I hear this complain a lot in my country: Romania.
"The state electrical/gas/etc company was sold to a private investor and we didn't get any real benefits, there is no real competition."
There's also the accusation that laissez-faire capitalism will automatically lead to monopoly. Law of the jungle stuff.
How should I best address that?
Juan: I think the argument can easily be made that the Iraq war(or any other war) benefits the military-industrial complex.
At the cost of bankrupting the nation. The actual cost of the war is in the trillions; today's gas prices are a direct result of the war (except to the extent that inflation contributes); the military is overextended; terrorist recruiting is way way up; the entire world hates the US; etc. It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.
Which will not only pauperize the nation, but also the military-industrial complex. We're repeating the history of the British empire, and companies like Halliburton will fare about as well as the East India company did.
The idea that Bush can somehow do as he pleases is wrong.
Um, we were all there, chump. We know perfectly well that there's more to it than issuing a royal decree. However, we also know perfectly well that he wanted the war, and he got it.
--Len
Brainpolice:What don't you understand about "legally restricted competition"? Yes, that's effectively a gaurantee that the profits will go to you if they go to anyone because there are no other people for them to go to in the given area. Logic 101. This is especially true with respect to the patent monopoly, which is nothing but a legal gaurantee of future profits.
It's close, but no cigar. Profits are not guaranteed, not even effectively guaranteed, by a lack of competition. This is especially true with patent monoploies, where there is little chance of a government bail out. Do you realize how many patents are issued whose owners never profit from the invention/idea, or indeed, lose money on the deal? Say I invent and patent a widget. Just because no one else is allowed to make a widget does not mean that people will actually buy the widgets I produce. The widget may be an incredibly unuseful/unpopular/unwanted good.
Just to be clear, I am in no way defending monopolies. I am simply attempting to clarify the difference between a state monopoly and a state-enforced private monopoly. When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service. If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference. There is no "going without" a state service. On the other hand, when the state grants and enforces J.K. Rowling's monopoly on the production of Harry Potter stories, she and her publishers still assume some actual risk that the market will reject the stories. Granted, there is less risk than if other authors were allowed to produce Harry Potter stories, but there is still a significant amount of risk.
It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.
Juan: It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it. In that case we should really thank Mr. Bush ?
Since getting rid of the state is good, destroying our economy and standard of living in the process is also good? Mercy mercy me.
JackCuyler: When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service.
If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference.
Juan: JackCuyler: When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service. That's exactly the same thing the state does when it grants a 'private' monopoly - it outlaws competition (isn't that the definition of monopoly ? Oh well...) If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference. In the case of 'private' monopolies, the same effect is achieved by regulation.
It's not necessarily, though. As in my widget and Harry Potter examples, even with a state enforced private monopoly, profits are not necessarily guaranteed. The difference between a state monopoly and a state-enforced private monopoly is that in the latter, the rest of us, while we can't get the service elsewhere, have the option to do without the service altogether.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap