paul protecting anti trust and monopolies

[spivey378]

with opening the free markets, how is paul going to insure that we dont have problems with monopolies

[Santana28]

this is a good question. i've heard this question more often than any other objections actually...

[brandon]

Government is the largest monopoly of all, and they are allowed to use force.

After Paul dismantles this monopoly, no monopoly of the same size/strength will ever be able to be created

Regarding corporate monopolies, we already have several and they are aided by government subsidies. Once we stop subsidizing corps, the smaller guy will have a better chance to compete.

[Ethek]

I have had some passing concerns with this. Then I think of how we already have government backed monopolies, like with Telecom.

It all comes out as a wash in my book.

[KewlRonduderules]

we need to go back to days prior to reagan where we had regulations. Sh*t started to go out of wack with his administration and was expanded further with Bush I and Clinton.

[Sematary]

with opening the free markets, how is paul going to insure that we dont have problems with monopolies


i turned my buddy into a supporter and hes trying to get his mother to join and she was worried/wondered about this....

Government regulation actually ENCOURAGES monopoly.
Think Microsoft - they have used the government to gain an unfair advantage and block out competition.
Think our local cable company (which isn't really local). Government only allows one cable company to "compete" in an area. That is why the price and availability of internet in this nation are so woefully behind places like Japan. True competition would bring prices down (alot).

[hambone1982]

Monopolies are by definition not Free Market.

I think Ron Paul would instruct his Attorney General to enforce the law.

[smhbbag]

I'm not scared of honestly-earned, free-marked monopolies. After all, in a free market, how did they get to be monopolies in the first place? Beating all their competition by serving us better.

And, as long as their are no obscene regulatory or other governmental barriers to entry, that monopoly is still under competitive pressure to perform well after becoming a monopoly.

Many fear honestly earned monopolies for fear they would then use their market power to clamp down on supply and service, while raking in the profits from artificially high prices.

Just one question: In the history of mankind, when has that ever happened?

[stefans]

it's a valid concern once you got rid of all the government backed monopolies.
I have not yet heard ron paul talk about this, but classical liberalism, part of ron paul philosophy, traditionally argues for strong anti trust legislation.

[pcosmar]

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The Free market will allow competition.

[KewlRonduderules]

I'm not scared of honestly-earned, free-marked monopolies. After all, in a free market, how did they get to be monopolies in the first place? Beating all their competition by serving us better.

And, as long as their are no obscene regulatory or other governmental barriers to entry, that monopoly is still under competitive pressure to perform well after becoming a monopoly.

Many fear honestly earned monopolies for fear they would then use their market power to clamp down on supply and service, while raking in the profits from artificially high prices.

Just one question: In the history of mankind, when has that ever happened?

Quite often

Read - The Shock Doctrine

Though i don't agree with everything in it, there is some useful information in there. You will learn a lot

[stefans]

And, as long as their are no obscene regulatory or other governmental barriers to entry, that monopoly is still under competitive pressure to perform well after becoming a monopoly.


not necessarily. a monopoly like google's e.g. is ok with me. it's earned AND it's under competetive pressure, even though their market share is very high, everyone can come up with a better concept.
but you can use an honestly earned monopoly to force other products of yours into the market(see microsoft).

that is a problem. though a very minor one compared to our other problems.

[FSP-Rebel]

W/o the government involved, a corporation would be a lot less likely to ever have a strong monopoly in a certain industry. IN a free market, there would always be another entrepeneur nipping at a corporation's heels if they locked their prices in high. Governments embolden major corps because they lay the groundwork for difficult entry into the industry via regulations and thus small business is always the fall guy.

[KewlRonduderules]

Many economists argue for 'security nets' to prevent monopolies from gaining to much market control. I support this.

[user]

Monopolies are a problem when the government enforces them, as we see today. Without that, monopolies would always be under threat of competition.

[Fyretrohl]

Another thing to remember...The constitution DOES authorize the Feds to oversee Interstate commerce. As such, a group which uses its position to push others out CAN be intervened against. I did not say should. Simply that the Constitution does give them the authority to do so.

[JMO]

For those that think Monopolies are OK have never lived under a Monopoly that provides a need. What happens is that when a new company starts up the Monopoly lowers prices so low that they drive the new company out of business. the Monopoly can afford to take a short term loss because they racked up large bank. once they get the new companies out of the way they raise the prices to far above market levels, and reap huge profits at the average citizens expense because there is no other options for the consumer. New potential companies will not even attempt to challenge these companies because they know they will end up in ruin. Monopolies are bad for the consumer and for advancement of technology. History shows this to be true and that is why we have many anti monopoly policies.

Don't even try convincing a older person that Monopolies are ok, they won't buy it and will think Ron Paul supports the idea that Monopolies are acceptable and you will lose a potential Ron Paul vote.

[ThePieSwindler]

For those that think Monopolies are OK have never lived under a Monopoly that provides a need. What happens is that when a new company starts up the Monopoly lowers prices so low that they drive the new company out of business. the Monopoly can afford to take a short term loss because they racked up large bank. once they get the new companies out of the way they raise the prices to far above market levels, and reap huge profits at the average citizens expense because there is no other options for the consumer. New potential companies will not even attempt to challenge these companies because they know they will end up in ruin. Monopolies are bad for the consumer and for advancement of technology. History shows this to be true and that is why we have many anti monopoly policies.

Give an example.

[quickmike]

with opening the free markets, how is paul going to insure that we dont have problems with monopolies


i turned my buddy into a supporter and hes trying to get his mother to join and she was worried/wondered about this....

Name one free market monopoly that weve ever had.

I can name government controlled monopolies off the top of my head........... The post office, the power company im most states and the cable company.

In a TRULY free market, a monopoly is impossible without the approval of the consumer. In that case, nobody would complain because the company with the monopoly is doing such a good job delivering goods and services, that nobody feels the need to compete. If on the other hand, the company with the monopoly starts mistreating its customers, a new company will undoubtedly sprout up to fill the need to satisfy the consumer. If government is there, they make that impossible through all kinds of licensing fees and regulations.

Government is the problem, not the market.

[thegearbox]

What about the Federal Reserve, NASA, USPS, etc. These all seem to be government funded monopolies, what about them? What about oil? Why is the government funding that so much when you have such things as brown's gas? Monopolies can be bad at times, but if there is money thereto make, then there will always be competition.

[ThePieSwindler]

Quite often

Read - The Shock Doctrine

Though i don't agree with everything in it, there is some useful information in there. You will learn a lot

Read - The Myth of the Natural Monopoly by Thomas J Dilorenzo.

The links and correlations made in the shock doctrine 1) have little to do with microeconomic dynamics of competition and monopolies 2) distort much of the truth.

Large corporations love government regulation because it makes it alot easier for the large corporations to grow without any threat of easy-entry competition. Why do you think people go to China to start small businesses? Because its alot easier to start one there than here, due to regulation.

Think for yourself, learn for yourself, don't let government/establishment schools spoon feed you the cirriculum.

[Fyretrohl]

USPS = Monopoly??

Then, what are UPS, FedEx, etc? I can send my standard letter via FedEx if I want to. Please explain how that one is a monopoly.

[JMO]

Give an example.

I am not going to do the search for every example. for those that grew up with the bells know how much cheaper it was after the bells were broken up and competition was afterwards.

You can argue with me or debate it all you want, but you won't convince older people that grew up in the 60's and70's that monopolies are good for the market. All you will do is lose a potential Ron Paul voter. Try another approach because while you walk away thinking you won the debate they will walk away and vote for someone else.

Wealthy Monopolies in a unregulated market will drive startup companies out of business, they will lower prices and take losses that they will recoup later by overinflating prices once they drive the new companies are run out of business.

[ThePieSwindler]

USPS = Monopoly??

Then, what are UPS, FedEx, etc? I can send my standard letter via FedEx if I want to. Please explain how that one is a monopoly.

It still has a monopoly on first class mail. However, it is much cheaper than it would have been if not for Lysander Spooner's attempt at competition with the government back in the 19th century. He was able to correct the problem of expanding government monopoly to a point where it was tolerable. UPS and FedEx cannot transport first class mail (things like bills etc), thus technically the USPS still has a monopoly in that niche of mail delivery.

[user]

USPS = Monopoly??

Then, what are UPS, FedEx, etc? I can send my standard letter via FedEx if I want to. Please explain how that one is a monopoly.
Thanks to the government, the USPS has a monopoly on delivering first-class mail. In fact, Ron Paul mentioned this on the Daily Show.

[JMO]

A lot of the monopolies you guys mention are government regulated.

[JMO]

The Post office has a monopoly on first class mail, but it's government regulated. I guarantee you if it was not Government regulated you would be paying a much higher price for a first class stamp.

[chrismatthews]

Government regulation actually ENCOURAGES monopoly.
Think Microsoft - they have used the government to gain an unfair advantage and block out competition.
Think our local cable company (which isn't really local). Government only allows one cable company to "compete" in an area. That is why the price and availability of internet in this nation are so woefully behind places like Japan. True competition would bring prices down (alot).


That's the governments dirty little secret. Monopolies are created by government.

Government regulates business to a degree that they create huge barriers to entry. Want a television station? You better have billions of dollars to grease the wheels, before you even start to think about start up costs.

Want to start up a small business? You better have enough money to comply with a laundry list of regulations before you even think about it.


Name a monopoly that wasn't induced by government.

Dupont had legislation passed that outlawed hemp.

The telecom industry(The Bells) had a governmental enforced monopoly, no bid, enforced contract for the telecom industry.

The steel industry required a 30 million dollar bond to get in the refinement business back when 30 million was real money, and protective tarrifs made sure that the existing companies cornered the market.

Most recently microsoft was touted as a monopoly, meanwhile Linux still dominates the server platform and MAC is picking up steam as microsoft rolled out a shabby vista product.

Nobel prize winning Friedman, Mises and Rothbard posited that a free market monopoly was virtually impossible without the aid and compliance of government.


To understand the why, you really need to understand Austrian economics, but the layman's answer is government doesnt protect us from trusts, it creates them.

[foofighter20x]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE-MARKET MONOPOLY!

[someguy200]

I'm thinking the De Beers diamond cartel would count as a free market monopoly, since they control the vast majority of the supply of diamonds, and make them artificially scarce to keep prices high, but would flood the market to drive any competition out. I also thought they were kind of sponsored by some foreign government when they were getting started, but I could be wrong about that. I generally think it's government regulations and subsidies that encourage monopolies, and that the government should take more of a reactionary approach if a monopoly becomes a problem, instead of a preventative regulatory approach that just creates more barriers to entry in the marketplace.

[JMO]

"Name a monopoly that wasn't enduced by government."

The reason that is so is because we have had Anti Trust laws in place for a 100+ years. Monopolies would be very bad for the middle class citizen.

[JMO]

What about the Federal Reserve, NASA, USPS, etc. These all seem to be government funded monopolies, what about them? What about oil? Why is the government funding that so much when you have such things as brown's gas? Monopolies can be bad at times, but if there is money thereto make, then there will always be competition.

USPS is not a government funded monopoly. They are regulated but they get zero taxpayer money.

[OReich]

I learned through Austrian economics that natural (non-government) monopolies are impossible. Predatory pricing to keep out new competitors never actually worked, and I think this is largely because new competitors in an industry don't necessarily have to be small competitors, one can enter an industry with a ton of investment and a long-term plan for success. If you google "AT&T" and "cato," you'll find a great article on the telephone industry and how the AT&T monopoly was purely thanks to government intervention. Further, today's supposed monopoly is Microsoft. Lol. My friend bought a Mac this past summer, and my brother's buying one soon also. Microsoft might have 90% of sales, but if the company holding the remaining 10% is perfectly healthy and capable of selling their products, there's no actual problem with the industry's service to the populace. And as far as Microsoft and Internet Explorer, well this industry's real problem is now not the unavailability of programs, since you can download new programs easily for free; the problem is copyright infringement and the market being able to reward programmers (a problem I personally think can be solved by advertising, but I'm no expert).

[stefans]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE-MARKET MONOPOLY!


total bs.
that's the one drawback of ron paul. he is an ideologist.
and so are a lot of you obviously.

[JMO]

Microsoft has had to battle Anti trust laws. Try and imagine what would happen if they had no government intervention. You are looking at Microsoft in a situation that they have been attacked and have had to use marketing practices to try and avoid Anti Trust laws. If they had free reign to do what they wanted they would of eaten up every business that sprung up. They either would drive them out of business or buy them up.

[ThePieSwindler]

I am not going to do the search for every example. for those that grew up with the bells know how much cheaper it was after the bells were broken up and competition was afterwards.

You can argue with me or debate it all you want, but you won't convince older people that grew up in the 60's and70's that monopolies are good for the market. All you will do is lose a potential Ron Paul voter. Try another approach because while you walk away thinking you won the debate they will walk away and vote for someone else.

Wealthy Monopolies in a unregulated market will drive startup companies out of business, they will lower prices and take losses that they will recoup later by overinflating prices once they drive the new companies are run out of business.


Interesting rebuttal/cop-out. If you're seriously going to "threaten" me about losing a Ron Paul supporter for something that isnt even related to Ron Paul, thats about as childish as it gets. Again, you're being vague, and those who "grew up in the 60s and 70s" probably do not know the actual dynamics behind these so-called monopolies you speak of. Ill guaruntee you government was involved on some level, and that it was in no way a lasseiz-faire monopoly. In fact, what i find funny is that people try to argue against lasseiz-faire using corporate capitalism as an example. That is a logical fallacy.

Heres the answer to the threads original question - what will Ron Paul do? People think when Ron Paul waxes about the free market that he will actually somehow dismantle the entire system and anarcho-capitalize/lasseiz-faire everything. Not at all - he'll make government more open, he'll try to do all he can for small business and the entreprenuerial spirit in America, and will certainly work to get rid of the priveleges that large corporations currently enjoy under our corporatist system. And of course, he'll do his best to try to break the current largest monopoly in so many areas of life - government. Yes, government monopolizes large portions of an economy and society, government is the largest confiscator of wealth, government provides some of the worst services possible, yet people feel safe when government protects them from the "evil monopolistic corporations" (think Katrina). You'd think if anti-trust legislation would have been so harmful to the profits of those "early monopolies", Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc would not have supported them.

Again, if you or someone else isn't going to support ron paul because of an issue that isn't even an issue, then damn. Not sure what I can do for you. Don't worry man, you'll be fine. Ron Paul will do much to break monopoly THROUGH the free market than he would to create them. Start by stopping oil and ethanol subsidies, and other government subsidies to industry, etc.

[ThePieSwindler]

The Post office has a monopoly on first class mail, but it's government regulated. I guarantee you if it was not Government regulated you would be paying a much higher price for a first class stamp.

Or, we could have no regulation and allow competition and prices would be just as low if not lower.

Read about Lysander Spooner and the American Mail Company. What you are talking about happened until someone (Spooner) challenged the system. They of course used their monopoly on legitimate force to stop him, but it taught the government a valuable lesson, and thus they suppressed postal prices as a result.

[thegearbox]

USPS is not a government funded monopoly. They are regulated but they get zero taxpayer money.

Ok, funded, no. But owned, regulated, and defended, yes.

Please, someone send me a letter to my mail box with something other then USPS!

For that reason it is a monopoly.

Statutory monopoly
The right of the United States government to engage in postal services is established by Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution. The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters[4] as well the exclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes,[5] as described in the Private Express Statutes. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, "The monopoly was created by Congress as a revenue protection measure for the Postal Service’s predecessor to enable it to fulfill its mission. It is to prevent private competitors from engaging in an activity known as “cream-skimming,” i.e., offering service on low-cost routes at prices below those of the Postal Service while leaving the Service with high-cost routes."[4] The law that prohibits anyone except the USPS from placing mail in a private mailbox (18 U.S.C. § 1725), was also passed for the purpose of preventing loss of revenue to the post office.[4] Besides the prevention of revenue loss, the 1934 legislation was passed for another reason, the second being, '...Congress sought to decrease the quantity of extraneous matter being placed in mail boxes. Until 1979, competition in all letter mail was prohibited. However, faced with imminent legislation to exempt "urgent" letter mail from the monopoly, the Post Office decided on its own to exempt "extremely urgent" letters.[6] Competition in "extremely urgent letters" is allowed under certain conditions: The private carrier must charge at least $3 or twice the U.S. postage, whichever is greater (other stipulations, such as maximum delivery time, apply as well); or, alternatively, it may be delivered for free.[7] This is where carriers such as FedEx compete by offering overnight delivery, as well as where bicycle messengers compete for intracity mail. However, the private carrier of the urgent letters must not use the standardized mailboxes marked "U.S. Mail." Hence, private carriers of urgent letters must either deliver packages directly to the recipient, leave them in the open near the recipient's front door, or place them in a special box dedicated solely to that carrier (a technique commonly used by small courier and messenger services). The United States is the only country that has such a mailbox monopoly according to the American Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research, a private think tank.[8]

Carriers, as well as mailers, are supposed to comply with the laws against using a competitor to mail an overnight letter that is not extremely urgent. A violation can occur at a home or a business where letters originate. But, since nonurgent letters can be mailed covertly through private carriers USPS has found it difficult to enforce. However, companies such as Bellsouth and Equifax have been investigated and fined for mailing nonurgent material through private overnight delivery services. Private carriers of overnight mail say that they do not inspect the mail of customers to determine if it the content is extremely urgent and suggest that the responsibility for ensuring that relies on the mailers themselves. Carriers do, however, have certain responsibilities under the regulations.[4]

Since the mail monopoly only applies to nonurgent letter mail, the USPS is losing a significant amount of business to their competitors in other services, who offer lower rates. For example, FedEx and others have captured 90% of the overnight mail business.[5]

During the 1830s and 1840s several entrepreneurs started their own letter mail delivery companies, with the intent of ending the postal monopoly. These included Lysander Spooner and his American Letter Mail Company,[9] Henry Wells (of Wells Fargo) and Alvin Adams. To begin with, they were financially successful. However they were forced out of business by several postal reforms leading to lower postage rates in the 1840s and 1850s as well as Congressional legislation enforcing the mail monopoly, or in the case of the Pony Express, became mail contractors.[10][11] The average price charged by the Post Office to mail a letter in 1845 was 14.5 cents, whereas the private postal systems generally charged between 5 and 6.5 cents. By 1851, the Post Office had cut their rates to 3 cents, which has been cited as the main factor in driving the private mail companies out of business. Another consequence of the rate cut was that by 1860, the formerly self-supporting Post Office depended on the Treasury for half its income.[12]

[JMO]

Interesting rebuttal/cop-out. If you're seriously going to "threaten" me about losing a Ron Paul supporter for something that isnt even related to Ron Paul, thats about as childish as it gets. Again, you're being vague, and those who "grew up in the 60s and 70s" probably do not know the actual dynamics behind these so-called monopolies you speak of. Ill guaruntee you government was involved on some level, and that it was in no way a lasseiz-faire monopoly. In fact, what i find funny is that people try to argue against lasseiz-faire using corporate capitalism as an example. That is a logical fallacy.

Heres the answer to the threads original question - what will Ron Paul do? People think when Ron Paul waxes about the free market that he will actually somehow dismantle the entire system and anarcho-capitalize/lasseiz-faire everything. Not at all - he'll make government more open, he'll try to do all he can for small business and the entreprenuerial spirit in America, and will certainly work to get rid of the priveleges that large corporations currently enjoy under our corporatist system. And of course, he'll do his best to try to break the current largest monopoly in so many areas of life - government. Yes, government monopolizes large portions of an economy and society, government is the largest confiscator of wealth, government provides some of the worst services possible, yet people feel safe when government protects them from the "evil monopolistic corporations" (think Katrina). You'd think if anti-trust legislation would have been so harmful to the profits of those "early monopolies", Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc would not have supported them.

Again, if you or someone else isn't going to support ron paul because of an issue that isn't even an issue, then damn. Not sure what I can do for you. Don't worry man, you'll be fine. Ron Paul will do much to break monopoly THROUGH the free market than he would to create them. Start by stopping oil and ethanol subsidies, and other government subsidies to industry, etc.

I am not being childish, I was being truthful. You are trying to take this discussion in another direction. What i said was that if you tell a older person that Monopolies are Ok then you will lose a Ron Paul supporter. Many people in the early part of this thread tried to tell the starter of this thread to use that argument. If your goal is to win a argument at the expense of a voter then that is your choice, because your average middle class citizen is not going to buy that. you will walk away in your mind happy that you won a debate and they will walk away and vote for another candidate.

[Delivered4000]

Milton Friedman claims that in a free market, the world is just too big for a monopoly to exist

[JMO]

Ok, funded, no. But owned, regulated, and defended, yes.

Please, someone send me a letter to my mail box with something other then USPS!

For that reason it is a monopoly.

Statutory monopoly
The right of the United States government to engage in postal services is established by Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution. The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters[4] as well the exclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes,[5] as described in the Private Express Statutes. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, "The monopoly was created by Congress as a revenue protection measure for the Postal Service’s predecessor to enable it to fulfill its mission. It is to prevent private competitors from engaging in an activity known as “cream-skimming,” i.e., offering service on low-cost routes at prices below those of the Postal Service while leaving the Service with high-cost routes."[4] The law that prohibits anyone except the USPS from placing mail in a private mailbox (18 U.S.C. § 1725), was also passed for the purpose of preventing loss of revenue to the post office.[4] Besides the prevention of revenue loss, the 1934 legislation was passed for another reason, the second being, '...Congress sought to decrease the quantity of extraneous matter being placed in mail boxes. Until 1979, competition in all letter mail was prohibited. However, faced with imminent legislation to exempt "urgent" letter mail from the monopoly, the Post Office decided on its own to exempt "extremely urgent" letters.[6] Competition in "extremely urgent letters" is allowed under certain conditions: The private carrier must charge at least $3 or twice the U.S. postage, whichever is greater (other stipulations, such as maximum delivery time, apply as well); or, alternatively, it may be delivered for free.[7] This is where carriers such as FedEx compete by offering overnight delivery, as well as where bicycle messengers compete for intracity mail. However, the private carrier of the urgent letters must not use the standardized mailboxes marked "U.S. Mail." Hence, private carriers of urgent letters must either deliver packages directly to the recipient, leave them in the open near the recipient's front door, or place them in a special box dedicated solely to that carrier (a technique commonly used by small courier and messenger services). The United States is the only country that has such a mailbox monopoly according to the American Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research, a private think tank.[8]

Carriers, as well as mailers, are supposed to comply with the laws against using a competitor to mail an overnight letter that is not extremely urgent. A violation can occur at a home or a business where letters originate. But, since nonurgent letters can be mailed covertly through private carriers USPS has found it difficult to enforce. However, companies such as Bellsouth and Equifax have been investigated and fined for mailing nonurgent material through private overnight delivery services. Private carriers of overnight mail say that they do not inspect the mail of customers to determine if it the content is extremely urgent and suggest that the responsibility for ensuring that relies on the mailers themselves. Carriers do, however, have certain responsibilities under the regulations.[4]

Since the mail monopoly only applies to nonurgent letter mail, the USPS is losing a significant amount of business to their competitors in other services, who offer lower rates. For example, FedEx and others have captured 90% of the overnight mail business.[5]

During the 1830s and 1840s several entrepreneurs started their own letter mail delivery companies, with the intent of ending the postal monopoly. These included Lysander Spooner and his American Letter Mail Company,[9] Henry Wells (of Wells Fargo) and Alvin Adams. To begin with, they were financially successful. However they were forced out of business by several postal reforms leading to lower postage rates in the 1840s and 1850s as well as Congressional legislation enforcing the mail monopoly, or in the case of the Pony Express, became mail contractors.[10][11] The average price charged by the Post Office to mail a letter in 1845 was 14.5 cents, whereas the private postal systems generally charged between 5 and 6.5 cents. By 1851, the Post Office had cut their rates to 3 cents, which has been cited as the main factor in driving the private mail companies out of business. Another consequence of the rate cut was that by 1860, the formerly self-supporting Post Office depended on the Treasury for half its income.[12]

Jesus. I never said it wasn't a monopoly. There is a huge difference between a regulated monopoly and a free market monopoly. if it was free market the price of a stamp would be over a $1 and not the current price of a stamp. No company would be able to compete with the post office in a free market, they would make deals with airlines and trucking companies and pay a little more with deals saying you will not use the services of other brands, and then pass the expense on to the customer and then some. A startup company could never put in place the operating expenses to be a threat to the post office and succeed. there is so many ways in a free market for a monopoly to hold onto its dominance. this was proven in the 1800's when companies were doing just that, that is why the government enacted Anti Trust laws.

[pcosmar]

total bs.
that's the one drawback of ron paul. he is an ideologist.
and so are a lot of you obviously.

Ok, Name some.

[austin356]

People you keep falling for the trap of trying to educate potential supporters. That is not the way to go in this circumstance!

Simple responses such as "Ron has no intention touching anti-trusts legislation" and "even if he did Congress would have to approve with 60/100 votes" and that right now the government creates and protects large corporations while a Paul administration would "End all subsidies and regulations which prohibit quick entry and exit from a market"

You need a majority to govern. You will never get more than 1/5th of the current living population to accept the premises of Austrian economics.

[ThePieSwindler]

I am not being childish, I was being truthful. You are trying to take this discussion in another direction. What i said was that if you tell a older person that Monopolies are Ok then you will lose a Ron Paul supporter. Many people in the early part of this thread tried to tell the starter of this thread to use that argument. If your goal is to win a argument at the expense of a voter then that is your choice, because your average middle class citizen is not going to buy that. you will walk away in your mind happy that you won a debate and they will walk away and vote for another candidate.

Again, accusing me of something i didn't do in the first place. I never said monopolies were a good thing, I said that 1) it is contradictory to be "against monopoly" and support the government monopoly on large portions of society and that 2) monopolies always have some layer of government tied to them. I answered the original question in my 2nd paragraph as well. Not sure how that amounts to taking the discussion in another direction. My goal is to dispel fallacious components of an arguement, THEN answer the,. I'm not trying to say monopolies are good, i'm simply trying to say that some of people's preconcieved notions on antitrust and monopoly need to be dispelled before I can give them a genuine answer. Its like trying to answer questions that ask "What would you do if Iran has just given nuclear weapons that you would have allowed them to acquire to al qaeda" that fox news likes to ask. I am not going to answer a flaw question until the flaws are reconciles with the facts. I hardly think a reasonable person who is already a Ron Paul supporter would stp supporting Ron Paul simply because they had a debate. Now, I would use friendlier rhetoric with a potential supporter, but would still try to correct some flaws/fallacies in their questions before answering them.


People you keep falling for the trap of trying to educate potential supporters. That is not the way to go in this circumstance!

Simple responses such as "Ron has no intention touching anti-trusts legislation" and "even if he did Congress would have to approve with 60/100 votes" and that right now the government creates and protects large corporations while a Paul administration would "End all subsidies and regulations which prohibit quick entry and exit from a market"

You need a majority to govern. You will never get 1/5th of the population to accept the premises of Austrian economics.

I agree.

All you need to tell people is that Ron Paul will do his best to deregulate small business and entreprenuerial endeavors, that he will cut subsidies to large corporations in subsidized portions of the economy, and that he will lower taxes on corporations so they won't externalize the costs onto the consumer (only tell this one to someone knowledgable about how this actually works, of course). If they of course ask more questions that are based on fallacious arguements, then rebut them.

[a_european]

A free market doesn't automatically lead to monoplies. And if a monoploy arises, it can only last as long at it isn't oppressive and provides a good service. Google, anyone?

Mises to the rescue!
"The monopoly problem mankind has to face today is not an outgrowth of the operation of the market economy. It is a product of purposive action on the part of governments. It is not one of the evils inherent in capitalism as the demagogues trumpet. "
Ludwig von Mises. Human Action

"Most cartels and trusts would never have been set up had not the governments created the necessary conditions by protectionist measures."
Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

Liberalism Chapter 7 Cartels, Monopolies, and Liberalism
http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch2sec7.asp

[ColdSoul]

The only way there can be a Monopoly in a truly free market is if the business was so great that no customer went away unsatisfied, or one business contracts with another business which is there right.

For example the only monopoly's I know of are:

1) My local Gas company

2) Phone Services (you can get different services, but only 1 company services the lines, thus they control what options you get ultimately [thus I can't get DSL])

3) Wired Cable (in a lot of places, but I don't even have this option because of government protections/regulations)

I am sure there are plenty of others but I am not aware of all of them. Even in areas were there are no Monopoly's the government regulations and rules only hurt new businesses that a lot of times can't afford to deal with them.

For example:

1) Most places require anyone who cuts or sometimes even braids hair to have a license. The consumer should be in charge of if they trust someone enough to cut or braid there hair. [In some places they require a license and training to braid hair when the training gives you no information on braiding]

2) In order to open just about any business from a lemonade stand to a full fledged box store you have to meet so many regulations it's crazy. A little kids lemonade stand was actually shutdown because he didn't have a license.


The whole thing about monopolies not existing in a free market is wrong because they can exist, but only if they keep all there customers happy. If they didn't then a business would open up and make a profit on the non-happy customers and thus there would no longer be a monopoly.

When government regulation slows, or stops businesses from opening up to compete there is more of a chance for a monopoly to happen.

[ThePieSwindler]

Heres a few nice little examples of how antitrust prosecutions backfire:

http://www.mises.org/story/436

The book he references is actually by a guy ive talked to before!

[JMO]

Again, accusing me of something i didn't do in the first place. I never said monopolies were a good thing, I said that 1) it is contradictory to be "against monopoly" and support the government monopoly on large portions of society and that 2) monopolies always have some layer of government tied to them. I answered the original question in my 2nd paragraph as well. Not sure how that amounts to taking the discussion in another direction. My goal is to dispel fallacious components of an arguement, THEN answer the,. I'm not trying to say monopolies are good, i'm simply trying to say that some of people's preconcieved notions on antitrust and monopoly need to be dispelled before I can give them a genuine answer. Its like trying to answer questions that ask "What would you do if Iran has just given nuclear weapons that you would have allowed them to acquire to al qaeda" that fox news likes to ask. I am not going to answer a flaw question until the flaws are reconciles with the facts. I hardly think a reasonable person who is already a Ron Paul supporter would stp supporting Ron Paul simply because they had a debate. Now, I would use friendlier rhetoric with a potential supporter, but would still try to correct some flaws/fallacies in their questions before answering them.

My whole point was is not to tell a older generation that Monopolies are OK. You singled me out by responding to my quote. All the other stuff i could care less. I never said anything about losing a Ron Paul supporter, this was 100% about someone who was not a Ron Paul supporter asking the question of how RP would prevent monopolies. My response was against the people who simply said that Monopolies are OK and explained how they are OK. that is a sure way to lose a potential voter that is concerned about monopolies, and while I have never heard Ron Paul talk about Monopolies I hope is stance is that Monopolies is not a acceptable practice. I have never found a candidate that i agree 100% with, I have never found a person in my life that I agree with everything, and this isn't one of my major issues for president, at least not this election.

[stefans]

Ok, Name some.

the power grid in some countries e.g.
granted, those have often been created by governments and sold (as a whole) to one private company.
but they don't intervene anymore, so you can argue that it's very hard to create a monopoly without the help of government. but you can sustain one in a free market.

nobody's coming forward with an investment that huge to create a competing national electricity grid.

[chrismatthews]

"Name a monopoly that wasn't enduced by government."

The reason that is so is because we have had Anti Trust laws in place for a 100+ years. Monopolies would be very bad for the middle class citizen.


Respectfully, you can't. "Utility" companies monopolies were government granted, as were telecom companies.

From DiLorenzo-

"When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government
intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Mary-
land legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from
the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all
dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly."
This is the now-familiar approach of government officials
colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will
gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in
the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. This ap-
proach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry."

The fact is, there were hundreds of telecom companies and hundred of public utility companies prior to government granted monopolies. I agree that monopolies are bad, that's why i think the government should quit creating them.

My challenge stands, name 3 monopolies that weren't created by government. It's a fools errand, the same challenge was issued 50 years ago by Hayek and still stands today.

[chrismatthews]

total bs.
that's the one drawback of ron paul. he is an ideologist.
and so are a lot of you obviously.



Name 3 non-governmental created monopolies. Respectfully, you can't.

[chrismatthews]

Milton Friedman claims that in a free market, the world is just too big for a monopoly to exist

Yeah, but what does he know? He's just a Nobel prize winning economist. :)

[JMO]

"A free market doesn't automatically lead to monoplies. And if a monoploy arises, it can only last as long at it isn't oppressive and provides a good service. Google, anyone?"

Google is not a need. Wait until someone has a monopoly on gas for example and has no government to answer. The Oil company knows that you will buy gas, they know you won't walk 20 miles to work. Guarantee the prices will be higher. Everyone of us can live without Google, but there are products we cannot live without. Right now there is competiting oil companies, but in the future all it would take is some company to start getting a edge and taking over all the oil refineries. Try and imagine a country where all the oil was controlled by one company. Imagine how much lower the prices would be if all the Opec nations sold there oil on a individual basis instead of a cartel, if they didn't agree between them to reduce oil production as a group. we would probably be paying $1 for a gallon instead of $3. and OPEC is a perfect example of a world Monopoly.

[chrismatthews]

Jesus. I never said it wasn't a monopoly. There is a huge difference between a regulated monopoly and a free market monopoly. if it was free market the price of a stamp would be over a $1 and not the current price of a stamp. No company would be able to compete with the post office in a free market, they would make deals with airlines and trucking companies and pay a little more with deals saying you will not use the services of other brands, and then pass the expense on to the customer and then some. A startup company could never put in place the operating expenses to be a threat to the post office and succeed. there is so many ways in a free market for a monopoly to hold onto its dominance. this was proven in the 1800's when companies were doing just that, that is why the government enacted Anti Trust laws.


If "No company would be able to compete with the post office in a free market" , then there would be no need to create a law that codified the monopoly would there? Take away the government coercion that created the monopoly and mail costs would free fall, and the USPS would be a not too fond memory.

f this wasn't true then there wouldnt be a law requiring it to be true.

[stefans]

Name 3 non-governmental created monopolies. Respectfully, you can't.

who cares how they were created? we don't start a new world from scratch, we need workable policies for this one.

it's is philosophical debate if monopolies can be created in a real free market system.
even a lot of people with ron paul's philosophy, classical liberalism/libertarianism, think they can.
but it doesn't really matter at this point.

[ThePieSwindler]

AGAIN - to JMO, stefan, and the rest of the pro antitrust crew - The answer is simply to say that Ron Paul will make it easier for small businesses to start up, he will work to end corporate subsidies, and will support many other pro-entreprenuerial measures. Who can argue against expanding and making it easier for small business startups, AND to cut corporate subsidies. Thats all that really needs to be said. If they bring up objections, then rebut and discuss.

[chrismatthews]

the power grid in some countries e.g.
granted, those have often been created by governments and sold (as a whole) to one private company.
but they don't intervene anymore, so you can argue that it's very hard to create a monopoly without the help of government. but you can sustain one in a free market.

nobody's coming forward with an investment that huge to create a competing national electricity grid.

The only way that's true is if the government has created additional barriers to entry. Barriers to entry are the sole determinant in a secotr's ability to be monopolized. I say this respectfully, and as you pointed out, your example was based on a government created monopoly. As for sustaining a monopoly in a free market, economic theory disagrees with you.

[stefans]

The only way that's true is if the government has created additional barriers to entry. Barriers to entry are the sole determinant in a secotr's ability to be monopolized. I say this respectfully, and as you pointed out, your example was based on a government created monopoly. As for sustaining a monopoly in a free market, economic theory disagrees with you.

reality doesn't so far :)

[ColdSoul]

"A free market doesn't automatically lead to monoplies. And if a monoploy arises, it can only last as long at it isn't oppressive and provides a good service. Google, anyone?"

Google is not a need. Wait until someone has a monopoly on gas for example and has no government to answer. The Oil company knows that you will buy gas, they know you won't walk 20 miles to work. Guarantee the prices will be higher. Everyone of us can live without Google, but there are products we cannot live without. Right now there is competiting oil companies, but in the future all it would take is some company to start getting a edge and taking over all the oil refineries. Try and imagine a country where all the oil was controlled by one company. Imagine how much lower the prices would be if all the Opec nations sold there oil on a individual basis instead of a cartel, if they didn't agree between them to reduce oil production as a group. we would probably be paying $1 for a gallon instead of $3. and OPEC is a perfect example of a world Monopoly.

First of all this is unrealistic because imagine your one of the people who own the last 2-3 plots of land that has a bunch of oil the company doesn't control, your going to want a obscene amount of money.

Second then because of the free market a bunch of non-gas using cars would pop up very quickly, people would offer converter kits for people to switch to other types of oil, people would start making there own oil, etc.

But in a government regulated market non of these will happen because the regulations throw a monkey wrench into the system.

[JMO]

If "No company would be able to compete with the post office in a free market" , then there would be no need to create a law that codified the monopoly would there? Take away the government coercion that created the monopoly and mail costs would free fall, and the USPS would be a not too fond memory.

f this wasn't true then there wouldnt be a law requiring it to be true.

I disagree. your theory would work if everyone was on equal ground. However the post office already has a mass infrastructure in place. A startup company would not be able to absorb the financial startup loses to compete, buildings, contracts, equipment, advertisement, etc, etc. Before the startup company ever became a threat the post office would lower there prices to where the startup company would take massive losses until they either sold out to the post office or went into bankruptcy. In a complete free market companies like UPS and federal express would not of got as far as they have now.

[jpa]

Government regulation actually ENCOURAGES monopoly.
Think Microsoft - they have used the government to gain an unfair advantage and block out competition.
Think our local cable company (which isn't really local). Government only allows one cable company to "compete" in an area. That is why the price and availability of internet in this nation are so woefully behind places like Japan. True competition would bring prices down (alot).


While I agree with your larger point that government is the #1 creator of monopolies, how did Microsoft use the goverment to gain an unfair advantage?

[ColdSoul]

The post office doesn't have to lower it's prices because it's against the law for ANYONE to offer to deliver mail for under 1.00, in fact the government wants to up this due to inflation.

[JMO]

First of all this is unrealistic because imagine your one of the people who own the last 2-3 plots of land that has a bunch of oil the company doesn't control, your going to want a obscene amount of money.

Second then because of the free market a bunch of non-gas using cars would pop up very quickly, people would offer converter kits for people to switch to other types of oil, people would start making there own oil, etc.

But in a government regulated market non of these will happen because the regulations throw a monkey wrench into the system.

That is not a problem for Oil companies. Oil does you no good. They have two options. 1-Giving you a obscene amount of money would be ok with them, obscene to you is probably pennies to them. 2-They can wait you out. if they are the only company who you going to sell?

In California when they did drill for Oil down by Hanford some people did try and hold out, but the oil companies knew that while you own the land above ground, you didn't own the ground X feet down. so you had a choice, sell or they will buy your neigbors property and drill at a angle.

[ColdSoul]

While I agree with your larger point that government is the #1 creator of monopolies, how did Microsoft use the goverment to gain an unfair advantage?

Microsoft doesn't have, nor has never had a Monopoly.

They have a had a very large market share, but look what happened.

