1) Semantics. Use whatever languge you prefer, but there are 'companies' that provide services for reasons other than profit. I gave the example of water and electric companies. Either can be, and in many instance have, been funded with bonds (read NO TAXES),
It's not free or "something for nothing", if that is your intended meaning.
and upkeep is paid for by users. If you don't want electricty don't pay for it.
That's fine, if the provision of electricity by competitors is not outlawed...
There is no gov coersion forcing you to use it. There are many examples of said companies providing the services at nominal fees. I suspect, and shall research later, that many electric and water monopolies charge a lower rate per watt/acre foot than private enterprises.
Look, I don't care what "low" prices government services operating outside the market can offer their services at. The question is, do they reflect market conditions or not? If not it is pure waste. Absent the guide of the profit motive, there will be waste. Moreover, if one wishes a cooperative or something of that sort in charge of water provision that's fine on a free market too, as long as there's no coercion involved in funding it...
Your argument is that it must be do to some other evil government coerice action. And you may be right. Perhaps, you can show me a successful privatized water or electric grid in the world that illustrates your viewpoint.
Is the rationale that privatization must be outlawed because privatization cannot work because it's not allowed to take place because it's usually outlawed? Is this the "logic"? Minus those cases of course where there's "deregulation"...
Nonetheless this might be of interest:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2) Logical Fallacy -argumentum ad hominem "Your a leftist therefore blah". So not only does it fail to prove anything by resorting to that kind of defense, you misstate my political and economic leanings.
I am just calling it what it is - the regurgitation of leftist talking points...
3) Strawman - I never claimed that order cannot exist without active interference. Solve the problem of scarcity and I believe order would exist quite fine without interference.
It isn't a strawman since you do believe that, as scarcity is not going anywhere any time soon. But scarcity is plainly irrelevant to this. It's more so a fear of an absence of the State...
Well Keynsians like data. We have a lot of data about world and historical economies. The overarching goal of a Keynesian is to minimize the affects of a boom bust cycle, as per the request of the State. There is a lot of data that seems to support Keynesian economic theory in the USA, where there is a LOT of market freedom.
Is there? Look up all the regulations and laws governing economic transactions in the US, why don't you.
To darkness I condemn you...
Ixtellor:Well Keynsians like data. We have a lot of data about world and historical economies. The overarching goal of a Keynesian is to minimize the affects of a boom bust cycle, as per the request of the State. There is a lot of data that seems to support Keynesian economic theory in the USA, where there is a LOT of market freedom.
i wonder which modern country's data is acting as a 'control'?, which is playing the part of free market unimproved by keynesian benefits.? against which the ckeynesian record of boom and bust could be compared?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ixtellor:1) Semantics. Use whatever languge you prefer, but there are 'companies' that provide services for reasons other than profit. I gave the example of water and electric companies. Either can be, and in many instance have, been funded with bonds (read NO TAXES), and upkeep is paid for by users. If you don't want electricty don't pay for it. There is no gov coersion forcing you to use it. There are many examples of said companies providing the services at nominal fees. I suspect, and shall research later, that many electric and water monopolies charge a lower rate per watt/acre foot than private enterprises. Your argument is that it must be do to some other evil government coerice action. And you may be right. Perhaps, you can show me a successful privatized water or electric grid in the world that illustrates your viewpoint.
Thomas DiLorenzo has written on this one. The Myth of Natural Monopoly
Good catch! I forgot about that one.
At no point in human history have people had a choice in to whom they should pay for defense.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Ixtellor:Why do you believe that in every single society on earth, governments natually evolved? I think Hobbes and Marx nailed it on the head. The world was a very dangerous place, and people were INCAPPABLE of defending themselves, so in a world wide phenomnon, they gave up some liberty in exchange for security. (In many cases gave up LOTS of liberty in exchange for secruity)
People.
And people can't defend themselves.
Problematic, isn't it.
meambobbo: I'm observing this debate but want to point some things out to our new Keynesian that needs be said:
I'm observing this debate but want to point some things out to our new Keynesian that needs be said:
Apologies for replaying late. I didn't see your well thought out and reasonable response.
Rather than rehash all your arguments, I think you need government for just a few main purposes.
1) Defense 2) Roads 3) Electric and power grids[dont have to supply the water and power, just the grids] 4) Justice 5) Anti-Trust protections to keep markets as free as possible.
In regards to Carlos Slim. Yes gov played a big role in his monopoly status. Another big componant is bribery. I don't buy Free-Marketers points on eliminating bribery.
There seems to be a disconnect, perhaps you can answer for me. No one ever addresses economies of scale on these boards. The answer to monopolies/oligopolies, is that they will have higher prices and lower utility. This is clearly not always the case. (see Walmart) Once a company achieves a certain level of 'economies of scale' it opens up a plethora of new strategies, including selling at a loss for sustained periods, reallocation of resources to product development, aquisitions!, and advertising just to name a few. And in an ancap society, I assume it would include bribery and thugary.
Ixtellor
P.S. I enjoyed your realist responses, and hope you continue to do so. [Having every argument dismissed as 'leftist or statist' gets old]
P.P.S. I am a pretty harsh free marketer, so the leftist tag's thrown at me are amussing. [A Keynesian who believes in competitive advantage and supply and demand! Oh my!]
Are you seriously brining up the 'predatory pricing strawman'?, jeez that has been debunked since the 50's by John S. Mcgee in the Journal of Law and Economics when they studied Anti-trust and found no instances of predatory pricing by Standard Oil or subsidiaries.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Ixtellor:Rather than rehash all your arguments, I think you need government for just a few main purposes.
And please, as was pointed out by fez--don't play the predatory pricing/war chest nonsense. It won't work. It's not cute.
Ixtellor: I think you need government for just a few main purposes. 1) Defense 2) Roads 3) Electric and power grids[dont have to supply the water and power, just the grids] 4) Justice 5) Anti-Trust protections to keep markets as free as possible.
I think you need government for just a few main purposes.
What if there are people who don't want these things(1-4)? Should they be free to opt-out of government? Should they be free to provide them on their own without government interfering? Why?
If people working for the government use force to close down a business a la anti-trust, are they guilty of coercion? Why?
Schools are labour camps.
nirgrahamUK: i wonder which modern country's data is acting as a 'control'?, which is playing the part of free market unimproved by keynesian benefits.? against which the ckeynesian record of boom and bust could be compared?
1) Economics has an enormous number of variables, and politicians in all nations have significant controls on the economy that 'mess up' economic solutions.
2) The classic example is Britian in the 70's when they attempted a monatarist policy. I don't think just comparing US GDP %shifts to the UK under monatarism will be conclusive of anything. I assume that the AnCaps here have some country they like to use as a model?
Morty:Thomas DiLorenzo has written on this one. The Myth of Natural Monopoly
1) Instead of telling me me the arguments, you Give me a near infinite amount of information to process. For example, I now have to brush up and understand all the works of Walter J. Primeaux just to see if there is any validity to that particular section of the work. That being said, I did read the article, but would need hours upon hours of analysis and fact checking to make, if it deserves, an informed critique. But here is my initial thinking, inspite of your enormous data dump.
A) A large portion of the paper is saying that the big domestic monopolies existed before the natural monopoly theory. Ok... Supply and Demand existed prior to the theories as well.
B) I thought it was humerous that the author used California moving into the open energy market as a great example of his 'theory'. There are several papers and studies out about that FIASCO, and many of them make the link to the Chicago school economists. I don't know what the 'knee jerk' response to blaming government for that is, but it is safe to say that privitazation of energy did not lower costs or increase utility. It did the exact opposite.
C) His solution for building privitized power/water grids is: Private companies offer reduced costs to the 1 million+ private business and home owners for the right to dig up their sidewalks, yards, and streets for the right to lay down cables or pipes in large cities. While I think this might be viable in small communities, I was not at all persuaded by this 'argument' that this could work in large urban centers. Perhaps you have a solution?
I do have a solution and it requires advancment in technology. Cell companies are a viable competitor to LAN lines, so you don't need the massive phone grid any longer. I assume there is opportunity for electricity to be sent through the air, or to be generated at home. The day this occurs in reliable amounts, the day we will no longer require power grids. Water is trickier. Yes in small areas you can have wells, and septic tanks, delivery by truck. Again I don't think this would work in large urban areas.
D) His conclusion that natural monopolies didn't exist because corporations sought government sanction fails to explain something. Is it possible that the capital investment necessary to provide city wide power/water was unattainable? I assume that providing a power grid in a city the size of New York would be STAGGERING. And to risk that kind of investment and possible lose to your competition, would make it a foolish investment. So, did water and power companies seek exclusivity because that was the only way they could feasible complete their task? I doubt he did much analysis on it, and I don't see any in the paper.
