Economics: What a monopoly isn't.

[jediuser598]

Hey DB, mind helping me out? Looking for a definition or two from you.

"if something prevents competitors from entering your market, then you're a monopoly."

Are you talking about high barrier of entry? Or just anything at all? I'm unclear on this.

Prevention is 100%. A high barrier to entry isn't prevention, though I suppose a high enough barrier might be virtually indistinguishable from prevention. If, say, someone owns 98% or a resource like aluminum, they're probably close enough to monopolizing that resource that the ownership of other 2% is irrelevant.

Think of utilities - they're monopolies. The government controls them, you and I can't compete against them. We can't start our own "Seattle Power Co", the barrier to entry is a big fat "NO" from the government. That's a monopoly. That's prevention of competition.

Would you be against companies breaking up, or attempting to break up the government's monopoly on violence?

[DBTrek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this utility monopoly cut both ways? I agree that utilities are an almost textbook case of "gov't induced monopolies." But, I remember a conversation with a dude who worked for Duke Energy who told me that usually one of the conditions of this collusion is that there are ceilings induced on how much utility companies can charge for their services, and gov't aid when the shit hits the fan (ie: hurricane, flood) to get the grid working again ASAP. This is not all bad, no? Weigh in if you don't mind..

I'm not really sure what the utilities arrangement with the government is. And I don't have a problem, in general, with how utilities are run now. They would be more efficient if run by market-driven price points, but they would also stop allowing poor people to rip them off all Winter - aka they won't cut power in freezing temperatures, and some low-income families take advantage of this and simply stop paying their gas and electric bills when temperatures plummet.

So utilities are inefficient - but they keep the children of the poor alive which, to me, seems like a good enough reason to accept the economically worse solution.

Would you be against companies breaking up, or attempting to break up the government's monopoly on violence?

What? Dude . . . ?

You've already mentioned that government is defined by its monopoly on force - so if corporations attempt to usurp that monopoly they're acting like tiny rogue governments themselves. Because who could usurp a government's monopoly on force except another government? Well - an angry mob of people, I guess.

So I'd say trying to internally disrupt a government's monopoly on force is generally what we call having a revolution. I'm against businesses launching a revolution against government, in the most prosperous nation on Earth.

[jediuser598]

To businesses, why define "government" as something other than just another obstacle towards profit? It's not much different than any other complication when it comes to doing business, like supply chain disruptions, or labor disputes, or the amount of market share you have. We can both agree, that the more market share you have, your profits tend to be better. The less competition you have, your profits tend to be better. Regulatory capture, and the use of violence for profits can be seen as just another way to get more profits. Regulatory capture is businesses acting in the best interest of their share holders.

Why not let businesses engage in violence? They're acting with the intent to create more profit.

[DBTrek]

To businesses, why define "government" as something other than just another obstacle towards profit? It's not much different than any other complication when it comes to doing business, like supply chain disruptions, or labor disputes, or the amount of market share you have. We can both agree, that the more market share you have, your profits tend to be better. The less competition you have, your profits tend to be better. Regulatory capture, and the use of violence for profits can be seen as just another way to get more profits. Regulatory capture is businesses acting in the best interest of their share holders.

Why not let businesses engage in violence? They're acting with the intent to create more profit.

You ignore the fact that governments protect geographic borders which allow businesses to operate in peace, consumers to buy without fear, and prosperity to build among the populace.

None of that happens in a war zone.

[Fife]

We don't just have history and a priori logic to guide us in understanding market-state monopolies.

The story is playing out IRL right before our little old eyes.

FEE.org, 1 MAR 18:

Uber and Lyft Are Begging Government for a Monopoly on Self-Driving Cars

Instead of trying to pass new arbitrary regulations, the ridesharing sector wants to ban private ownership of self-driving vehicles. This is extremely dangerous and can only lead to further restrictions that lead towards public, rather than private ownership of market commodities. This pushes us further down the road to serfdom that F.A. Hayek so fervently warned against. But not all those invested in the future of self-driving cars want to abolish private ownership.

[jediuser598]

To businesses, why define "government" as something other than just another obstacle towards profit? It's not much different than any other complication when it comes to doing business, like supply chain disruptions, or labor disputes, or the amount of market share you have. We can both agree, that the more market share you have, your profits tend to be better. The less competition you have, your profits tend to be better. Regulatory capture, and the use of violence for profits can be seen as just another way to get more profits. Regulatory capture is businesses acting in the best interest of their share holders.

Why not let businesses engage in violence? They're acting with the intent to create more profit.

You ignore the fact that governments protect geographic borders which allow businesses to operate in peace, consumers to buy without fear, and prosperity to build among the populace.

None of that happens in a war zone.

They are both just social institutions working for the betterment of their relative constituents or share holders. Prosperity is the goal for both. Businesses are working (and helmed) by people attempting to be more prosperous. Governments are working (and helmed) by people attempting to be more prosperous.

So should the road to prosperity for a business and its shareholders care about governments or their constituents? If at odds, whose prosperity should matter more? Even if a business has no interest in allowing other businesses to operate in peace, consumers to buy without fear, or prosperity to build among populaces other than their own, why does that matter?

[Speaker to Animals]

I am more worried about mandatory self-driving vehicles, quite honestly.

[DBTrek]

They are both just social institutions working for the betterment of their relative constituents or share holders. Prosperity is the goal for both. Businesses are working (and helmed) by people attempting to be more prosperous. Governments are working (and helmed) by people attempting to be more prosperous.

So should the road to prosperity for a business and its shareholders care about governments or their constituents? If at odds, whose prosperity should matter more? Even if a business has no interest in allowing other businesses to operate in peace, consumers to buy without fear, or prosperity to build among populaces other than their own, why does that matter?

Businesses and governments are both run by people. Businesses, governments, and people all prosper from a government with a monopoly on force protecting the geographic borders they inhabit. If the government protecting the borders is neither tyrannical to people or businesses, why would businesses or people revolt? How do they gain anything from that?

[jediuser598]

I am more worried about mandatory self-driving vehicles, quite honestly.

I'm betting it will be a de facto ban, not an outright one. Your insurance rates are going to be so high if you manually drive that it will be prohibitively expensive to drive. They're of course going to charge us the same rates (inflation adjusted) but manual driving will be seen as something highly dangerous. Humans are terrible drivers, your insurance rates will reflect this.

Me, personally, I'm waiting for the self-driving cars to come out so I can buy one. I'm looking forward to the initially low insurance rates.

[DBTrek]

How long till Pakistani hackers drive an entire freeway full of self driving cars directly into San Francisco’s Bay?