They got complacent after XP and now Vista isn't selling as they would like, now Linux is actually being offered Pre-installed by Dell and other companies.

Now Mac is starting to gain more and more of the marketplace.

But still Microsoft never had (and will prob. never have) a Monopoly.

[stefans]

The post office doesn't have to lower it's prices because it's against the law for ANYONE to offer to deliver mail for under 1.00, in fact the government wants to up this due to inflation.


the irony...

actually, there are multiple examples of countries who have allowed competition to their post offices and there are no problems at all(and no monopolies).

e.g. all EU countries are required to do so within a few years from now

[JMO]

The post office doesn't have to lower it's prices because it's against the law for ANYONE to offer to deliver mail for under 1.00, in fact the government wants to up this due to inflation.

I was using the post office in a free market. It is currently not a free market for the post office, they have to go to the board and get permission to raise the price. in a free market they could do what they wanted in pricing.

The government does not want to up it because of inflation, the post office wants the government to give them permission to up it. the post office is run independent from the government, but the post office must get permission from the board to raise prices.

[chrismatthews]

"A free market doesn't automatically lead to monoplies. And if a monoploy arises, it can only last as long at it isn't oppressive and provides a good service. Google, anyone?"

Google is not a need. Wait until someone has a monopoly on gas for example and has no government to answer. The Oil company knows that you will buy gas, they know you won't walk 20 miles to work. Guarantee the prices will be higher. Everyone of us can live without Google, but there are products we cannot live without. Right now there is competiting oil companies, but in the future all it would take is some company to start getting a edge and taking over all the oil refineries. Try and imagine a country where all the oil was controlled by one company. Imagine how much lower the prices would be if all the Opec nations sold there oil on a individual basis instead of a cartel, if they didn't agree between them to reduce oil production as a group. we would probably be paying $1 for a gallon instead of $3. and OPEC is a perfect example of a world Monopoly.


Again, you're not playing by the rules. You site OPEC, which is the definition of a government created monopoly. No one is arguing that government creates monopolies. Some of us are arguing that the free market doesn't create monopolies.

If a gas company purchased every single petrol producing resource, each more expensive than the next(because of scarcity of goods this is entirely unfeasible), it would suffer from what is know as potential competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_competition


Its per capita pricing power would be subject to the next best alternative(biofuel, electric cars, public transit) and also limited by the margin price that would induce a competitor to enter the market.(for example, any new oil field from then on would be worth many times its previous value)

I'm not so much trying to convince you as I am trying to expose you to the idea. Spontaneous market order is an emergent behaviour created by millions of actors doing billions of transactions daily, and making decisions at the margin.

Compare the agility and analysis of billions of people working in concert to the much lobbied congress and the law making process. It's a bit silly to concede that the state is ,in this one thing, anything but inept.

[ColdSoul]

That is not a problem for Oil companies. Oil does you no good. They have two options. 1-Giving you a obscene amount of money would be ok with them, obscene to you is probably pennies to them. 2-They can wait you out. if they are the only company who you going to sell?

In California when they did drill for Oil down by Hanford some people did try and hold out, but the oil companies knew that while you own the land above ground, you didn't own the ground X feet down. so you had a choice, sell or they will buy your neigbors property and drill at a angle.

And as I said even if they did get all the oil people would start using cottonseed oil to run there cars, or old used resturant oil.

It costs under 500 bucks to convert most diesel engines to run on about 20X more products from used oil, to brand new oil. In fact you don't have to convert most diesel engines to make your own gasoline from used resturant oil accept the government will come after you for "back taxes" for failing to pay the taxes on the gasoline you make and use.

The cost to take and make your own gas from used oil from restaurants is about 50 cents per gallon.

If that dried up there would be a surge in kits to turn your car into electric, or there would be electric cars popping up all over.

[chrismatthews]

who cares how they were created? we don't start a new world from scratch, we need workable policies for this one.

it's is philosophical debate if monopolies can be created in a real free market system.
even a lot of people with ron paul's philosophy, classical liberalism/libertarianism, think they can.
but it doesn't really matter at this point.


Again, im not trying to make you angry man, my argument is that if you remove the laws that created the monopolies, the market will correct itself, and its not philosophy, it's economic policy, which is important. Not only because the country needs to right itself economically, but also because personal freedom and economic freedom are twosides of the same coin.

[ColdSoul]

Again, you're not playing by the rules. You site OPEC, which is the definition of a government created monopoly. No one is arguing that government creates monopolies. Some of us are arguing that the free market doesn't create monopolies.

If a gas company purchased every single petrol producing resource, each more expensive than the next(because of scarcity of goods this is entirely unfeasible), it would suffer from what is know as potential competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_competition


Its per capita pricing power would be subject to the next best alternative(biofuel, electric cars, public transit) and also limited by the margin price that would induce a competitor to enter the market.(for example, any new oil field from then on would be worth many times its previous value)

I'm not so much trying to convince you as I am trying to expose you to the idea. Spontaneous market order is an emergent behaviour created by millions of actors doing billions of transactions daily, and making decisions at the margin.

Compare the agility and analysis of billions of people working in concert to the much lobbied congress and the law making process. It's a bit silly to concede that the state is ,in this one thing, anything but inept.

Much better said then mine.. thanks for this post.

[JMO]

Again, you're not playing by the rules. You site OPEC, which is the definition of a government created monopoly. No one is arguing that government creates monopolies. Some of us are arguing that the free market doesn't create monopolies.

If a gas company purchased every single petrol producing resource, each more expensive than the next(because of scarcity of goods this is entirely unfeasible), it would suffer from what is know as potential competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_competition


Its per capita pricing power would be subject to the next best alternative(biofuel, electric cars, public transit) and also limited by the margin price that would induce a competitor to enter the market.(for example, any new oil field from then on would be worth many times its previous value)

I'm not so much trying to convince you as I am trying to expose you to the idea. Spontaneous market order is an emergent behaviour created by millions of actors doing billions of transactions daily, and making decisions at the margin.

Compare the agility and analysis of billions of people working in concert to the much lobbied congress and the law making process. It's a bit silly to concede that the state is ,in this one thing, anything but inept.

What you are not understanding is whether they were government owned does not matter, they are a monopoly now. If the government got there hands out of the free market these companies would exist, unless the government broke them up. However that is no guarantee that in the future one of the companies starts to take control and gobble up the other business and become a non government monopoly. to use something OPEC as a example is for visual, something that the average user can picture how it would be for a startup company to try and compete with something that is already established.

