Korean Job Discussion Forums

[RufusW]

Without competition monopolies can charge what they like. The many consumers pay for the unwarrented profit for the few at the top = they're inefficient. This is stopped with regulation. This supports the view that unregulated capitalism advantages those who are already rich/already hold a monopoly.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This is pretty much the same wall we hit every time. What proof is there that regulation has a net social benefit over doing nothing? Sure the monopoly is inefficient but is it more or less inefficient than simply letting the market correct itself? And how do you know?

[mises]

[RufusW]

[Rusty Shackleford]

[RufusW]

Yes, of course, goverment intervention can cause inefficiency, but unregulated capitalism (and monopolies) certainly do. Are you arguing for no regulation Mises?

[Rusty Shackleford]

[RufusW]

[Privateer]

[mises]

The problem with economics is that it exists almost solely in theory. Ask an "economist" anything and he'll say:

Assume you have blah blah

The problem is that life doesn't fit their assumptions. The whole thing needs to be tossed in the trash and restarted. Economic history must play more of a role.

So, in relation to this topic, from "assume you have blah blah" and then on to monopoly etc I reject the premise. I want a real world example that can be discussed in a specific context.

Government has her fingers in every little corner of every economy on earth. We have, in modern times, little evidence about mythical "unregulated free markets" beyond propaganda fed to naive undergrads. What we do know, from economic history, is that monopolies are not naturally occurring. This, not because of some dogmatic explanation of economics, but because there is no unmolested market to serve as a sample.

[Rusty Shackleford]

[RufusW]

[No_hite_pls]

[Privateer]

[Rusty Shackleford]