>ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming

true free market is by definition free of monopolies. the government is one such monopoly

>>2411580
Almost all monopolies are a product of government corruption or interference.

>>2411580
I'm not a capitalist but government is by definition a monopoly.

>>2411580
sorry i didn't preorder it, todd

>>2411580

Who the hell are you talking to?

>Truly Free market
>All right, there are low to no barriers of entry
>If a monopoly forms for whatever good or service it is, someone will notice that they can undercut this service's price
>They form a new firm to provide it, and voila, the monopoly is broken up from competition.

>>2411586

That's not exactly true. A totally free market is unlikely fto form a long-lasting monopoly, but it isn't theoretically impossible to form. Most likely would be a case in which one large firm is inherently more efficient than multiple small competing firms, probably due to high infrastructure costs forming the bulk of the businesses overhead. Utilities are a common example.

>>2411587
Please go on

Not being rude i genuinely haven't heard this stance

>>2411580
there's nothing wrong with monopolies

>>2411601
>If a monopoly forms for whatever good or service it is, someone will notice that they can undercut this service's price

This isn't how economics works.

>>2411602
I'm not him, but it's a documented fact that big business cooperates with the government to weed out smaller competition. Things like licensing or IPs are all government enforced barriers.

Let's say you have a large pharmaceutical company that owns a patent and an exclusive right to manufacture a certain drug and government puts in IP laws that prevent other companies from manufacturing generics, so that one company can completely control the market and hike the prices effectively becoming a monopoly.

>>2411586
>true free market is by definition free of monopolies
Without some level of regulation monopolies will inevitably form. Read up on the Teddy Roosevelt administration. This is why I'm a regulatory minimalist and not an AnCap.

>>2411621
>>2411602
Or the very open and accepted fact that the largest corporations get billions of dollars in subsidies every year by the same politicians they own.

>>2411610

It is exactly how long term macroeconomics works.

If you assume that people want to maximize profit, and that consumers are rational actors trying to meet their material needs for the lowest price, (neither of which are particularly controversial), then monoplies, which are inherently price-raising, tend not to last long because another firm can steal away its customers by undercutting prices.


If you're assuming that its easy to start up new businesses, which is another classic free market assumption, it shouldn't be hard to start up a competing firm.

>>2411636
>consumers are rational actors
They never are.

>>2411636
>he thinks that being the spoiler is profitable

>>2411636
>If you're assuming that its easy to start up new businesses, which is another classic free market assumption, it shouldn't be hard to start up a competing firm.

We're not discussing the concept of a free market but rather its sustainability.

>>2411636
>consumers are rational actors

People aren't rational in general, and marketing that is so advanced you might as well call it social engineering, takes full advantage.

>>2411580
Ideologies = spooks

Capitalism should be treated as a tool and nothing more. It's not possible for real-world systems to be pure and it's foolish to try.

>>2411641

You've never actually studied Economics. Like, at all, have you?

But all right, I suppose you have some sort of competing model to explain consumer preference, that doesn't rely on things like self interest or being able to check prices. Can you show me?

>>2411636
Never post again, kid.

>>2411580
Why should I care about preventing the formation of monopolies in the first place?

>>2411661
The fact that reason is completely unnatural and doesn't actually exist, it's a literal bullshit construct.

>>2411636
>because another firm can steal away its customers by undercutting prices.
Then the monopoly lowers the price again, and is able to lower it much more as they have more production power. Continue until the competitors forced out of the market.

>>2411661
People spend magnitudes money more for the store brand than generic.

If people were rational, commericals wouldn't be implanting insecurities in your brain that you didn't have previously, in order to offer a remedy in the form of their product.

>>2411651

Of course its profitable. The problem is, the sorts of conditions that lead towards monopolies in real life also tend to have something in place to squeeze out the spoilers, which is how the monopoly sustains itself in the first place. If those don't exist, because again, we're assuming an actually free market, spoiling is extremely profitable, at least until more and more people get involved and turn it into a total competition model in which there is 0 economic profit.

>>2411653

What about what I have posted argues against sustainability? It's the monopoly, not the market, that's unsustainable in absence of barriers to entry.

>>2411657

Uh-huh. That's why people pay more money than they have to in general for the stuff they're buying.

>>2411661
Sorry, brand name over generic*

>>2411663
>>2411672


Great arguments there.

>>2411674

Production power has nothing to do with the ability to lower prices. Presumably they can, if they have some sort of stored funding (not usually a rational strategy, but whatever), operate at a loss for some period of time in order to drive a competitor out of business, but this isn't a strategy that can be kept up indefinitely, nor is it one that will stop people from flocking to a business where there is potential to make profit.

>>2411675

Only in societies where you have an enormously easier time accessing more expensive store brands than generic ones. Rational use of resources isn't just cash.

>>2411698
I fucked up my wording, >>2411681

If you offer someone the exact same product in a brand name wrapping vs a store brand, and the brand name is more expensive, they will often buy the brand name. Why? Because people are not rational, and they're certainly not rational consumers.

File: 1471607119723.jpg (8KB, 242x242px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 242x242px

>>2411698
>Production power has nothing to do with the ability to lower prices.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

>>2411698
>Production power has nothing to do with the ability to lower prices.
The ability to produce more or less of a product has no effect on prices?

>>2411698
Your """""understanding""""" of economics is so basic that's its obvious you're some teenager that's done an intro course.

>>2411712

If you offer someone the exact same product, and tell them it's the exact same product, one in the brand and more expensive, and the other a generic and cheaper, they do not usually go for the brand name.


People buy brand name products because of greater visibility, not because "HURR ALL CONSUMERZ IZ CRAAAAY CRAAAY"

>>2411713
>>2411714

Learn to read. I think they teach it in the third grade. Yes, a monopoly firm can lower its prices almost at will, but that will not mean that it is profitable to do so. The monopoly's owners, whomever they may be, also want to make as much profit as possible. Deliberately operating at a loss in order to suffocate potential competition..... isn't profitable. Therefore, unless they think that this new upstart is a one-time thing (and why would they?) undercutting prices is a non-optimal strategy.

The ability to produce large volumes of goods or services does not change this.

File: 1469652538122.png (417KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 500x700px

>>2411743
>Deliberately operating at a loss in order to suffocate potential competition..... isn't profitable.

Just stop.

>>2411743
businesses will literally lower prices to starve competitors. you really don't know anything about real life do you

>>2411743
>If you offer someone the exact same product, and tell them it's the exact same product, one in the brand and more expensive, and the other a generic and cheaper, they do not usually go for the brand name.

Are you from a different dimension? Because you're sure as shit not from mine.

File: socialism truu.jpg (23KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x320px

If you manage to hold a monopoly in a free market then that's the best case scenario for everybody.

Now kill yourselves you filthy marxist fucks

/thread

>>2411743
>If you offer someone the exact same product, and tell them it's the exact same product, one in the brand and more expensive, and the other a generic and cheaper, they do not usually go for the brand name.

The entire concept of marketing says otherwise. These people spend millions on marketing all the time, and it's not just to spread information.

Marketing from large corporations is effectively social engineering and it has real tangible effects.

I'm not saying "THEY CRAAYYYY" I'm saying most people are driven by emotion and impulses, marketing hijacks peoples' emotions and impulses through a variety of psychological tricks to control them.

It is a real thing that happens and a basic facet of our society.

You can tell someone that ibuprofen and advil are literally exactly the same thing, and they will still buy brand name advil over generic store brand.

>>2411750

>Reading comprehension

>>2411751

In real life, there are barriers to entry. Monopolies only tend to form where they are rather high. Or did you forget about that part?

>>2411758

Did you miss the part about visibility? What the fuck do you think all that branding is about? Why do you think that items on the shelves at eye height at supermarkets sell out faster? People are usually in a hurry and gathering information takes time.

>>2411759
>/threading your own post

We are not the ones who need to kill themselves.

A complete free market of equilibrium will never exist.

These people are sending you down the long path. Do you have any idea how many laws there are? It would take literally decades or a dictator to get all of them removed to allow for even the BEGINNING of a process which would allow such conditions.

The turmoil in doing such a thing would result in so much destabilisation or chaos that the populace dissatisfaction would render such a thing impossible.

>>2411766
It's baffling to me that you're so eager to talk down to others when you don't even know the basics of marketing.

Ayn Rand: Under a free system no one could acquire a monopoly on anything. If you look at economics, and economic history, you will discover that all monopolies have been established with government help, with the help of franchises, subsidies, or any kind of government privileges. In free competition no one could corner the market on a needed product. History will support me.

>>2411743
>Learn to read.
Learn to write your thoughts clearly. You say production power has nothing to do with prices then admit that a monopoly or semi monopoly can lower their prices due to their production power but there is a point where it is no longer profitable to do so. The first statement was nonsensical and the second was fine.

>>2411766
>Reading comprehension

Okay? No points here.

>>2411766

>>2411774
This, you're fucking retarded dude. Have you ever even seen a commercial and thought about why they are the way they are?

>>2411778
No history does not support you. Sometimes, businesses get so far ahead of others that they crush all competition. Trust busting, look into it.

>>2411580
Monopolies can only form if you have government protecting the monopoly with things like patent and trademark.

This is a really interesting thread to read and I have little grasp on economics. Does anyone know any online resources to learn interesting aspects?

>>2411796
Do what I did and build

First, understand taxation and how it affects the political spectrum, then authoritarianism vs libertarianism, then move on to more complex stuff like currency, protectionism and trade.

Voila, you have a semi decent understanding of economics.

>>2411796

Read a Sowell book.

>>2411621
>>2411633
The fact that big businesses influence the government to favour them is certainly not proof of the claim that almost all monopolies are the product of government corruption or interference

>>2411807
Do not listen to this guy.

>>2411820

End yourself you disgusting marxist.

>>2411818
You're right, I was just backing up the angle that some large corporations are propped up by the state.

File: european immigration policy.webm (1MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x404px

>>2411602

whatis2big2fail

The biggest companies would die from their own incompetence, but the government literally bailed them out with tax payer money.

In a true free market, they would have died from their retarded blunder.

>>2411774

Maybe the part where you keep shouting MUH MARKETING without ever actually making an argument or defending your notions in any substantive way.

>>2411779

Yes, learn to read a chain of response and argument. The production power is NOT what allows a firm to lower prices at will. Any firm can set its price to whatever damn thing they please, if they're not worried about little things like actually making money. It doesn't matter if their output is one unit of whatever or an infinite amount.

