    About which part?

    Quote Originally Posted by crebigsol
    This is a typical view that can be found in almost all the classic writings for Communism, serving to legitimate the power usurpation movement launched by the Socialists.
    It was a quite common belief held at the time and had little to do with whether or not one was a socialist.

    "50 or 60 large corporations, each controlled by two, three or four men, do 80 per cent of the industrial business of the country." - New York Times April 27, 1930. Extracted from Truth About the Trusts by John Moody (i.e. the founder of Moody's Corporation).

    "Moreover, by pyramiding successive buyers of holding companies on one another, a few entrepreneurs with a relatively small investment could dominate the policies of operating companies representing a vast investment at the bottom." Government and the American Economy by Fainsod & Gordon, p.437.

    This was also the time when many (bourgeois, i.e. pro-capitalist) economists were lauding monopoly as a "new form of capitalism" superior to the old ways of competition, for absorbing economic crises, for example.

    The fact is that the most typical government of Capitalism, the USA, is working hard aiming at pushing forward various anti-trust laws during this period, although not completely successful.
    "Thus, [regarding the Sherman Anti-Trust Act] antagonism to trusts became an ostensibly bipartisan policy, but it was in fact believed in strongly by the leaders of neither party." - ibid. p.451

    The Sherman Anti-Trust Act wasn't enforced for years. Moreover, the legislation against monopolization were against (in the late 19th century) the trust proper and not against monopolization in general. The trust movement was brought to a standstill at the end of the 19th century, but monopolization took on a new form with the holding company.

    "Combines during this period [1896-1904] were based largely on the structure of the holding company, rather than on the trusteeship form of organization."

    Following this was a period of hostility to the monopolies, which included the SCotUS dissolving the Northern Securities Co., Standard Oil and American Tobacco. Yet this dissolution did not change the fact that by this time monopoly capital had dominated.

    Moreover, by WW1 the policy was shifted once more:

    "Webb-Pomerene Bill was rushed through congress with a view to encourage great corporations to present a united front in the struggle for markets abroad."

    So to say that the "government is working hard" is somewhat of a lie. The role of the state is to maintain the conditions of its rule, not to attack monopolies. It will do so generally only insomuch as it prevents the collapse of the system. Finally, to say that it's actually necessary for government to enact such laws validates my point.

    Competition transforms into monopoly. This is a historically established fact.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 08-13-10 at 09:05 PM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  10. #100
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Do you believe in natural monopolies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    About which part?
    Market monopolization.

    Most recitations, that I've seen, have links to government favoritism.
    I wouldn't necessarily call it a natural effect.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •