T Nation

Trusts, Monopolies

I’m sitting on the fence on this, However I’m leaning towards prefering to get rid of anti trust laws. Why? because they infringe on property rights. Some will argue that this kills off competitors, and will lower the quality of goods. I disagree. If there is a demand for a higher quality product than trust A makes, company B can provide it. People will point to supply and demand as a reason against it, because trusts can kill competitors and then raise prices. But if they raise prices, only dropping them on the advent of competition, and lower the quality of the good eventually the consumer will just switch (create demand) to another company for their product.

Pros:
-creates larger productive capabilities
-lowers overall cost per product produced.
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price

Any thoughts?

I think you need to do quite a bit of reading before making any additional posts here if you think that monopolies are anything but a bane to society.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price[/quote]

Please explain monopoly competition.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I think you need to do quite a bit of reading before making any additional posts here if you think that monopolies are anything but a bane to society.[/quote]

Are you the pot, or the kettle?

Take your own advice.

Speaking of monopolies…

"In one of the most startling discussions, some policy makers argued that the central bank should simply drop its official target for the federal funds rate altogether. They noted that bank lending had become so paralyzed that the actual Fed funds rate was already well below the official target of 1 percent for the last month. Some advocates of not setting a Fed funds rate argued that it might actually help focus investor attention on the Fed?s new arsenal of policy measures.

Other policy makers feared that such a change would lead to confusion, and might prompt investors to think the Fed had lost control over short-term interest rates. In the end, the central bank lowered the target rate from 1 percent to a range from zero to one-quarter of a percent.

The minutes also conveyed a striking shift in worries about inflation. The minutes showed no hint that any of the Fed policy makers were worried that their actions might rekindle inflation. The only concerns about price levels were in connection with deflation, or an across-the-board decline in consumer prices."

Our Fed has a monopoly on lunacy…if the data is disturbing, don’t publish it? Jeeeezzzz, what next?

[quote]pookie wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price

Please explain monopoly competition.
[/quote]

If profits in an industry become excessively high, entrepreneurs will try to enter the market.

The threat of competition is enough.

[quote]orion wrote:
pookie wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price

Please explain monopoly competition.

If profits in an industry become excessively high, entrepreneurs will try to enter the market.

The threat of competition is enough.[/quote]

Ha ha, good one.

You seem to think that the cost of entry in a market is irrelevant.

A monopoly can use financial and legal means to make it nearly impossible to enter a market; they can easily make it impossible for any small entrepreneurs to enter.

Maybe could point out an example where a monopoly was better serving its customers than the equivalent competetive market?

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
pookie wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price

Please explain monopoly competition.

If profits in an industry become excessively high, entrepreneurs will try to enter the market.

The threat of competition is enough.

Ha ha, good one.

You seem to think that the cost of entry in a market is irrelevant.

A monopoly can use financial and legal means to make it nearly impossible to enter a market; they can easily make it impossible for any small entrepreneurs to enter.
[/quote]

A “monopoly” cannot do that. Governments can to that.

I also never claimed that the cost of entering a market is irrelevant. I simply claimed that if profits become excessively high, it becomes increasingly more interesting to invest in that area.

So, there is a natural limit for what a monopoly can charge its customers.

I have a hard time doing that, since monopolies tend to be enforced by governments.

So I take it that competing currencies are a matter of very high priority to you, since money is not A, but THE good.

Name a monopoly that isn’t dependent on government for protection.

Pookie, even you recognize that monopolies need the help of the courts (government) to survive.

[quote]orion wrote:
A “monopoly” cannot do that. Governments can to that.[/quote]

A monopoly cannot make it into law, but they can make entry so difficult as to there being nearly no difference. If they hold patents, they can litigate any newcomer into bankruptcy; they can sign exclusivity deals with suppliers; they can establish “standards” protected by patents; copyright, etc. They can undercut a newcomer’s pricing until they have to fold up, etc. They can outright buy off any small competitor.

The price a monopoly can fix on it’s products is largely a matter of not pushing too far. If your good is in any way “essential”, exaggerating will eventually get the government involved.

Which gets us back to anti-trust laws.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Name a monopoly that isn’t dependent on government for protection.