Now, assuming that you have a monopoly being challenged in whatever field it is, they can in fact try this strategy, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR PRODUCTION CAPACITY. Their ability to survive such a temporary loss has to do with a presumed greater capacity to gain credit, to use their existing infrastructure and capital to survive a period of loss by downsizing, etc, not their ability to churn out more shit. I have stated this quite clearly, and I'm not sure what the problem is.

>>2411782

If you don't understand why deliberately operating at a loss to fend off a more or less infinite tide of challengers isn't profitable, yes, I have to wonder at your ability to read.

>>2411794
That's true of all businesses, not just monopolies. Capitalism can only exist with a state.

File: 1487689348796.gif (1MB, 690x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 690x720px

>>2411580

>But without government, monopolies just won't exist! Companies will just magically decide to not to form them!

This is always the answer, even if it doesn't make any sense.

File: 1453103121158.jpg (98KB, 640x712px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x712px

The day of the rake when?

Marxists need to die

>>2411842
Seriously man, I want you to confirm for me that you understand that the following two ideas are not the same.

>some banks and corporations are propped up by governments
>monopolies can form without government interference

Those are different ideas, one being true does not make the other false.

>>2411854
What is your definition of marxist? People that understand marketing and the fact that monopolies can and have formed without government assistance? You guys are as irrational as SJWs

>>2411857

Name me ONE monopoly that has existed without ANY government assistance to it.

What is the ancap/libertarian/muh free markets response to the idea of natural monopolies? Do they just pretend that they don't exist?

File: 1461636972239.gif (3MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x150px

>>2411859
>marxist

>People that understand marketing

>>2411869
... you don't understand what I was saying. I was saying that you're attributing the label of marxist to people because they are explaining the purpose of marketing and that monopolies can exit without government intervention.

>>2411860
US Steel, Standard Oil, Hearst's media monopoly for starters.

>>2411860
Name me ONE business that has existed without ANY government assistance to it.

>>2411580
Hey, have some of you guys played his games? They are awesome! Definetly worth the buck.

>>2411580
Competition

>>2411883

the black market

>>2411846
>BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR PRODUCTION CAPACITY
Of course it does. Much of their existing infrastructure and capital is tied to heir production capacity and the ability to produce more or less of a product is one of many companies compete.

>>2411901
Where do products sold on the black market come from?

>>2411917
My anus.

The only type of system that would work is a well thought out mixed system. Purely Socialist or purely Capitalist systems never work in the long run.

>>2411924
This. A hybrid is ideal and has been shown to be the most successful system on Earth. Norway, Finland and Iceland dominate.

>>2411921
Well even your anus exists due to government assistance, so QED

>>2411934
>barely spend on their military
>barely project any power

If they proportionally spent half as much as the US does on defending the free world, they'd be in ruins.

>>2411636
>and that consumers are rational actors trying to meet their material needs for the lowest price
It's funny how that relies on the assumption of perfect and free flow of information, and you neglect to even mention it because you know full well that is impossible and completely shatters your ideology.

>>2411939
Finland isn't even in NATO you stupid burger

>>2411580
>>ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market
Never allow government to accept money from monopolies and never institutionalized bureaucracy.
BOOM.

Next?

File: 1483813660700.png (268KB, 649x524px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 649x524px

>>2411936
>Well even your anus exists due to government assistance

The absolute state of statists

>>2411854
Your meme sheriff is a pussy, btw
https://reason.com/blog/2017/01/26/milwaukee-sheriff-david-clarke-whines-ab

>>2412011
It's pretty true though. The anus was born in a hospital which was certainly heavily subsidized by the government, if not outright owned by it (depending on the country)

>>2411580
>capitalism
>ideology
ok kiddo

File: 1484779582075.png (42KB, 399x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 399x322px

>>2412031
>It's pretty true though. The anus was born in a hospital which was certainly heavily subsidized by the government, if not outright owned by it (depending on the country)

okay?.... and this proves what again? I'm not the person you are arguing with but this is ridiculous he could have been born in a hospital that wasn't subsidized and in a stateless society I assure you there would still be hospitals.

>>2411603
t. never tried starting a business

>>2412066
Maybe, maybe not. I highly doubt hospitals would exist in a stateless society. Anyway, he wasn't born in a stateless society, so it's irrelevant. You might want to look at how this argument started to understand.

Free trade. Competition.

Government regulation has created far more monopolies than it has ever destroyed.

>>2411586
That's like physics in a frictionless vacuum. Great on paper but doesn't hold up in application.

>>2412160

So why does private healthcare exist then?

>>2412167
The existence of free trade does not necessitate the destruction of monopolies, it helps facilitate them at first. For instance, Carl Menger stated that as certain needs arise in civilization certain individuals will provide goods or a service that no one else will. If it is unique and popular, it will form a monopoly until someone else capitalizes on this.

Now, due to intellectual property and high capital investment, this can create a long standing monopoly, but as was clearly shown by the father of all Austrian and holy, monopolies DO naturally occur in a free market. They are inherently necessary for progress to occur.

>>2412336
Because of the state, like all private companies

>>2411580
Monopolys are a good thing in certain circumstances. The government in (most) countries is generally accepted as having a monopoly in healthcare, primary education, military, infrastructure projects etc. It depends on how this monopoly was formed

How about the wide-reaching pro-competition regulation that the EU uses to great effect?

Not all pro-market people think the government is useless/evil. It's like saying Democrats believe every political judgement should be made via referenda.

>>2411602
A very good example is the FDA. The reason Mylan was able to jack up the price of the Epipen device to 600$ was because their only generic competitor had to be recalled and the FDA slow rolled approval for other generics.
Pharma spends millions lobbying the FDA for approval and millions lobbying the FDA against the approval of competitors.
An even better example is Emflaza, a drug that to help alleviate muscular dystrophy. The drug already was being used in the US by importing it from europe at around 1000 dollars a year, a practice that would have ended when Emflaza would have been released.

>>2411602
>>2412660
Emflaza was to be priced at $89000

File: quote-people-of-the-same-trade-seldom-meet-together-even-for-merriment-and-diversion-but-the-adam-smith-45-25-07.jpg (66KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 850x400px

>>2411601
>>If a monopoly forms for whatever good or service it is, someone will notice that they can undercut this service's price
That's never how it works.

When one business gains a sufficiently large percent of the market share they can bully newcomers out of the market by simply jacking up production and reducing the price of the product below profitability. They can take the hit because they're huge and have tons of reserve cash, but completely starves newcomers who were relying on that revenue to grow. Once the newcomers have been priced out, they can raise prices back to where ever they want them.

File: orangutan-6.jpg (35KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x399px

>argues about things that are negative
>does nothing to correct it
i bet you feel superior huh

>>2412688
Monopolies are naturally destroyed in the pursuit of immediate larger profit.

If the monopoly is long standing it is due to high barriers to entry, and does need to be fixed, but the question should be why the barriers were so high. If it's something that is literally illegal like the situation you've mentioned, the company gets a punitive fine.

The antitrust laws are in place, because more of a good gets sold if monopolies are not in place and the suppliers get to compete for different market shares.

>>2411636
Walmart does a good job of it.

>>2412945
Walmart is not a monopoly. Big box retail stores literally destroy the economic fabric of the communities they reside in. but they aren't monopolies.

>>2411580
Because it just werks you fucking idiot. Every ideologue is incoherent. All the alternatives to Capitalism are just as incoherent as it, but appear to collapse in a very short and brutal manner

First of all "they" wouldn't prevent it. The market would. There is no perfect company therefore this monopoly will piss off some clients therefore in a free market there would be no barrier for competitors to steal those clients

>>2411625
You realize that the trust busting was done to government formed monopolies, correct?

File: 1471141833326.png (71KB, 240x350px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 240x350px

>>2412750
>"Free market"
>We'll just make monopolies illegal!
You're sending mixed messages here.

>>2413006
You cannot legally perform competitive pricing at a loss. There are laws in place against it.

>>2411580
A true free market would be a massive hindrance for any form of monopoly. If a monopoly does happen then that just means the company is doing a good job at filling its market's needs.

>>2411641
>>2411657
Not him, but are you seriously saying that consumers don't try and find low prices, and will almost always go with the lower price all other things being equal?

>>2411636
>consumers are rational choosers
I bet you think everybody has all the information they want too huh

>>2411580
>ask a socialist how a monopoly can form in a true free market
>dead silence

>>2411792
Temporarily and never completely, once a company becomes too large it is faced with a new set of problems that smaller companies don't have, and the bigger they are the harder they fall.

>>2411580
The free market would do it itself. A monopoly would only be able to form if one company offered a service or product of a much higher quality and/or lower price than all competition, and in that situation it's hardly a problem. In fact such a situiation can be benefitial to the market as a whole when entrepreneurs with creative ideas can start a small business and then make an almost immediate profit by selling it to the top dog of the market - money which they then can spend on creating more small businesses which they continue to sell.

Trying to buy out all competition and start ups while providing a mediocre or sub-par product is nothing but a suicide tactic.

>well thought out mixed system.

>guys, It will work if we use our rationality, I swear we just need to think and it will get real

>>2411586
explain why monopoly is bad now OP

>prices go up, consumption goes down. Labour disputes increase leading to business paternalism

because it isn't bad

>>2411580
Natural monopolies are very hard to create, if it exists though, time sorts it out. Monopolies, most of the time are product of government desu

>>2411580
What are neoliberals doing to end Comcast monopoly? And if god government is so so great, why this monopoly exists in first place?

File: IMG_0208.jpg (478KB, 800x4200px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 800x4200px

>>2414542
Abolish the FCC?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MGzvLhVpVGY

>>2414270
No, consumers don't act solely on the principle of price competition. That's retarded.

The early years of the industrial revolution in France had little to no economical regulations because the actual revolution had wipe out old regime rules and Napoleon 1er who rewrote everything had no understanding of capitalism. XIXth century factory owners could freely hire and fire people without any cost, could pay whatever they want whenever they want the workers, had no limits on work hours, safety or even child labour. They even had access to soldiers to break strikes. Guess what happened : they forced their workers to vote for their boss and the Assembly became full of business owners, preventing any law to pass against their interests and even preventing the competition to form, leading to monopolies.

>>2411602
Barriers to entry on well regulated markets cause 1 or 3 companies to control a majority of the market.

>>2411586
free market by definition allows for monopoly to form.

>>2411601
>If a monopoly forms for whatever good or service it is, someone will notice that they can undercut this service's price

I'll take what are economies of scale and what is price dumping for 200, Bob.

File: thehelpinghand.jpg (41KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x399px

Monopolies are less likely in a free market, however I can't claim a free market can make monopolies utterly impossible. You might as well say.

>ask a capitalist how they would prevent murder in a true free market
>dead silence

A small town in Alaska only has enough customers for 1 small store, however their customers are big guys who aren't picky about what they eat, they could easily cook rice and beans in melted snow over an open fire if they really wanted, the store has to compete with the mail order of non-perishable goods. The more freedom people have the more options they have, the more competition there is and the more difficult it is to set up a monopoly.

Imagine if this store owner tried to ban mail order. Wouldn't that be absurd? This is what many protectionist policies and arbitrary taxes and regulations are like. Politicians find excuses like "saving jobs" but their real motivation is pressure from lobbyists. With free markets, laissez faire attitudes, free trade and individual rights as the standard, this kind of corruption becomes very difficult.

Off topic: if an industry is in decline it is better to react to the changes ASAP rather than try to postpone the inevitable which would only result in mass layoffs later.

The only monopolies that are left are extreme cases like some industrialist who obtained an enormous amount of money due to some new technology who buys up all the railroads under everyone's noses. However is this really a crime? Rapid changes in the economy are taking place and they were smart enough to recognize the market value of the railroads before everyone else, if others had an interest in it, why didn't they make an offer? Why didn't they put in the effort to inform other businesses and pool their resources so they can offer a higher price and own shares in the new railroad company?

This isn't fraud, no one was forced to do anything, it is called working smart.

>>2414767
>monopolizing infrastructure isn't reeeealllly monopolizing because it's smart :^)
Well now you just have to be trolling. Anything from electricity to gas to internet to railroads suffers from inherent tendency to be monopolized and you're saying there's nothing wrong with that. What are competitors going to do? Just lay their own cables throughout an entire city/state country and pray?

>>2414767
>However is this really a crime? Rapid changes in the economy are taking place and they were smart enough to recognize the market value of the railroads before everyone else, if others had an interest in it, why didn't they make an offer? Why didn't they put in the effort to inform other businesses and pool their resources so they can offer a higher price and own shares in the new railroad company?
I want to make a novel out of this idea.

Who is John Galt? :^)

>>2414591
So you're really claiming that someone would ever pay $2 for something when someone else is offering the exact same thing for $1?

File: chicken_heaven.webm (2MB, 1283x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1283x540px

I'll refer you to this book Machinery of Freedom, authored by David Friedman, self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist and son of Milton Friedman, available online.

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Look at the sections titled
>MONOPOLY I: HOW TO LOSE YOUR SHIRT
and
>MONOPOLY II: STATE MONOPOLY FOR FUN AND PROFIT

>>2411580
I think its pretty clear that an absolutist system will fail, humans dont have those.

but there is no reason we cant have an 80% libertarian system with some concessions to social harmony and infrastructure

>>2411602
in 08 the big banks would've failed and the world would be destroyed but at least the lolberts would have a TRUE free market

>>2416444
If the "Federal" Reserve hadn't maintained interest rates so artificially low for so long, the whole fucking thing wouldn't have happened in the first place, you socialista dipshit.

>>2411580
There's no such thing as a natural monopoly you total fucking retard.

>Monopoly forms
>Prices go up
>Someone tries to sell a product at lower price
>Monopolist starts selling product at a price lower than costs of production
>Free market geta trolled hard

rinse and repeat

>>2416475
>monopoly forms without government intervention
No.
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>>2415308
Yes, actually. People do it all due to brand recognition, for example.

>>2416465
why is that?

>>2411603
if it wasn't for those "le evil leftist liberals and their atheist unions" you'd be working a 15 hour day right now for 1% of what you earn now with horrible working conditions and living on a factory-owned cot in a factory-owned project straight outta Russia because everything would eventually be a monopoly and people wouldn't have any power to make a better deal for themselves.

Reactionary conservatives sure are fucking retarded, eh?

>>2416465
>be business guy
>become so rich that you have more power than your own government
>use massive wealth to buy said government
>t-they need the government's help to make monopolies!

this is less a situation of the government lovingly sucking corporate cock, and more a situation of the prostitute government getting paid in yachts to suck corporate cock.

>>2416465
No such thing as a free market either.

>>2416635
Thats a bit of an exaggeration. Well not "a bit" its a gross exaggeration.

Just because the labor movement was partially responsible for a few necessary reforms a century ago doesn't mean all of their ideas are good

>>2411580

>prevent monopolies forming

Free trade.

>>2416651
Yes there is. If I offer to paint your house for you in exchange for some form of payment then I am providing a service on the free market, and if you accept we have performed a transaction on the free market.

The only thing that wouldn't make such a transaction free would be if a third person, or a group of people, decided that you I wasn't allowed to offer that service, that you weren't allowed to decline, that I can't offer to paint your house for as little as I'm asking, or that I can't charge that much for the service I'm providing, etc.

as seen in this thread, free market fundamentalists are nutjobs that are unable to comprehend neither actual humans nor logic

There should be a balance. Mixed is the way to go, but there should still be little gov influence.

>>2416938
>free-market fundamentalist
O I m laffin

Most of the only remedies for monopolies discussed ITT were antitrust laws. Left to their own devices, human beings apparently ruck each other up through competitive pricing.

That being said, you need monopolies in a free market. It shows progression in technology, medicine, engineering, etc. are happening.

See
>>2412410

>>2413028
But that's not a free market, that's the government stepping in.

>>2417003
Exactly, you are deluded if you think a completely free market has, has ever, or could ever exist in the United States.

>>2417012
Did you read the thread up until that point? People were talking about free markets.

>>2411580
This is literally retarded. Monopolies are enforced by governments who prevent additional competition from entering the market with artificial barriers like licenses.

>>2411599

How do you prevent government from forming and invading your governmentless free market?

What are /his/'s thoughts on patents and intellectual property?

>>2417023

Honestly, there has never been a free market without a government unless you count those anarchists in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil war till the Soviets showed up and actually had the ability to make weapons.

>>2417025
Their implementation has severe issues but they aren't fundamentally a bad thing.

>>2417020
>artificial barriers like licenses

I'd love my doctor not to have a medical license

>>2417025
They last too long.

>>2417017
And so am I, relatively of course. When you deal with economics, you deal with actualities. In actuality, if everyone played fair in a vacuum, a free market could exist. How about that? Because of geographic, quantity, or time limitations a product cannot be marketed to everyone correctly at the same rate, so naturally forming monopolies exist to penetrate new markets. As these are dissolved, competitions spreads the product over a larger and larger market.

The same thing happens with technological innovations.

So there, tl;dr a free market could exist if everyone played fair.

Antitrust laws are there to make the free trade possible, and intellectual property is there to reward innovation, which progresses free trade.

In effect, most of the government regulations just help create a free market, rather than take It away, but go ahead and quote some retarded Anal Rand paragraph about how intellectual property corrupts the youth or something.

>>2417052
>if everyone played fair
I have no idea what this even means, what does anyone have to gain from not "playing fair"? There's no such thing as a natural monopoly, and there would be no central banks, cartels etc.

>govt. regulations create a free market
Ah yes because having huge regulations on who and what businesses can be started is a brilliant way to create a totally free market

>>2411939
>>barely spend on their military
>>barely project any power
There isn't much point when your population is like 5 million people. Even with equal per-capita spending the US or even France/Germany/UK would have a military magnitudes larger.

>>2413002
What? The antitrust laws are still in effect they targeted all monopolies. What the fuck is a government formed monopoly?
And explain how standard oil was one.

>>2418231
>There's no such thing as a natural monopoly, and there would be no central banks, cartels etc.
The existence of the Hanseatic League disagrees with you.

>>2411580
Capitalism is not an ideology, is a reactive system. The ideology is neoliberalism

>>2418619
It is as much an ideology as communism.
>a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

>IP and patents are useless and evul!
You know we didnt have those in the middle ages, right?
Owners would still fuck your shit up if you used their idea, and operated in massive secrecy to prevent it leaking.
In fact, this is causing us problems today, since some of Shakespear's plays are possibly made by copycats writing them from memory in a nonsensical narrative

"monopolies are formed because of government interference"

"in a true free market there are no monopolies"

How come that when the subject is say Quantum Physics or Medicine, people are happy to admit they have no knowledge on the subject. But when the subject is economics every one is an expert.

>>2418751
Because politics and economy isn't about facts, it's about values.

>>2418751
You're right.

Austrian-shitters need to stop pretending they know anything about economics and stop saying nonsense like that.

>>2411621

>puts in IP laws that prevent other companies from manufacturing generics,

Then the government, not the market, is favouring the creation of a monopoly. There are instances in which this does happens and it's usually branded as general interest reasons, but otherwise the role of the state is precisely to legislate to prevent monopolies, because if not for regulations monopolies would naturally form in any market.

>>2418751

economics has been too politicised

it is of course understandable why it has been, but that's generally why people come out with so much shit about it that is nothing close to consensus within the academic discipline

just ignore all austrians, marxists, libertarians, socialists etc. and we can hopefully move on to a more rational argument

Is RCT stiil held up in later, more advanced subjects? I remember someone mentioned in postgraduate econ, they seem to assume imperfect market, competitions, etc., so I wonder if even RCT is left out in favor of abstractions from consumer data or something.

>>2418781

what do you mean by held up? postgrads still use randomized controlled trials yes, particularly for micro work - it's obviously harder in macro

imperfect markets, competition, information asymmetry etc are assumed because that's what empirical evidence suggested - it then gets factored into more abstract modelling (with varying success...)

>>2418231
>there's no such thing as a natural monopoly
>he hasn't read Carl Menger

>>2418797

why do austrians never bring up research within the past 50 years?

times have moved on beyond the likes of menger, smith, marx, ricardo, mises, keynes etc etc

>>2411636
>they will just undercut the monopololy's price!

>what is economies of scale
>what is market integration

Not so fast there dork.

>>2418801
>>2418801
I'm not an Austrian. Just because you cite Carl Menger doesn't make you an Austrian. Keynesian theory would be nothing without Menger.

Almost every economist would agree that what Menger says about natural monopolies forming in a free market is correct. It's just simply a case of expanding technology or limited market share. Increasingly a case of the former these days, almost never the latter.

>>2418843
Then can they explain the rise of the Hanseatic League?
It was a monopoly and one of the earliest if not the earliest multinational monopolies.

>>2418854
The Hanseatic League existed between the 15th century to the 18th century.

Capitalism didn't even exist then. The entirety of Europe was partly feudal, and partly mercantilist at that time.

>>2418839
In a free economy those are not the insurmountable barriers you think they are friend.

>>2418924
It is still a monopoly formed on its own without government interference.

>>2411580
In a sense you would want monopolies to form when the cost of labor and production is at its physically lowest point, there is no need to spend money on marketing or R&D, profit margin is at its lowest feasible point, etc.

File: 1466961798829.png (271KB, 386x253px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 386x253px

>>2411586
>We don't need no regulating bodies
> pour the fucking hormones and industrial waste right into the water supply

>>2418949
The Free City of Lübeck was a government m8. It was a city-state, and the most powerful member of the Hanseatic League.

>>2418854
Exactly. Carl Menger said monopolies form naturally under the free market. Did you read anything at all?

It doesn't because of one thing:

Human nature

You see, in a truly, governmentless free-market, once a buisiness gets on top, the owner will band together with other powerful business owners. Together they have enough wealth and influence to seize power within a specific region (through military). Then, they can create a set of rules benefitting their own businesses. This grants them more power.

A truly free market will eventually create the circumstances for a group of individuals to create a government and end the true free market. Such is human nature.

>>2418969
It's almost as if humans are naturally shit bags and need to have laws and regulations to function together as a society. Might be why nothing noteworthy has ever come from an anarchy.

>>2419009
Exactly. But because humans are such shitbags, too many rules will cause them to revolt. So the other side of the spectrum doesn't work either.

Unless you beat them hard enough I suppose. But usually governments can't keep that up forever.

>>2418589
A lot of Standard Oil's monopoly after Cleveland was gained through government railroad contracts which other companies could not compete with. In fact, most of its international growth was done after the anti-trust laws were passed. It took 2 decades for anything to get done. Why? Government kickbacks. Standard oil was a monopoly that began with government intervention, continued with government intervention and ended with government intervention.

>>2419024
Which is why you need a mix of both, you need enough freedom to encourage growth, with enough order to ensure equality of opportunity.

>>2411807
You mean Lenin?

>>2411869
>retard 4chan alt-righter
>someone who has an understanding of marketing

>>2419037
>In response to state laws trying to limit the scale of companies, Rockefeller and his associates developed innovative ways of organizing, to effectively manage their fast growing enterprise. On January 2, 1882,[11] they combined their disparate companies, spread across dozens of states, under a single group of trustees. By a secret agreement, the existing thirty-seven stockholders conveyed their shares "in trust" to nine Trustees:
...
>In a seminal deal, in 1868, the Lake Shore Railroad, a part of the New York Central, gave Rockefeller's firm a going rate of one cent a gallon or forty-two cents a barrel, an effective 71 percent discount from its listed rates in return for a promise to ship at least 60 carloads of oil daily and to handle the loading and unloading on its own. Smaller companies decried such deals as unfair because they were not producing enough oil to qualify for discounts.
Yep that was not the government taking the cheapest offer because Rockefeller had a majority of the business and had already bought and closed most his competition, it was totally just the government enabling him, without that dirty government no one would have taken that deal to help shut his competition out of the market.

>>2411901
>implying

>>2419071
I'll counter with another example: Ma Bell. Government infrastructure investments which built a private company that became a fucking monolith. Ma Bell even forced the government into an agreement that they wouldn't trust bust them. An agreement that continued until 1974. Monopolies don't exist without a government squashing competition.

>>2419080
>In 1913, under AT&T ownership, the Bell System's growing monopoly over the phone system was challenged by the government in an anti-trust suit, leading to the Kingsbury Commitment, under which they escaped being broken up or nationalized in exchange for divesting themselves of Western Union and allowing non-competing independent telephone companies to interconnect with their long distance network. After 1934, AT&T was regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

>>2419128
Look at how many times the FCC actually interfered in Ma Bell's affairs. You don't even need to start counting toes. When it was broken up in 1984, it controlled nearly 90% of the market. Ma Bell got off scot free from that suit and built the largest company the world ever saw. How? By using the government as a sword AND a shield.

>>2419155
And what would a totally free market have enabled differently?
They would have instituted the same policies and run smaller business out.

>>2419172
>They would have instituted the same policies and run smaller business out
How would they have done this without being bankrolled by a government and then protected from competition by a government?

>>2419038
>>2419038
Precisely.
A country can accentuate more towards one or the other, but ultimately, there needs to be a balance between both.
It's nice to know there are anons who understand.

>>2419177
They did not need to be bankrolled by the government they made a lot of money off their phones, which allows them to run more lines, they refuse to allow their competitors to use their lines, they had a head start, so they have the widest network, now they charge people extra for calling using other services, or just disallow it entirely, this means competition is impossible as they already supply the whole market and buying into the market is prohibitively expensive, and if you try it they will under cut you and force you out of business. Let's say you start somewhere they are not, well unless you can expand faster than they can reach your customers you will also be under cut and run out, they can afford fiscal losses to eliminate competition before it can grow the upstart can not. Then once the upstarts are gone they buy up their assets and save the money that would have been spent on infrastructure. But let's say you somehow, magically make it into the market and can not be undercut then they institute the charges for calling the devices owned by other companies. There is no regulations to stop this once it gets out of control.

>>2419234
Except the infrastructure required (having a phone does fuck all without a phone line) was funded by the U.S. government so they WERE bankrolled by the government and contrary to your claim they were protected by the U.S. government as well.

>>2419274
So you are saying the options are have phones or have totally free market economics as apparently you can not have one without the other.
I will take having clean water, sewer systems, paved roads and Internet cables. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>2412066

>in a stateless society I assure you there would still be hospitals.

Behold! A stateless society. Where are the hospitals?

>>2419320
Who funds them?

File: shutterstock_93404287.jpg (108KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1000x667px

>>2419324
>>2419320

Forgot pic.

>Behold! A stateless society. Where are the hospitals?

>>2419333
Should have just posted some of the Sub-Saharan African nations that are basically stateless.

>>2411580
more like fellatio 4

File: Realization.gif (953KB, 171x171px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 171x171px

> mfw I realized "That wasn't a true free market" libertarians are the equivalent of "That wasn't true socialism" communists

>>2419324
The idea is more that people find ways to benefit society (e.g. working in a hospital) because it's what they want to do, not because of financial compulsion (get money or you starve and get no access to reproduction!)

>>2419298
No, I'm just stating the reality that Bell Telephone expanded at the rate they did due to government bankrolls.

>>2411792
No. The one example of this that is always brought up is Rockford Oil, but after the trial it turned out that many of the testimonies were fabricated by competitors who couldn't compete fairly because what they offered was subpar in comparison. There's economics and jurists who still claim the verdict was one of the biggest legal errors in America's history.

>>2419557

Why shouldn't the government promote rapid adoption of new technologies?

>>2419850
Irrelevant. The point here is that Bell Telephone got to where it was because government intervened in their favor. Could Bell have built the infrastructure without government help? Yes, but not as quickly. Could Bell have owned a 90% market share without the government openly giving them a monopoly for almost 100 years? No. You're trying way too hard to steer the debate away from its roots because you recognize that your logic is faulty, but aren't willing to admit defeat. Can government be a force for the technological good? Yes. Can monopolies exist without government interference? No. End of statement, end of story.

>>2419931

>Can monopolies exist without government interference? No. End of statement, end of story.

And what are you basing this on?

Ayn Rand: Under a free system no one could acquire a monopoly on anything. If you look at economics, and economic history, you will discover that all monopolies have been established with government help, with the help of franchises, subsidies, or any kind of government privileges. In free competition no one could corner the market on a needed product. History will support me.

The problem is that everyone always misconstrues Free with Absolutely Unregulated. They are not the same thing. A free market is one in which each player has an equal opportunity to generate revenue, and no other players are able to dictate the rules of the game. Imagine if you were playing the game Monopoly (no pun intended) and one of the players was able to define the rules for anyone else and somehow magically everything seemed stacked in the favor of that player, it would be an unplayable game. This is why regulation is needed, this is how the market can stay free. Business should not be able to lobby the government to change the rules in its favor either, this is just using the goverment as a middleman to create the hypothetical scenario I just described.


Do you remember when you were a child playing with other children? There would always be that one kid that wanted to always win or be "the best". Those children grow into adults. If you do not have strictly define rules for the game (and yes society and economy are simply very elaborate games we play) in order to moderate everyone's behavior, then those children will always tip the balance in their favor to win, they don't care about everyone else. They are out for blood.

Structure and regulation, not chaos masked as freedom, creates a free market.

>>2419274
>>2419298
I think landline phones are sort of an exceptional example, for obvious reasons. Phones were considered a utility. It's not the same as deep fried tacos, soda, dragon dildos, or basketball shoes.

>>2419931
It's like you don't understand the concept of a GSE/SOE.

>>2413002
Except it wasn't.

>>2419037
Nothing about that even implies the government destroyed monopolies just to get its own monoply.

>>2420024
>Structure and regulation, not chaos masked as freedom, creates a free market.
That is a blatantly illogical statement.

>>2419931

The basic premise here is that fewer regulations lead to greater competition between firms, which in turn leads to better outcomes for consumers. But does that theory hold true in reality? If the premise is true, then the "Free-Market" inspired reforms introduced by Reagan and Thatcher during the 80's should have led to greater competition between firms. Instead the opposite occurred. Firms absorbed each other and consolidated, resulting in fewer active firms and less competition.

>>2420050

You realize that it is a coda of law and its enforcement that helps prevent you from getting murdered, robbed, and/or raped constantly right?

>>2420060
Why would I continue reasoning on a faulty premises?

>>2420050

It's much more logical than the absurd idea than a strong economy could exist without a government bureaucracy helping to manage it. Go ahead, point out a nation without strong government that you'd actually want to do business in.

File: 1486534721134.jpg (62KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x279px

>>2420065

>The government passes laws and enforces them
>This is literally the basis of civilization
>faulty premise

>>2420065

What is the faulty premise?

The only one I see is where people claim that we'd be more free without laws and regulations, because it's blatantly false. Look at Nigeria if you want a case study in how lawlessness doesn't create more freedom.

The sad fact is that the ugly side of humanity thrives in the chaos of zero regulation

>>2420081
Amen. But they're moving the goal posts now! 'No that's not what we meant by free market'