Wanting anti-monopoly regulations...

[HollyforRP]

Is that anti free market?

I think we need these regulations and the proof is what is going on right now with billionaires buying out everything. What happens is that once an already billionaire buys out a company, they don't have to care about the customer where as the original owner knew their money came from the customers.

So is this anti free market idea?

[Steve_New_Jersey]

I wont get to technicle but regulation doesnt work. It has lead to malinvestment and those same rules create more monopoly then they prevent. Regulation is impossible. Its hand holding at its best. Its probably one of the best examples of failed practice in history and still fails today. People need to be free to make choices. They are free to make mistakes but at the same time they go to jail for those mistakes. The way it is now in America and I speak from experience companies and corps walk that grey line with a foot on both sides. Getting cought breaking reluation is factored into cost instead of avoided out of fear of going to jail. Regulation is very communistic and is about as far from free and against the core of America as can be imo.

[yongrel]

Antitrust, an essay by Alan Greenspan

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html

Very informative.

[HollyforRP]

Doesn't de-regulation on monopolizing actually hurt small businesses and what about how it has affected the media?

[acptulsa]

Doesn't de-regulation on monopolizing actually hurt small businesses and what about how it has affected the media?

Of course monopolies are anti-free market. Captialism depends on competition. I personally think there's quite a difference between out-and-out regulation and, say, not allowing Boeing to suck up McDonnell Douglas.

Allow the latter to happen and the only way the Air Force can get a fair price is to risk farming our defense out to foreigners.

[Redmenace]

Deregulation only works in free markets. There are some markets that are inherently monopolistic in which regulation is needed to prevent gouging. One example is Electrical Utilities, since consumers only have one set of transmission lines going to their home and those lines are owned by a single company. However there are very few inherently monopolistic markets out there and anyone who is considering regulation/deregulation should first ask themselves, "is this a free market?" if the answer is yes then regulation is the last thing you want.


If you would like a real world example of how deregulating a monopolistic market can hurt consumers, Google Montana Power.

[Redmenace]

I should also note that most monopolies only occur through regulation. Take the Media we all like to bash, if the FCC wasn't regulating the piss out of this market, the barriers to entry would be much lower in the market and you would see many more small upstart media companies. These smaller media companies would also be much more competitive, being smaller and leaner, but since there is so much bureaucratic red tap to navigate, only large companies can afford the legal cost associated with dealing with the FCC and thus now we only have 5 media conglomerates giving us the news.

[Hook]

Also, if you are for breaking up monopolies, you have to be for breaking up unions to be consistent on principle. They are both monopolies but on opposite sides.

Most monopolies occur by government decree rather than natural market conditions. It is just too easy for competitors to enter the market when governments don't give special priviledge to certain companies.

[soapmistress]

This may be a stupid question because I don't know much about this topic but...

wouldn't it be true that you can't buy what isn't for sale? If people are willing to do this to their own businesses why do they cry about regulations once the monster is out of hand?

[acptulsa]

This may be a stupid question because I don't know much about this topic but...

wouldn't it be true that you can't buy what isn't for sale? If people are willing to do this to their own businesses why do they cry about regulations once the monster is out of hand?

I'm a little lost on the question, but I assure you that there are some mighty selfish and short sighted people out there who are happy to gain, and unlikely to look far enough down the road to realize they might be tearing their hair out later.

[Banana]

FWIW, a few of posters already explained in details about how monopolies would operate in free market (or wouldn't) in the thread about corporates. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=121545)

The thread answers some same questions here...

[nbhadja]

Harmful monopolies exist because this country has a big government that lobbyists can control. Have a limited government and lobbying goes out the window, along with harmful monopolies (only natural monopolies exist then).

[dannno]

Regulation has done much more to create monopolies than to destroy them. Regulations create barriers to entry, and this is the primary cause of monopolies. Respect property rights and promote freedom, and monopolies will not exist.

Corporations will always be able to affect political change more than the people because they have larger sums of capital to work with. This means it is really impossible to legislate anything that goes against corporations without them legislating more in reverse.

[Banana]

Ooo, nbhadja's post reminded me- several people usually use telecommunications industry as an example of "natural monopoly" to show why we need to regulate that industry. But a closer look actually shows that monopoly came around because they were already in bed; subsequent regulations only accelerated the monopolizing.

[runderwo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M

[klamath]

All the original monopolies were created by the federal government. The railroads were paid with land to lay the tracks west. The demand for crosstie timber created weyerhouser. The demand for steel for rails created the steel giants.
Sure it got the country building faster but we have been paying the price every since. The government trys to break the monopolies and then the Unions get out of hand and become over powerful because the government gave them special rights. The pendulum jolted the first time is still bouncing back and force. It is also what have reinforced the two party system.

[Broadlighter]

Is that anti free market?

I think we need these regulations and the proof is what is going on right now with billionaires buying out everything. What happens is that once an already billionaire buys out a company, they don't have to care about the customer where as the original owner knew their money came from the customers.

So is this anti free market idea?

To get an overview of the problem, I suggest you read Richard Maybury's "Whatever Happened to Justice." Just google it and order.

In short, regulation of industries is a symptom of political law, which is the rule of government officials and their bureacracies. Under natural or common law principles, individuals and corporations are expected to uphold their agreements and not encroach on others or their property.

For example if you have a factory that pollutes the stream that runs through your property, that business has encroached on you and you have the right to seek redress for it. The business owners have to pay you a settlement or at most go to jail. The solutions under common law are simple and knowable.

Under regulation, the factory may pay fees to the government to demonstrate compliance and avoid lawsuits from individual property owners. In other words, it lets them off the hook with regard to respecting property rights.

In a free market, competitors who are more ethical about they way deal with waste may gain an advantage over businesses that don't respect people.

Another aspect of regulation is that when they are called for, as in the case of the financial markets at the turn of the 20th Century, the targeted corporations mobilize to influence the outcome. Since they have the money and legislators often look at their representatives as experts, the corporations tend to get their way.

In a common law society, regulations are not needed. Jail time and financial restitution serve as deterrents to bad behavior. Regulations only serve to ensure the bad behavior continues.

[surf]

Speaking of railroads: anyone want to guess the driving force behind federal building and subsidizing of roadwork (interstates, etc)?

give up?

tire manufacturers. lord only knows what the transportation market would have developed if allowed to operate freely, but it's a fair assumption that the rapid demise of trolley systems around the country was accelerated because tire manufacturers got their way in Washington DC early last century (tires had a very short lifespan).