|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| No, no, no. You absolutely misunderstand monopolies. In a monopoly a comptetitor can't enter the market. If a monopoly is charging $100 for water, those who can't afgford $100 can't get water! |
The only way a competitor "can't" enter the market is when the government sets up regulation preventing it. There isn't a monopoly in history that wasn't either temporary, or a result of government charter. |
You obviously believe natural monopolies don't exist. Fine. Go back 2 pages and we can discuss this again. (For people who didn't take economics - natural monopolies are accepted by 99% of economists) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Natural monopolies exist, all the libertarians on this thread have argued that they don't actually exist. That's because if they accept that they do it justifies the existance of a government, uh oh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Agricultural society doesn't equal feudalism, nice try though. |
Still, you've simplistically glorified pre-industrial society
| RufusW wrote: |
You're willing to sacrifice present lives for the benefit of future generations? |
No. I justified the child labor of previous generations with the benefit of hindsight.
Look, I'm sorry you can't refute me, but there's nothing to be gained by making false accusations
| RufusW wrote: |
| That is horrible. |
Horrible but right
| RufusW wrote: |
| You're confusing a free market with a monopoly. |
Monopoly can mean different things. My analysis of monopolies was in that sense (one seller) valid. Government intervention preventing companies reaching a certain size of the market hurts consumers, as it is de facto subsidies for inferior businesses. Exclusive control to the extent that consumer demand goes unsatisfied is tricky, yes, but is generally granted by law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| The Tokyo subway system is an ideal example of how competing, private companies can operate at a profit. |
What are you talking about!? It's owned by the government!!! |
 It's a joint venture. However many of the original lines were built by private companies, and continue to be operated by them. Your ridiculous contention is that a subway system could "never" exist without being either a "natural monopoly" (which it clearly isn't, it came from several private companies), or without it being a government monopoly. Clearly it could exist without the government, but the government decided to get its grubby hands on it.
The same thing happened in New York. The New York mass transit started out as a bunch of private lines, until regulation on prices pressured them into selling out to the government and consolidated one by one. Your whole premise is totally bunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| No, no, no. You absolutely misunderstand monopolies. In a monopoly a comptetitor can't enter the market. If a monopoly is charging $100 for water, those who can't afgford $100 can't get water! |
The only way a competitor "can't" enter the market is when the government sets up regulation preventing it. There isn't a monopoly in history that wasn't either temporary, or a result of government charter. |
You obviously believe natural monopolies don't exist. Fine. Go back 2 pages and we can discuss this again. (For people who didn't take economics - natural monopolies are accepted by 99% of economists) |
You haven't proven jack. And as a last resort you appeal to authority (your made up stat of 99% of economists, which you have no way of confirming). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
Agricultural society doesn't equal feudalism, nice try though. |
Still, you've simplistically glorified pre-industrial society |
It's obvious agricultural socities supported themselves otherwise we wouldn't exist!
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| I justified the child labor of previous generations with the benefit of hindsight. |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Child labor was a necessary evil, I'm afraid. If children were banned from working, there would have been a decline in income and fewer goods available to buy with what less money people had. |
Justify the past as much as you want, it just makes me suspicious of what you'll justify in the future...
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Horrible but right |
And you don't even care/understand.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Monopoly can mean different things. |
No.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| My analysis of monopolies was in that sense (one seller) valid. |
You said a company can break a monopoly by offering a lower price, you're wrong, that's not how monopolies work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
You've done well with the Tokyo subway, I'll give you that. It started as private enterprises, in fact I'll give you the London Tube as well. You've done very well. This doesn't negate the fact natural monopolies exist.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Your ridiculous contention is that a subway system could "never" exist without being either a "natural monopoly" (which it clearly isn't, it came from several private companies), or without it being a government monopoly. Clearly it could exist without the government, but the government decided to get its grubby hands on it. |
You don;'t believe in any natural monopolies?
| visitorq wrote: |
| The same thing happened in New York. The New York mass transit started out as a bunch of private lines |
"During this era the expanded City of New York resolved that it wanted the core of future rapid transit to be underground subways, but realized that no private company was willing to put up the enormous capital required to build beneath the streets. The City decided to issue rapid transit bonds outside of its regular bonded debt limit and build the subways itself, and contracted with the IRT (which by that time ran the elevated lines in Manhattan) to equip and operate the subways, sharing the profits with the City and guaranteeing a fixed five-cent fare."
Debunk this if you wish, it's Wikipedia but unfortunately I trust it more than you.
Last edited by RufusW on Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:12 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| as a last resort you appeal to authority (your made up stat of 99% of economists, which you have no way of confirming). |
Yes I did. I find it absolutely incredible you libertarians don't believe in natural monopolies..... absolutely incredible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| You've done well with the Tokyo subway, I'll give you that. It started as private enterprises, in fact I'll give you the London Tube as well. You've done very well. This doesn't negate the fact natural monopolies exist. |
And just what natural monopolies are those?
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Your ridiculous contention is that a subway system could "never" exist without being either a "natural monopoly" (which it clearly isn't, it came from several private companies), or without it being a government monopoly. Clearly it could exist without the government, but the government decided to get its grubby hands on it. |
You don;'t believe in any natural monopolies? |
No, I don't. I'm not an authority on the matter, but I bet I can find a solid rebuttal for anything you pose (written by libertarians or Austrian economists).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| The same thing happened in New York. The New York mass transit started out as a bunch of private lines |
"During this era the expanded City of New York resolved that it wanted the core of future rapid transit to be underground subways, but realized that no private company was willing to put up the enormous capital required to build beneath the streets. The City decided to issue rapid transit bonds outside of its regular bonded debt limit and build the subways itself, and contracted with the IRT (which by that time ran the elevated lines in Manhattan) to equip and operate the subways, sharing the profits with the City and guaranteeing a fixed five-cent fare."
Debunk this if you wish, it's Wikipedia but unfortunately I trust it more than you. |
The debunkment is already contained in the above quotation. The reason private enterprise had backed off by that time was that the government had butted in and started regulating prices. Once the government decides to consolidate these businesses, they just write up whatever laws they want to drive under any competition. Of course private companies can't stay in business when the prices are regulated, but the government sure can (because they fund their enterprises with our tax dollars). So they all just sold out to the city authority and the rest is history.
Doesn't mean the government was just taking over a "natural monopoly", nor does it mean the government was doing anybody a service that couldn't have been done by private firms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
What about the Seoul Subway system? It is primarily run by three publically traded subway systems:
1. Seoul Metro (lines 1-4)
2. Seoul Metro Rapid Transit Corporation (lines 5-8 )
3. Korail (parts of lines 1,3,4)
I think the gov't has a stake in those corporations though. Not sure how they're set up exactly.
And aren't both local and express buses privately run too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In response to bucheon bum's post, we need to draw a distinction. It's true that there are several operators that run the trains on the Seoul Subway, but the Seoul Subway itself is owned by the Seoul Metropolitan City Government. The operators who run trains on on the tracks run them at the pleasure of the Seoul government, and presumably could compete with one another as service providers to the Seoul Metropolitan City Government, but with regards to individual passengers, the Seoul Subway is a monopoly. Lines 1-4 don't compete with lines 5-8 for passengers. Indeed, customers have very little choice as to which lines they'll actually take to a given station; there is one and only one fastest route in the overwhelming majority of cases, and more importantly, the overwhelming majority of stations are served by only one line.
Regarding the discussion on the Tokyo Subway, I have never been there and have no knowledge of it. If Tokyo's Subway system actually is a series of competitive entities (meaning different subways owned by different companies compete to take passengers to the same locations) -- rather than an overall monopoly simply run by several contracted companies -- that's interesting and probably disqualifies subways as natural monopolies. Looking at a map of the Tokyo Subway system, though, it looks to me just like Seoul's; the overwhelming majority of stations can be reached only via a particular line, and as such particular subway providers have monopolies on particular regions. The fact that the holder of the monopoly changes from region to region is immaterial; if I'm at one station, and want to get to another particular station via subway, and I have only one choice on which provider to use, what is that except monopolization?
