• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
Care to elaborate? what makes you think this is the case? Any single historical example would be nice.



This is irrelevant to this thread...

Any banking industry... Oil.. etc

I'm not sure it is irrelevant in fact I think it is perfectly relevant.
 
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.

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.

In addition, a "public option" would not decrease costs nor would it lighten the load on our already overloaded ED's and primary care administrators.

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.

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.

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.

Partial privatization is about as foolish as total state monopoly.
I want a total private system.
 
Last edited:
Any banking industry... Oil.. etc

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'm not sure it is irrelevant in fact I think it is perfectly relevant.

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.
 
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.


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
 
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.
 
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.

I don't know what the fascist part is, but a free market will do the opposite of what you suggest. Competitive markets, and monopolistic competition will in the long run tend towards 0 profits because of a constant enter and exit of firms in the market. Monopolies and oligopolies will lose market power because substitutes will emerge or new competition will be found.
 
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?

You purposefully do appeals to poverty, as if that is the natural result.
It trains people to be fiscally responsible.

A free approach to medical care allows doctors to practice price discrimination and insurance companies create real, affordable emergency medical care plans.

I certainly view freedom of religion as freedom from religion and so do most libertarians I know of worth their salt.

Anyone and everyone has the right to practice or not practice as they see fit.
You do not have a choice in how to raise another person's child, unless you plan to fully or partially fund their life.

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 isn't even true.

Prior to the creation of the first public school system in Massachusetts.
The state had a literacy rate of 98%.

You're just making unfounded assumptions.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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)?
 
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.

That's my point. You cannot say that free markets lead to monopolies without introducing outside pressure...the state or some other means. Private gain alone does not create a monopoly. Force does.

Fascism is partially the integration of a societies corporations with government.

Most collectivist forms of government do the same. fascism is not unique in this. In fact, fascism is much more of a culturally/nationally driven system than an economic one...economically, fascists usually subscribe to one form of socialism or another to try to create harmony/control over what they believe would otherwise be disparate market forces within a society.

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.

Libertarians are not for the dismantling of all government affairs. Only some. Again, this is off the topic of monopolies.
 
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.

Generally, though, it's almost impossible for a company to establish a monopoly without the interference of government suppressing competition.

Alcoa, if I recall, is one of the few examples of a monopolistic company eschewing abusive government power to attain and retain it's leadership position and relying instead on it's native innovative ability t meet it's customer's needs at a reasonable price.

"Reasonable", of course, is that price which captures enough market share to discourage competition without suppressing their own market.

And guess what? There's nothing wrong if a company can, by fair means, keep the lion's share of it's market to itself.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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)
 
bleh done for the night, cheers and good luck to you all.
 
Your pet rocks are made in China despite the political bias thanks to the free market.. congrats.

"Are made"?

You mean you bought one recently?

The height of the fad died in the early 70's....

And if someone is smart enough to get suckers to buy Chinese rocks, more power to them. That's what capitalism is about, getting people to want a product enough to shell out money for it.
 
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)

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

You have brought up a topic that is quite involved. Let me see if I can brought up a shorter answer. You have several hypotheses, such as "from a single organism", "Clearly this is not the case", "competition for resources breeds variety". All these hypotheses cannot be explained with isolation from each other.

As much as you start "from a single organism", I can assume with the equal legitimacy that different species evolved from quite a few different organisms. Why and how have they been there? I cannot answer you, if I can, I could have been one of the greatest scientists in the world. In fact, no one can, yet. However, when life is in its lower form, it can change its DNA structure rapidly, so rapid that an environment that would terminate it also needs to evolve rapidly. Otherwise, this newer form will dwell and breed. This is one of the reasons, as well as a proof, the flu virus has different varieties every year.

Since the new individuals bearing the new variation is not necessary of a uniform collection, to extinguish the entire collection of many varieties, it needs different environmental conditions to provide different hostile "weapons". Unless the hostile environment has all kind of right "weapons" to kill, some of the individuals in the non uniform collection would have chance to stay and breed. Some of those survive may even develop some DNA nature that would command such individuals to consume its own kind to survive. See how the chimpanzee hunt the smaller monkeys for food, although both are primates. All these have planted the root for different species to appear.

Because of the "transportation" in the non human environment is so slow, two phenomena continuously races between each other in nature: developing new varieties and eliminating varieties. Which phenomenon prevails? It depends. They will arrive at a certain balance under a certain circumstance. I will not explain more, but one of the balance is that human being's over breeding has made many other living beings impossible to continue on earth. Human beings have made themselves the top predator on earth. Now, they have been preparing another fierce competition: consuming (although not directly eating) their own kind, the potential is getting stronger and stronger. The stronger and stronger potential is intensified by two elements: They gang up according to different interests and the highly develop efficient weapons in killing. In the near future, as far as what I can see, Caucasians are a losing species, because they fail to gang up.
 
Last edited:
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)?

This is irrelevent. If the average total cost of a firm is continually declining it is a natural monopoly. More entrants would mean that each firm produces less, which means each firm faces a higher average total cost. This makes entrance unattractive. It does not really matter if the government causes this or not. Although, I am not sure how the government can cause a continually declining average cost, since it usually has to do with the nature of the product. Think about things like radio stations, or satalite TV. The initial cost is high, but once you have the infrastructure built it costs very little to add another person.
 
Last edited:
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?

Good question, in my opinion it isn't necessary.
I don't know of any that has existed though.
 
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?

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 ransferred out of the entity.
 
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'm sure someone alreayd mentioned this) But many businesses become monopolies because of customer things like loyalty, favor, good rapport and so on. . . . without extra effort or any gimiks on behalf of the company.
 
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.
Why do you think/know this?
 
Back
Top Bottom