|
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 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| 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 [sic] of a government, uh oh. |
You are confusing libertarianism with anarchism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| 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 [sic] of a government, uh oh. |
You are confusing libertarianism with anarchism. |
They all do. And it isn't entirely their fault. On the one hand, we have relentless government propaganda justifying the existence of government and on the other a batch of very aggressive anarchist libertarian internet warriors.
Mises and Hayek understood the role of government as enforcing (and writing) the rules of the game. This is compatible with quite a bit of progressive thought, though not the welfare state (which is bankrupting everything under the sun). The Austrians don't dominate American libertarianism, unfortunately. David Friedman and Ayn Rand hold more sway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| You are confusing libertarianism with anarchism. |
Libertarianism tends towards anarchism otherwise isn't it just Lockean liberalism?
I believe Murray Rothbard comes from the Austrian School and is an 'anarcho-capitalist', this is very close to anarchism but accepts the need for some governance.
Mises isn't anarcho-capitalist, he supports government 'writing and enforcing laws' as well as some government planning (mass transit) . However I don't think onetheway and visitorq have ever cited a need for any government whatsoever. How are you two guys not anarchist? What government do you support?
Can anyone cite a Libertarian thinker who says monopolies simply don't exist without governments? (I still find this incredible). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Can anyone cite a Libertarian thinker who says monopolies simply don't exist without governments? (I still find this incredible). |
From a previous discussion, if I remember correctly, you were only able to cite three examples of monopolies that were able to continue existing without govt help. Why don't you try to give some more examples of natural monopolies that were able to remain in existence, beyond the short run, without govt assistance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
Can anyone cite a Libertarian thinker who says monopolies simply don't exist without governments? (I still find this incredible). |
From a previous discussion, if I remember correctly, you were only able to cite three examples of monopolies that were able to continue existing without govt help. Why don't you try to give some more examples of natural monopolies that were able to remain in existence, beyond the short run, without govt assistance. |
Here's a start. Some of the monopolies on the list (e.g. British East India Company) are obviously governmentally supported monopolies, but others (e.g. salt monopolies) clearly existed independent of government control, and some organizations close enough to monopolies to reasonably use the word (e.g. de Beers, Gamespot) still exist.
Gamestop in particular is fairly damning to the idea that monopolies don't naturally occur. When one company controls well over 90% of the transactions of a given type, despite the fact that they have no unique advantage in the field, something is clearly going on. With de Beers you can at least say they control most of the mines; there are no game mines for Gamestop to control, they just use their immense size to undercut any real competition, which is exactly what Rufus mentioned.
Libertarians are silly to try to argue about monopolies. Sergio's approach -- that monopolies are no big deal in and of themselves -- is by far the more intelligent approach for Libertarians to take. Gamestop for instance might virtually monopolize the used games market, but because of the nature of the market they can only continue that near monopolization by offering good prices, and as a result, the customer in no way suffers. Indeed, Gamestop nearly monopolizing used games actually helps customers rather than hurts them, because it ensures the lowest reasonably possible price for used games and the highest level of availibility. De Beers on the other hand represents a more difficult to dismiss case, as they use their near monopoly to the customers outright detriment, driving up the prices of diamonds in a completely unnatural way for their own benefit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Why don't you try to give some more examples of natural monopolies that were able to remain in existence, beyond the short run, without govt assistance. |
Most monopolies are regulated, controlled or created (because they have to be) by government before they even exist. It's very hard for either side to give a pure example. Take sewage, the market simply didn't exist before the government created the physical system. Because this physical network has increasing returns to scale it remains a natural monopoly. 'Natural monopolies' exist where the good naturally produces a market where one distributor has huge advantages over the competition - perfect competition cannot work. I'll state again, the mathematics behind this is absolutely solid.
Anyway, I was honestly asking which thinkers these Libertarians got their ideas from.
