Tired of RP Supporters' Economic BS

[Kade]

Even if it did have 99.9 percent market share it wouldn't be considered a monopoly, and iro and kade don't get it. 100 percent people. They can think a large market share is unfair and "wrong" but it doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

See, I have issue with this, and I imagine if kaju is as clever as I think he is, he would know that you are doing him a disservice by responding...

There is no reason to argue against monopolies if you believe that 99.9% of market share is acceptable in terms of economic competition.

Thus, I could end the debate with a simple social commentary. I am instead trying to establish the talking points for a debate on the original thesis of this thread.

 

[Kade]

This example might be poor, but it gives access to some of the information I claimed.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

See, I have issue with this, and I imagine if kaju is as clever as I think he is, he would know that you are doing him a disservice by responding...

There is no reason to argue against monopolies if you believe that 99.9% of market share is acceptable in terms of economic competition.

Thus, I could end the debate with a simple social commentary. I am instead trying to establish the talking points for a debate on the original thesis of this thread.

Kade, the bottom line is your definition of a monopoly is not the definition of a monopoly. You can't go around calling things monopolies when they aren't. You're definition isn't the correct one. Hell, I may not agree with a 99.9 percent market share for an entity but that doesn't mean my warped definition applies.

Also, you might want to research what an economic model is. Austrian economics is not an economic model.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean the real definition is wrong and you are right.

Economic Model - An economic model attempts to abstract from complex human behavior in a way that sheds some insight into a particular aspect of that behavior.
Economic Model - A model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them.

You can say a model is different according to your definition, but that doesn't make it so either.

 

[DrYongrel]

 

[Kade]

Salt monopolies also existed in China, http://www.salt.org.il/china1.html, and in France and Japan. Although I don't think, because of the Gabelles, that France counts as an example.

 

[Kade]

I can't see any of these pictures. I imagine that is a good thing.

 

[krazy kaju]

Yongrel, LOL.

The key to the entire "monopoly" debate is whether or not a single business can effectively corner the market and demand unfair prices. This is not possible unless government intervention is present. Restrictive regulations, large entry fees, explicit government-granted or government-created monopolies, etc.

I have yet to see an example of price gouging existing where competition is allowed to occur.

 

[DrYongrel]

Yongrel, LOL.

The key to the entire "monopoly" debate is whether or not a single business can effectively corner the market and demand unfair prices. This is not possible unless government intervention is present. Restrictive regulations, large entry fees, explicit government-granted or government-created monopolies, etc.

I have yet to see an example of price gouging existing where competition is allowed to occur.

I agree with you. I'm just an old fashioned austrian, but with a funny hat.

I also have a low tolerance for "you're stupid! No, YOU'RE stupid" threads, having worn away my patience by participating in plenty of my own.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Don't forget, there is a fine like between Oligopoly and Monopoly. Might want to research the difference.

 

[krazy kaju]

East India Company - monopoly granted by British Crown (you should know that). Remember Ghandi?

France - you stated yourself the example of the French salt tax. Also see this. "French kings developed a salt monopoly by selling exclusive rights to produce it to a favored few who exploited that right..."

China - " The foreigner coming to China earlier in this century would be struck by the care with which salt was treated in the countryside. Salt was a government monopoly, heavily taxed and therefore expensive." T.R.Tregear. link

 

[krazy kaju]

I can't see any of these pictures. I imagine that is a good thing.

I'm laughing my ass off over here. It's a pity you can't see them.

 

[DrYongrel]

 

[Kade]

Yongrel, LOL.

The key to the entire "monopoly" debate is whether or not a single business can effectively corner the market and demand unfair prices. This is not possible unless government intervention is present. Restrictive regulations, large entry fees, explicit government-granted or government-created monopolies, etc.

I have yet to see an example of price gouging existing where competition is allowed to occur.

I had a lengthy debate about this the other day with some "friends"...

I understand your position. I really do... what do you believe would be the mechanism to restrict total control of competition in a pure free market, ie, without government regulation?

 

[DrYongrel]

I understand your position. I really do... what do you believe would be the mechanism to restrict total control of competition in a pure free market, ie, without government regulation?

Force.

 

[Kade]

Force.

Whose force?

 

[krazy kaju]

I had a lengthy debate about this the other day with some "friends"...

I understand your position. I really do... what do you believe would be the mechanism to restrict total control of competition in a pure free market, ie, without government regulation?

No entry fees, no regulation. Large established companies can afford to pay for regulation, paperwork, arbitration if necessary, etc. Small companies that are just entering the market oftentimes cannot.

Take the national defense industry as an example. Only large companies can effectively bid for contracts due to the excessive regulation and the Congressional ass-kissing done.

 

[Kade]

No entry fees, no regulation. Large established companies can afford to pay for regulation, paperwork, arbitration if necessary, etc. Small companies that are just entering the market oftentimes cannot.

Take the national defense industry as an example. Only large companies can effectively bid for contracts due to the excessive regulation and the Congressional ass-kissing done.

Alright, in this case I agree with you.

If there were no real entry costs to entering into a market, when one entity does perform better, thus, gaining more profit from the market, what prevents them from purchasing the other enterprises?

Just curious.

 

[micahnelson]

No entry fees, no regulation. Large established companies can afford to pay for regulation, paperwork, arbitration if necessary, etc. Small companies that are just entering the market oftentimes cannot.

Take the national defense industry as an example. Only large companies can effectively bid for contracts due to the excessive regulation and the Congressional ass-kissing done.

So the government, to promote the free market, added regulation.

Small business set asides allow small players in the defense contracting business to bid and compete with other small businesses. Its kind of like the little leagues. The function of this has been for large businesses to partner with small businesses for smaller contracts. If you are still imagining our little league analogy, imagine a ten year old holding the bat, and Sammy Sosa swinging the ten year old.

Effectively, after winning the contract, the small business is purchased by the larger business. This has led to further expansion and consolidation of defense contractors, and destroying the chances of smaller competitors.

The central planning did the opposite of its purported goal, which was to keep competition alive.

Any regulation is more easily addressed, lobbied away, or bypassed by large corporations, so any government mechanism to control a market will eventually lead to the success of the largest beast in the room.

 

[Kade]

Kaju,

Do you believe that there is a sliding scale for the benefit of lower taxes and less regulation of the market? In essence, do you believe that countries that have lower taxes and less regulation also have lower poverty rates, higher median income, trade balances, and higher budget surpluses?

 

[Kade]

So the government, to promote the free market, added regulation.

Small business set asides allow small players in the defense contracting business to bid and compete with other small businesses. Its kind of like the little leagues. The function of this has been for large businesses to partner with small businesses for smaller contracts. If you are still imagining our little league analogy, imagine a ten year old holding the bat, and Sammy Sosa swinging the ten year old.

Effectively, after winning the contract, the small business is purchased by the larger business. This has led to further expansion and consolidation of defense contractors, and destroying the chances of smaller competitors.

The central planning did the opposite of its purported goal, which was to keep competition alive.

Any regulation is more easily addressed, lobbied away, or bypassed by large corporations, so any government mechanism to control a market will eventually lead to the success of the largest beast in the room.

There is no quantifiable proof that leaving a market to fend for itself will not ultimately result in the same exact outcome.