Monopoly
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>If you look it up in a dictionnary, you'll find out that a monopoly
>has to be *enforced* by some means. The only entity that has the
>power to prevent someone to engage in trade is the government. There
>is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire Capitalist system,
>because it would necessitate the intervention of the government,
>which would be a contradiction of the concept "Laissez-Faire".
Suppose that a single individual owns, or controls, all resources (or
all instances of a critical resource) needed for the production of
some entity. By all definitions of the word, this individual has a
monopoly. Explain how a Laissez-Faire system could break, or prevent,
this monopoly.
>...
>that there is only one brand of sugar in Sweden...
I understand why you would want different kinds of, say, bread. If I
strech my imagination I can even realise why you would want 40
different brands of soap, or toothpaste (even if I don't), but I
cannot understand why you would want different brands of sugar, there
being only one such thing as ordinary sugar!
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Magnus Kempe
: But how about monopoly then? If property rights are unlimited then
: there is a right of having monopoly in some kind of activity since
: certainly it is completely unrightful to limit the amount of ownership.
: Are the antimonopoly, antitrust, etc. laws a violation of rights or
: is this a conflict of rights between a (monopolist) owner and rights
: of others?
The anti-trust laws, as they stand today, are violations of our
basic rights.
If you look it up in a dictionnary, you'll find out that a monopoly
has to be *enforced* by some means. The only entity that has the
power to prevent someone to engage in trade is the government. There
is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire Capitalist system,
because it would necessitate the intervention of the government,
which would be a contradiction of the concept "Laissez-Faire".
You have the right to produce, not to consume what others
produce, neither to tell them what to produce or not to produce.
If you want to consume, you have to produce. If you don't produce
what you want to consume, you have to trade with someone who
produces what you want. If you don't like what he offers, you
have the right to produce it yourself. But there is no such
thing as an "economic" right. So-called "consumer rights" are
*not* rights, they are only intended to destroy the concept of
rights -- i.e. the moral concept which defines and sanctions
the freedom to engage in various kinds of action, without force.
Note, however, that there are monopolies in mixed economies, such
as we have in all Western countries: the telephone, the postal services,
and, in Sweden, sugar, milk, flour, et caetera. These monopolies
are all government-sponsored. One of the consequences of these
Swedish government-sponsored monopolies, is that sugar costs three
times as much in Sweden as in other non-monopolistic countries, and
that there is only one brand of sugar in Sweden.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>: ... Explain how a Laissez-Faire system could break, or prevent,
>: this monopoly.
>
>Your example is far-stretched. It is not even a remote possibility.
It is not only a *possibility*. It has *happened* and it is happening
now. Of course I am not talking about world-wide perpetual monopolies,
but monopolies within a certain place, and time.
>But I'll answer that by *showing* you what happened when a similar
>situation arised, a few years ago.
>
>One day, the arabic countries decided to use their quasi-monopoly on the
>production of gas. What happened? We turned to other sources of
>energy....
>...
You assume that oil is needed only (mainly) for the production of
energy and that there are other sources of energy. You are right in
this particular case, but you haven't given me an answer for the
general case.
>: <<You don't need different brands of sugar>>
>
> <<Yes, you do>>
I agree. You are right about the sugar. Note that I was not arguing
that it should be prohibited to make different brands of sugar. You
make altoghether to many assumptions about my opinions! I was arguing
that there is no *need* for different brands of sugar, but as I said,
you are right in this particular case.
Irek Defee
>In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se>, euakem@euas10c (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>>If you look it up in a dictionnary, you'll find out that a monopoly
>>has to be *enforced* by some means. The only entity that has the
>>power to prevent someone to engage in trade is the government. There
>>is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire Capitalist system,
>>because it would necessitate the intervention of the government,
>>which would be a contradiction of the concept "Laissez-Faire".
>
>Suppose that a single individual owns, or controls, all resources (or
>all instances of a critical resource) needed for the production of
>some entity. By all definitions of the word, this individual has a
>monopoly. Explain how a Laissez-Faire system could break, or prevent,
>this monopoly.
>
As I understand now this "free-wheeling" capitalism is consequently
theoretical theory. Thus we can make some 'gedanken' experiments
to test its consequences. If water taps (or sewage) in Sweden
would be private and I am smart, I could buy them all. Then, as an
owner with unlimited property rights I would close them down before
going for vacations to South Pacific. Users of my water would have
several possibilities then: dig new water wells, collect rain water,
desalinize sea water. They should do this rather quickly.
Oh yes, they could move also abroad. But what would happen if I am
supersmart and bought whole water supply on Earth?. They could go to hell
then and I could say that I finished my competition and became thus an
ultimate monopolist :-).
>>...
>>that there is only one brand of sugar in Sweden...
>
>... I
>cannot understand why you would want different brands of sugar, there
>being only one such thing as ordinary sugar!
>
I do not advocate monopoly in all cases like this. Having competing
brands of sugar could lead to prices to go down. Monopolies
have their bad sides. In the theory of laissez faire capitalism they
are violation of a universal right for production.But there is quite
another issue if sugar prices (or say, alcohol) should be
uncontrolled and so low as their consumption was exponentially
growing. Yet another problem is what Swedish government is doing with
the money collected from high sugar prices.
One could also simply import cheap sugar and stop its local production
in effect. This is ulimately a political and social issue with many questions.
There are many more complex issues here than simple "production right"
as we see.
In general, the "laissez-faire" capitalism theory stinks for me.
There are other social matters than the right for production. Many
rights have to be considered only with accompanying obligations and
consequences. If my production rights are unlimited then I can
produce weapons, drugs, child porno, poisons etc., and nobody has
any right to stop me doing this and selling. The theory of laissez
faire capitalism will rejoin that there is no pressure on consumers
to buy such products and in an ideal case I go bankrupt. On the
other hand, I have only a right to consume what I produce. Without
any redistribution, this leads to create large, closed underclass
of poverty.
>> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Irek Defee de...@tut.fi
Magnus Kempe
: In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se>, euakem@euas10c (Magnus Kempe) writes:
: >If you look it up in a dictionnary, you'll find out that a monopoly
: >has to be *enforced* by some means. The only entity that has the
: >power to prevent someone to engage in trade is the government. There
: >is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire Capitalist system,
: >because it would necessitate the intervention of the government,
: >which would be a contradiction of the concept "Laissez-Faire".
:
: Suppose that a single individual owns, or controls, all resources (or
: all instances of a critical resource) needed for the production of
: some entity. By all definitions of the word, this individual has a
: monopoly. Explain how a Laissez-Faire system could break, or prevent,
: this monopoly.
Your example is far-stretched. It is not even a remote possibility.
But I'll answer that by *showing* you what happened when a similar
situation arised, a few years ago.
One day, the arabic countries decided to use their quasi-monopoly on the
production of gas. What happened? We turned to other sources of
energy. And they lost. The same principle of action may be
applied to any other "critical resource". There are no "critical
resources", in fact: that is what prevents the individual who
controls of all some given resource from bleeding other individuals
to death. But the choice to use another form of energy, resource,
service, etc., is available only when a monopoly is not government-
sponsored.
: I understand why you would want different kinds of, say, bread. If I
: strech my imagination I can even realise why you would want 40
: different brands of soap, or toothpaste (even if I don't), but I
: cannot understand why you would want different brands of sugar, there
: being only one such thing as ordinary sugar!
That is what you think, because you haven't had the occasion to
try any other kind of sugar. For your information, there *are*
various qualities of sugar, coming from various sources,
produced with various levels of efficiency.
The fact that *you* are content with one brand of sugar, does
not give you the right to force everybody else to eat the same
kind of sugar. That statement applies to every other man-made
product. Try to understand that.
Richard Caley
writes:
>If you look it up in a dictionnary, you'll find out that a monopoly
>has to be *enforced* by some means.
Monopoly: (n) exclusive possession of the selling of some commodity
or service.
(Concise OED )
And while we are at it.
Anarchy: (n) anscence of government in a society. ~ism, ~ist (adherent
of) doctrine that all government should be abolished.
Please try not to make such foolish statments in public where they only
serve to spread missinformation.
>The only entity that has the
>power to prevent someone to engage in trade is the government.
Guilds did quite a good job a few centuries ago.
Bigots in the south of the US ( and in other places ) where quite
effective at stopping Blacks from trading.
>There
>is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire Capitalist system,
>because it would necessitate the intervention of the government,
>which would be a contradiction of the concept "Laissez-Faire".
All of which is bolony, since your premises where ( obviously ) false.
>You have the right to produce, not to consume what others
>produce, neither to tell them what to produce or not to produce.
I feel I might just have the right to stop someone producing poison gas
in the ( rather stuffy ) room which I am currently working in.
>So-called "consumer rights" are [ . . .]
Since you seem to have no concept of what this phrase means, I shall
follow your example and reccomend that you look it up in a dictionary.
You never know, you may learn something.
>that there is only one brand of sugar in Sweden.
My god! What an earth shatterring disaster!
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.edai " It's a terrible habbit, quotes "
- Mayland Long
Christian Murphy
FACTS: There is no such thing as a totally free market.There is always
interference.A free market cannot be reached anywhere,any time.It is just
theory.
Reasons?A free market implies-
Perfect information.Everyone knows prices,profits,etc.
This can never happen.
Perfect freedom to produce or not to produce.
Again,this can never happen.
A very large number of buyers and sellers.
Rarely happens.
Similarly,there is no such thing as a pure monopoly.
The main reason is that you cannot exclude ALL competition.If I do not like
the railway monopoly,I can walk.
Finally,the government is involved (and SHOULD be(my opinion)) in the
economy.Therefore,prices,etc. are often not what they would be.Free competition
and monopoly are just extreme MODELS of what actually happens.