[chrismatthews]

I disagree. your theory would work if everyone was on equal ground. However the post office already has a mass infrastructure in place. A startup company would not be able to absorb the financial startup loses to compete, buildings, contracts, equipment, advertisement, etc, etc. Before the startup company ever became a threat the post office would lower there prices to where the startup company would take massive losses until they either sold out to the post office or went into bankruptcy. In a complete free market companies like UPS and federal express would not of got as far as they have now.

The USPS "loses" money, we give it money to operate on through taxes, it charges us additioanlly for it's services and it still nets a loss every quarter. If it were a standalone company, it would be bankrupt. Why create a law that enforces a monopoly if it isn't needed?

Do you really believe the USPS is a profit center?

[JMO]

And as I said even if they did get all the oil people would start using cottonseed oil to run there cars, or old used resturant oil.

It costs under 500 bucks to convert most diesel engines to run on about 20X more products from used oil, to brand new oil. In fact you don't have to convert most diesel engines to make your own gasoline from used resturant oil accept the government will come after you for "back taxes" for failing to pay the taxes on the gasoline you make and use.

The cost to take and make your own gas from used oil from restaurants is about 50 cents per gallon.

If that dried up there would be a surge in kits to turn your car into electric, or there would be electric cars popping up all over.


Why is that not happening now? If people can make their own oil for 50 cents that is alot cheaper than the $3+ at my local gas station.

[chrismatthews]

Much better said then mine.. thanks for this post.


Thanks, i'm not trying to antagonize people, but im an economist, so this is my bread and butter, i enjoy discussing it.

[JMO]

The USPS "loses" money, we give it money to operate on through taxes, it charges us additioanlly for it's services and it still nets a loss every quarter. If it were a standalone company, it would be bankrupt. Why create a law that enforces a monopoly if it isn't needed?

Do you really believe the USPS is a profit center?

Your information is incorrect.

I have worked for the Post office for 22 years and in my time at the Post office they have never used taxpayer money.

If it was a stand along company they would have major bank, what is holding them back is government regulation keeping the prices down.

[JMO]

Take care, I need to get going. I am still a Ron Paul supporter.

[chrismatthews]

What you are not understanding is whether they were government owned does not matter, they are a monopoly now. If the government got there hands out of the free market these companies would exist, unless the government broke them up. However that is no guarantee that in the future one of the companies starts to take control and gobble up the other business and become a non government monopoly. to use something OPEC as a example is for visual, something that the average user can picture how it would be for a startup company to try and compete with something that is already established.


OPEC already has competitors, respectfully, it's a poor example. You continue to fall back on government created monopolies as your examples(because they are the only instances of monopolies), without realizing that a law that creates a monopoly can be repealed, thus destroying the monopoly.

The market self corrects, so you're existing monopolies, once unprotected by the very laws that created them, will be subject to more competition, which ultimately leads to demonopolization. In the short run, it increases competitive pressure which eliminates gouging.

[JMO]

OPEC already has competitors, respectfully, it's a poor example. You continue to fall back on government created monopolies as your examples(because they are the only instances of monopolies), without realizing that a law that creates a monopoly can be repealed, thus destroying the monopoly.

The market self corrects, so you existing monopolies, once unprotected by the very laws that created them, will be subject to more competition, which ultimately leads to demonopolization. In the short run, it increases competitive pressure which eliminates gouging.

Thats fine.

No disrespect to you, but about 3 years ago when we got in the Bush Love/Hate argument, I played a online game and one of the guys I played with said he was a economic major and argued that dollar devaluation was good. He was a Bush lover.

I should get going. Been arguing this for too long. I dislike the word arguing when it's really a debate.

[DRV45N05]

In a free market economy, the market power of naturally-occurring monopolies lasts for only as long as the industry in which it is a monopoly is prominent. When new industries emerge that displace old ones, that monopoly will cease to be much of a problem at all.

[chrismatthews]

Your information is incorrect.

I have worked for the Post office for 22 years and in my time at the Post office they have never used taxpayer money.

If it was a stand along company they would have major bank, what is holding them back is government regulation keeping the prices down.



The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation.


I was completely wrong about one very important thing though. The USPS IS profitable, to the tune of roughly 1 billion per year. I still argue that private industry would be more profitable, but i'll gladly concede that point.

[chrismatthews]

Take care, I need to get going. I am still a Ron Paul supporter.


Thanks, I appreciate you debating an issue that's so close to home and being civil about it, and while i haven't changed my position, i have learned something from the discussion. Thank you.

[JMO]

The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation.


I was completely wrong about one very important thing though. The USPS IS profitable, to the tune of roughly 1 billion per year. I still argue that private industry would be more profitable, but i'll gladly concede that point.

I won't disagree that the Post office would be more profitable if it was private. However like i said I have worked for the post office for 22 years and in my opinion there would be 1 problem. It would be very unprofitable for the company to deliver mail to rural areas, so customers that don't live in big cities would have to drive many miles to head to PO BOXES. with private companies you would see home delivery come to a end, or prices would rise by large margins. Lot of people don't know this but companies like Federal Express who don't have business in alot of places place their mail in Cardboard like bags and sends them through the post office.

Remember going private is a vote for a high percentage of people to not get home delivery.

[user]

Yes, prices for delivery to rural areas would go up in the short term. This is a good thing. It represents the end of a subsidy and increased efficiency.

[runderwo]

it's a valid concern once you got rid of all the government backed monopolies.
I have not yet heard ron paul talk about this, but classical liberalism, part of ron paul philosophy, traditionally argues for strong anti trust legislation.

Don't confuse strong antitrust legislation with the idea that what appears to be a monopoly in effect is a monopoly. There has to be actual evidence of collusion or anticompetitive behavior in order for it to be fair. On the other hand, monetary penalties are just a CODB; there should be criminal penalties against executives, including dismissal and possibly dissolution of the company if the corruption is widespread.

Also, federal jurisdiction is used far too broadly in antitrust cases.

[dennis dujac]

so far, i haven't seen any good answer in this thread, for controlling monopolistic power in a free market

did i miss it?

[smhbbag]

At the risk of feeding a troll,


I'm not scared of honestly-earned, free-marked monopolies. After all, in a free market, how did they get to be monopolies in the first place? Beating all their competition by serving us better.

And, as long as their are no obscene regulatory or other governmental barriers to entry, that monopoly is still under competitive pressure to perform well after becoming a monopoly.

Many fear honestly earned monopolies for fear they would then use their market power to clamp down on supply and service, while raking in the profits from artificially high prices.

Just one question: In the history of mankind, when has that ever happened?

[brandon]

so far, i haven't seen any good answer in this thread, for controlling monopolistic power in a free market

did i miss it?

The economic calculation problem. As a company's market share grows (and approaches 100%) they lose the ability to accurately price their products.

[Captain America]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY

[brandon]

Here is a good article about economic calculation.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/mackenzie13.pdf