Fox - you're right but we should be most concerned about public goods. An unnecessary product is one thing, but if a monopoly exists for a public service then the public are gouged out of money for human rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Why don't you try to give some more examples of natural monopolies that were able to remain in existence, beyond the short run, without govt assistance. |
Most monopolies are regulated, controlled or created (because they have to be) by government before they even exist. It's very hard for either side to give a pure example. Take sewage, the market simply didn't exist before the government created the physical system. Because this physical network has increasing returns to scale it remains a natural monopoly. 'Natural monopolies' exist where the good naturally produces a market where one distributor has huge advantages over the competition - perfect competition cannot work. I'll state again, the mathematics behind this is absolutely solid. |
Except that the free market has never been given a chance. Governments and central banking have called the shots since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Austrian economics has only been around for a relatively short time.
Having said that, you have been unable to provide any examples of "natural monopolies". The definition being that a monopoly would form "naturally" independent of government/central banking interference in the market. Even the most seemingly obvious examples, like roads, have very plausible free market solutions to them. The problem is that once government sets up its own monopoly, it's very hard for the market to correct itself. Simply privatizing existing government infrastructure is a start, but makes resulting private monopoly far more likely, at least in the beginning, than if the infrastructure had been built up under a free market system in the first place. And if government regulation remains (allowing for corruption and collusion with the private sector), then privatized firms simply function as cartels.
Ultimately, libertarians and Austrian economists believe that if all property (especially government owned land) were privatized, no monopoly could sustain itself over time. Perhaps in the beginning some privatized road, sewers and subway systems etc. would exist as private monopolies, but they would still be held to market constraints. If they gouge the public enough for a period of time, alternate demand will result in competition moving in. Of this there can be no doubt. The only thing powerful enough to prevent this inevitability is government intervention/regulation.
| Quote: |
| Fox - you're right but we should be most concerned about public goods. An unnecessary product is one thing, but if a monopoly exists for a public service then the public are gouged out of money for human rights. |
Most libertarians wouldn't even consider a single firm dominating its respective market to necessarily be a "monopoly". Perhaps technically you could call it that, but as long as the market is unregulated, competition is free to move in anytime. If a company offers such a good service at such a good price that nobody else is able effectively compete at a given time, then that's perfectly acceptable. I can't think of a single example where this is the case, though (such a situation would be nearly always temporary). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| I don't think onetheway and visitorq have ever cited a need for any government whatsoever. How are you two guys not anarchist? What government do you support? |
Obviously I think we need a government. The function of government is clearly stated in the constitution: and that is to defend and uphold the constitution. No more than that. The law is also quite straightforward: we are free to do whatever we want as long as we don't infringe upon the liberties (defined under the constitution) of others. Individual states should also be free to uphold their own laws and constitutions without federal interference, as long as the basic rights defined under the US Constitution (Bill of Rights) are adhered to.
Example, if somebody kills his neighbor or steals his property, it is the function of government to hold that person accountable for his crimes. Law and order is absolutely necessary.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with anarchy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
A weakness in the libertarian worldview:
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens09272010.html
| Quote: |
The risk models used computer methodology; the corruption that was human-inspired could not be adequately translated to binary code. The risk models, for example, did not understand the ramifications of actions like the ones described by an Assistant Manager, Gail Kubiniec, at a unit of Citigroup, CitiFinancial:
�I and other employees would often determine how much insurance could be sold to a borrower based on the borrower�s occupation, race, age, and education level. If someone appeared uneducated, inarticulate, was a minority, or was particularly old or young, I would try to include all the coverages CitiFinancial offered. The more gullible the consumer appeared, the more coverages I would try to include in the loan�.�
|
The libertarian assumption is not that we are all rational but that we are all capable of being rational. That is false. The IQ distribution inherent in our species includes both very smart and very dumb. Our economy is to an extent an assault on the dumb by the intelligent. The quote above shows this to be deliberate. There is a role for a (hypothetical) enlightened government to protect the dumb from the smart.
Unfortunately:
| Quote: |
| ...one zip code in this country spends nearly half of all the special interest lobbying money used to influence Congress? Guess what that zip code is? It�s 10036, the upper east side of Manhattan. That�s where the Mayor of New York City lives. That�s where the Wall Street bankers live. They control the money, they control the mass media, they control Congress. They get the bailouts � other Americans get the bill (in higher taxes to pay the ever-growing interest on the National debt, and in fewer services). |
http://www.themoneymasters.com/mm/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| There is a role for a (hypothetical) enlightened government to protect the dumb from the smart. |
Then who will guard the Guardians?
The government must be a playing field allowing the different interests to counter each other. But, even under this assumption, there will still be failures.
Better to restrict the scope of government. There will always be gatekeepers and elites, but we should endeavor to restrict their damage and failures as much as possible.
| Quote: |
| one zip code in this country spends nearly half of all the special interest lobbying money used to influence Congress? Guess what that zip code is? It�s 10036, the upper east side of Manhattan. |
This is far from over. The pace of public policy is only a bit faster than glacial in the United States. Wall Street will pay a high price for their bailout in the years to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then who will guard the Guardians? |
Why, the media! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
A weakness in the libertarian worldview:
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens09272010.html
| Quote: |
The risk models used computer methodology; the corruption that was human-inspired could not be adequately translated to binary code. The risk models, for example, did not understand the ramifications of actions like the ones described by an Assistant Manager, Gail Kubiniec, at a unit of Citigroup, CitiFinancial:
�I and other employees would often determine how much insurance could be sold to a borrower based on the borrower�s occupation, race, age, and education level. If someone appeared uneducated, inarticulate, was a minority, or was particularly old or young, I would try to include all the coverages CitiFinancial offered. The more gullible the consumer appeared, the more coverages I would try to include in the loan�.�
|
The libertarian assumption is not that we are all rational but that we are all capable of being rational. That is false. The IQ distribution inherent in our species includes both very smart and very dumb. Our economy is to an extent an assault on the dumb by the intelligent. The quote above shows this to be deliberate. There is a role for a (hypothetical) enlightened government to protect the dumb from the smart. |
Not really sure what your point is here. Perhaps some libertarian thinkers would give more credit to the intelligence level and discernment of the average man than you do; however I think most would readily acknowledge the inequalities among individuals, and consider this to be natural. This is why we have division of labor, for instance. Some people are suited to be entrepreneurs, others to be factory workers. Individual merit and the free market sorts this out.
Regardless, dumb people certainly don't need to be 'protected' by the government. On the contrary, the government basically does everything it can to make the public dumb (easier to control and make people dependent on it). Why else do they brainwash children in public schools, and lie to us constantly in the media? Not to mention the FDA approving and subsidizing the mass drugging of society (in addition to the CIA shipping in illegal drugs from Afghanistan and elsewhere, on record), putting fluoride in the water (they're now proposing adding lithium to the water too), giving us shots with mercury, etc. etc.
The best way to curb the destructive power of the elites is to curb the power of their primary weapon against society: government. All monopolies are enabled by government regulation. All corruption stems from government and taxation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Gamestop nearly monopolizing used games |
1) "nearly" monopolizing? Is not a monopoly.
2) Used games clearly compete against new games and other forms of entertainment.
So, nowhere near a monopoly.
The low prices of used games is a result of a high level of real competition. You have to look at the whole picture and the whole marketplace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
...one zip code in this country spends nearly half of all the special interest lobbying money used to influence Congress? Guess what that zip code is? It�s 10036, the upper east side of Manhattan. That�s where the Mayor of New York City lives. That�s where the Wall Street bankers live. They control the money, they control the mass media, they control Congress. They get the bailouts � other Americans get the bill (in higher taxes to pay the ever-growing interest on the National debt, and in fewer services). |
Bogus..
The biggest, most powerful of all lobbying groups, involving the most money and manpower is the government itself.
The government outlobbies all other lobbyists, individuals and group interests combined.
It is a self-perpetuating monster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Regardless, dumb people certainly don't need to be 'protected' by the government. On the contrary, the government basically does everything it can to make the public dumb (easier to control and make people dependent on it). Why else do they brainwash children in public schools, and lie to us constantly in the media? |
It is the government itself that works to take advantage of the dumb after creating them.
Using the Federal Reserve to steal more than 99% of the value of every dollar held in America is just one example.
Most Americans are too stupid or ignorant to even understand this has happened, let alone understand how it has happened.
In a free society, without the government, the day to day attempts by cons and clever shysters to fleece the dumb will never approach 1% of what the government has done and continues to do. |
|
| 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