Regarding intra-city buses, I see no reason private buses in competition with one another can't work just fine. Unlike subways, who are more or less able to monopolize individual stops, nothing can stop a bus from driving by and picking up passengers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Regarding intra-city buses, I see no reason private buses in competition with one another can't work just fine. Unlike subways, who are more or less able to monopolize individual stops, nothing can stop a bus from driving by and picking up passengers. |
But isn't the roading system a monopoly?
You can't have roads run by different companies going to the same place |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Regarding intra-city buses, I see no reason private buses in competition with one another can't work just fine. Unlike subways, who are more or less able to monopolize individual stops, nothing can stop a bus from driving by and picking up passengers. |
But isn't the roading system a monopoly?
You can't have roads run by different companies going to the same place |
Road systems are essentially a monopoly right now, and share a lot of the qualities of a subway system. The reason I would consider a private bus company distinct from, say, KORAIL in its capacity as a subway service provider, is that KORAIL is essentially in the employ of the Seoul Metropolitan City Government, while a private bus service need not be in anyone's employ to operate, and can collect fees from their customers directly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Monopoly can mean different things. |
No. |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| My analysis of monopolies was in that sense (one seller) valid. |
You said a company can break a monopoly by offering a lower price, you're wrong, that's not how monopolies work. |
The single most important thing is whether demand is met. A role for government regulating business to that effect is defensible but hardly earth-shattering (indeed, a role for government is to be feared - exclusivity strengthened by law) and nor does it vindicate the essential feature of the socialist worldview - government ownership. In general, I don't think I'm being at all unfair by saying that government regulation and ownership cost us a fortune, produce very little that we really need and often do us direct harm. It's time to regulate every single thing that government does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Regarding the discussion on the Tokyo Subway, I have never been there and have no knowledge of it. If Tokyo's Subway system actually is a series of competitive entities (meaning different subways owned by different companies compete to take passengers to the same locations) -- rather than an overall monopoly simply run by several contracted companies -- that's interesting and probably disqualifies subways as natural monopolies. Looking at a map of the Tokyo Subway system, though, it looks to me just like Seoul's; the overwhelming majority of stations can be reached only via a particular line, and as such particular subway providers have monopolies on particular regions. The fact that the holder of the monopoly changes from region to region is immaterial; if I'm at one station, and want to get to another particular station via subway, and I have only one choice on which provider to use, what is that except monopolization? |
In Tokyo there are two main divisions in direct competition off the bat: the private subway network (the Tokyo Metro lines) and JR (now privately owned, it used to be Japan National Rail run by the government). Technically speaking, the JR is mainly above ground, but it goes to just about every major subway station. Every major hub (Shinjuku, Shibuya, Ikebukuro, Ueno, Tokyo station etc.) can therefore be reached by multiple competing lines (Shinjuku alone has got something like 15 lines going to it). It is not even possible to transfer fares over between Tokyo Metro and JR (although in recent years they have worked together to make cashless prepaid card payment systems mutually compatible, but you still have to choose one fare or the other). There are other private rail lines as well, like Seibu, Tobu, and Tokyu (which operates the major Denentoshi line from Yokohama to Shibuya, where the track splits off with the Tokyo Metro Hanzomon line).
JR and Tokyo Metro are each essentially run as a cartels and the system as a whole is regulated, but arguably it doesn't need to be. The Tokyo Metro itself has multiple lines that go to many of the same stations and could compete with Toei lines and JR lines (for example, the Ginza, Marunouchi, and Oedo lines connect at many of the same stations, as does the JR line. You can plan just about any journey to a main station using different lines. It would be theoretically possible for each individual line to compete, but share the same payment system to keep it convenient for users.
Basically this is one of the main complaints from travelers going to Tokyo for the first time: it seems complicated (and it is). Personally I think it's a great system and once you get to know it you can take short cuts or take different lines depending on whether you're in a hurry or just want to sit down, or which side of the station you want to end up in. Traveling in Tokyo also overpriced compared to other cities (like Seoul), but I think this has to do with government regulation, and the fact that Tokyo is just expensive no matter what (plus JR still has a lot of debts from when it was mismanaged under the government). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