The idea of competing energy companies makes me think of the airlines today. Where they all find themselves losing money, waiting for the day when a competitor finally goes bankrupt and they can restore more profitable prices. I see privitized power grids as a massive gamble where they lose billions waiting for the day when their competitors die off and they can jack up prices.
2) I think its important for some poster here to understand that being a Keynesian does not make you beholden to some socialist or 'government needs to intervene all the time' ideology. Cell phones have eliminated the need for phone grid monopolies. I assume energy will be next. And that is OK.
That pretty much wouldn't work out as the base of operations for both airlines and power companies current depend upon another party to provide the 'essential' infrastructure (air ports, some residental or rural power lines and such). Also, more than likely if power generation was wholly marketized, there is a strong possibility that decentralized power systems would arise out of the sheer demand for them (which still exists today, but is largely checked by governmental rural power grid initiatives (state and federal)). Thus, one company try to tighten the thumb screws on another won't last for long if said company also had to deal with another company that offers power generation that isn't centralized. How do you out price self-sufficiency? The answer is obvious: you can't.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
fezwhatley: Are you seriously brining up the 'predatory pricing strawman'?, jeez that has been debunked since the 50's by John S. Mcgee in the Journal of Law and Economics when they studied Anti-trust and found no instances of predatory pricing by Standard Oil or subsidiaries.
How did they account for WalMart admitting to it in court? I would love to read that part of this 'conclusive' debunk.
Ixtellor: How did they account for WalMart admitting to it in court? I would love to read that part of this 'conclusive' debunk. Ixtellor
1. Wasn't Wal-mart after their time?
2. How is setting a really low price a crime? (Sorry if this sounds unrelated to your question.)
3. What did Wal-mart really admit?
And what about the disadvantages of predatory pricing, like less profit, risk that yet another competitor will challenge your business. Or, what about the risk that people will buy when you predatory price, and save it for afterwards?
NB: George Reisman is excellent on 'predatory pricing' in his Capitalism book. www.capitalism.net
Ixtellor:<snip>
I extend my sincerest apologies, dear sir, for burdening you with a scholarly article on the topic which you were interested in, which covers a multitude of historical examples regarding the aforementioned topic. I shall now scuttle away, in deference to the immense misfortune I have bestowed upon you without cause.
This, however:
you Give me a near infinite amount of information to process
Was somewhat comical in relation to the text wall which you posted.
Ixtellor:How did they account for WalMart admitting to it in court? I would love to read that part of this 'conclusive' debunk.
Easy: Wal-Mart was threatened with serious tax consequences.
If Wal Mart really did flood markets with under-priced goods, is that really a bad thing? Sure its bad for local competitors and it could drive them out of business, but for consumers its great. Since all businesses are concerned ultimately with satisfying the consumer, Wal Mart isn't necessarily doing a bad job. If in turn they decide to gouge their newly monopolized market, they'll find much fewer buyers. If that does not drive them out of business, they will at least drop their prices, because after all, companies are rational institutions that want to make money. If they insist on high prices, however, they'll just find themselves with new competition. If Wal Mart engages in a predicable cycle of under-cutting/gouging, then their consumers will catch on quickly and probably just boycott them, to the benefit of smaller competitors.
Sure, the above situation sucks. But so what? Cheats, hacks, and charlatans have haunted the market since before government got big enough to try and stop them. More importantly, they're still around, despite all of the state's efforts. If a company wants to be an ass and undercut their competitors to the benefit of their consumers, then fine, let them. I highly doubt the resulting low prices will destabilize related markets and the entire community.
Ixtellor, you have yet to post a single historical instance where a market participant's morally-ambiguous activities threatened to collapse their market and seriously harm society-at-large. The Keynesian line is that markets are inherently unstable and will destory themselves. But where has this happened? The biggest market melt-downs have all occured within the last century, and none of them were in unregulated arenas.
The only meltdown i can think of in semi-modern history is the Dutch tulip fiasco. There you had a largely unregulated market, and sure enough, you had a meltdown. To my knowledge, the Netherlands was not destroyed in the process. The Dutch recovered just fine after learning their sobering lesson. Can you imagine what the world would be like today if Dutch Keynesians had been around to persuade the government that they needed to flood the market with a ton of cheap credit to keep the flower speculators afloat? Would the Dutch, or even the world, have learned an important lesson if a state apparatus had intervened?
Also, insofar as Wal-Mart has the power to unfairly drive competitors out of business, it arises from actions of the state, ranging from the use of eminent domain laws to the socialized costs and privatized benefits of state-provided "essential infrasturcture".
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
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