Sorry about the lecture.. :-)
OPINIONS:
Monopolies(or what approaches them) are not always bad.Laissez Faire is not
always good.What is right should be decided in each industry.
Government is necessary.I do not see how everyone's rights can be enforced
without some agreed forum to decide who gets what.
Rights DO conflict.Both sides in Northern Ireland have the right to
self-government.You just have to decide which rights get priority.
Magnus Kempe is wrong to say he received no help from the state.Does he
suggest that the schools and universities he attended were self-sufficient?If
he attended university in a foreign country,how could he accept the government
subsidy he undoubtedly received?Would he be able to afford to use the
streets,the airports,etc,if they did not get government subsidy?
I know that you may have been a slightly unwilling user of these services,but
you will at least acknowledge that you HAVE used them.
Just look at countries where government is bad(eg. USSR,Poland,etc).What do
they have?Bad roads,bad food supplies,shortages,etc,etc.I am thankful that I do
live in a prosperous western democracy,where I don't need to use money or
influence to get a hospital bed if I'm run over by a car.I get clean water when
I turn on the tap,etc,etc.
Excessive government meddling is bad,but most of western Europe has got the
balance about right.
Jeff Dalton
>>system, because it would necessitate the intervention of the government,
>>which would be a contradiction of the concept "Laissez-Faire".
You claim that laissez-faire capitalism recognises property rights.
Please prove that a monopoly cannot result from the enforcement of
property rights.
Besides, perhaps laissez-faire capitalism is self-contradictory.
Have you proved that it isn't? If so, are you confident that you
have made no mistake. Note that in mathematics, where it's easier
to check proofs and see whether they've taken everything into
account, some famous mistakes have gone for years without being
detected.
You should also check your proof that monopoly can't be derived
from property rights.
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se>, eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe)
writes:
>One day, the arabic countries decided to use their quasi-monopoly on the
>production of gas. What happened? We turned to other sources of
>energy. And they lost. The same principle of action may be
>applied to any other "critical resource". There are no "critical
>resources"
Since the arabs (really OPEC) never controled all of the world's
oil or gas, their failure is does not show how someone who did
control all of a resource would fail.
Besides, just because there may not be any critical resources in the
long term does not show there are no critical resources in the short
term, while the alternatives are being discovered or invented.
>But the choice to use another form of energy, resource, service, etc.,
>is available only when a monopoly is not government-sponsored.
False. If the government sets up one gas utility and gives
it a monopoly on gas, I can still use oil. The choice to use
another form of energy is still there.
True conclusions require valid arguments, not just good premises.
(They also require true premises, not just good ones.)
I Turton
>>But the choice to use another form of energy, resource, service, etc.,
>>is available only when a monopoly is not government-sponsored.
>
>False. If the government sets up one gas utility and gives
>it a monopoly on gas, I can still use oil. The choice to use
>another form of energy is still there.
>
something else? Worse what happens when the state sells this monopoly to the
private sector as in the UK.
--
Ian Turton Dept of Geophysics and geology
I Turton @uk.edinburgh JCMB, Kings Buildings
I...@uk.edinburgh.cs.tardis Mayfield Rd, Edinburgh
***If you don't like my views sue my boss, he'll love it.***
Dave Kennard
>What happens when the state has a monopoly on the suply of water, can you use
>something else? Worse what happens when the state sells this monopoly to the
>private sector as in the UK.
Water is a classic case of a 'natural monopoly'. Even though the water supply
industry in the UK is currently a set of 10(?) state run water companies, plus
a number of smaller private companies, as an individual, the only way I can
change the company that supplies my water is to move! I have absolutely no
choice as to who I buy my water from - assuming I am (otherwise) happy with
where I live.
--
+-+ +-+ +- | | Regards, Dave Kennard.
| | | | | |/ Dept. 30820, STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Road South,
|-+ | | | |\ New Southgate, LONDON. N11 1LU, England, UK, (etc..)
| \ +-+ +- | |Voice (+44) 01-368-1234 x2860 <ro...@tcom.stc.co.uk>
Keith Dancey
>>>is available only when a monopoly is not government-sponsored.
>>
>>False. If the government sets up one gas utility and gives
>>it a monopoly on gas, I can still use oil. The choice to use
>>another form of energy is still there.
>>
>What happens when the state has a monopoly on the suply of water, can you use
>something else? Worse what happens when the state sells this monopoly to the
>private sector as in the UK.
>
Jeff Dalton
>>>is available only when a monopoly is not government-sponsored.
>>False. If the government sets up one gas utility and gives
>>it a monopoly on gas, I can still use oil. The choice to use
>>another form of energy is still there.
>What happens when the state has a monopoly on the suply of water, can you
>use something else?
I was the ">>" poster.
My point was that there can be a choice even when a monopoly _is_
gov't sponsored, not that there's always a choice. I agree that there
isn't an alternative to water (though some countries do try to make
due with wine).
-
-