Pookie, even you recognize that monopolies need the help of the courts (government) to survive.[/quote]

Well, that depends on whether you abolish patent and copyright along with anti-trust laws.

If there are no legal recourses; then the courts aren’t needed either.

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Name a monopoly that isn’t dependent on government for protection.

Pookie, even you recognize that monopolies need the help of the courts (government) to survive.

Well, that depends on whether you abolish patent and copyright along with anti-trust laws.

If there are no legal recourses; then the courts aren’t needed either.
[/quote]

Patents and copyright laws have nothing to do with this discussion.

But nice try.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Name a monopoly that isn’t dependent on government for protection.

Pookie, even you recognize that monopolies need the help of the courts (government) to survive.

Well, that depends on whether you abolish patent and copyright along with anti-trust laws.

If there are no legal recourses; then the courts aren’t needed either.

Patents and copyright laws have nothing to do with this discussion.

But nice try. [/quote]

Well, in a way a patent gives a time limited monopoly on an idea.

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
A “monopoly” cannot do that. Governments can to that.

A monopoly cannot make it into law, but they can make entry so difficult as to there being nearly no difference. If they hold patents, they can litigate any newcomer into bankruptcy; they can sign exclusivity deals with suppliers; they can establish “standards” protected by patents; copyright, etc. They can undercut a newcomer’s pricing until they have to fold up, etc. They can outright buy off any small competitor.

The price a monopoly can fix on it’s products is largely a matter of not pushing too far. If your good is in any way “essential”, exaggerating will eventually get the government involved.

Which gets us back to anti-trust laws.
[/quote]

So your opinion regarding monopolized currencies is?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Patents and copyright laws have nothing to do with this discussion.

But nice try. [/quote]

They are relevant in establising how a monopoly can raise barriers to entry into the market it controls.

They’re just another tool.

Kinda like you.

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Name a monopoly that isn’t dependent on government for protection.

Pookie, even you recognize that monopolies need the help of the courts (government) to survive.

Well, that depends on whether you abolish patent and copyright along with anti-trust laws.

If there are no legal recourses; then the courts aren’t needed either.

Patents and copyright laws have nothing to do with this discussion.

But nice try.

Well, in a way a patent gives a time limited monopoly on an idea.
[/quote]

If you are going to use that line of reasoning, then private property rights are a form of a monopoly.

A patent is exclusive to a particular widget - not all widgets. You can still have more than one widget maker.

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Patents and copyright laws have nothing to do with this discussion.

But nice try.

They are relevant in establising how a monopoly can raise barriers to entry into the market it controls.

They’re just another tool.

Kinda like you.
[/quote]

A very short, temporary barrier that can be very easily side stepped.

Kinda like you sidestepped me asking you to name one monopoly that isn’t protected by the government.

Like I said. Nice try.

You are a hack when it comes to business. Maybe you should ply your warez on computers instead of looking like an idiot in this discussion.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I think you need to do quite a bit of reading before making any additional posts here if you think that monopolies are anything but a bane to society.[/quote]

Yet you seem not to have any problem with government monopolies like roads, health care, and police?

Monopolies are not inherently bad unless they coercively drive out competition and use political influence to protect their own interests at the expense of the consuming public.

In fact, monopolies can only happen by government mandate. As long as there exist a threat that someone will enter the market to compete with a monopoly a monopoly cannot charge “monopoly prices”. Monopolies will only remain on top if the public still chooses to consume their product.

[quote]pookie wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price

Please explain monopoly competition.
[/quote]

Choosing not to consume.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Kinda like you sidestepped me asking you to name one monopoly that isn’t protected by the government.[/quote]

Since most civilized countries have anti-trust laws, it’s rather difficult to find any monopoly that didn’t get busted apart at some point.

I notice that you didn’t rise up either and name me a non-government monopoly that was better for the customers than a multi-competitor environment.

Then again, when was the last time you actually made any argument in a thread? Keep posting your irrelevant litte barbs and think you’ve got it all figured out.

Right. Like you could tell the difference either way. Like I said, you’re just a tool who parrots what he’s been told.