I don't get you Glen. On the one hand, you complain that government regulations shouldn't exist,
then you complain because they weren't enforced properly.

Pick a side.

Not quite Ed. I complain that no one has a right to force them on others.
I also point out their ineptitude, how, instead of keeping the big companies under control, the allow the big companies to control the little ones.

People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.

You cannot possibly know this for certain.

But I gotta have faith-faith-faith

Or High Hopes.

(Cue the Sinatra tape . . . .)

Anybody got a forklift to get this lousy rubber tree out of my path?

Why is "without" all bolded out and capitalized, anyway? It would be much more horrifying to be arrested for selling raw milk WITH permission.

I'm not sure you can bold anything in a thread title.

;)

You can believe that. The system we have is certainly not perfect, but it needs correction not dismisal. I simply can't follow your feelings.
We had your world, it was the turn of the last century when the government basically got out of the way of business and we ended up with the monopolies that the government finally had to step in and break up. It was a great place... provided you were one of the elite.

What monopolies are you referring too?

I'm still trying to figure out what's with the Oakley logo in the thread title. Do the anti-regulation rants now have corporate sponsorship? That would kind of make sense...

I was attempting to place a smilie, but they apparently don't work in thread titles.

What monopolies were developing in the 1900's?

http://www.dadyer.com/Economic%20Reading......rons.htm
http://mises.org/daily/5274/100-Years-of......dard-Oil

Not that you'll give any weight to their words.

I just want to concede the point that we all understand what Glenn is saying. Even if we do not believe it, and can find all sorts of holes in it and in reality Glenn, you are not the best champion for the cause.

So can you please just stop posting this goofy stuff? We get it already. Seriously WE GET IT. We all know your position perfectly and don't need more examples of the evil of regulation and government. Why do you do this?

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......um=32&10

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......m=32&141

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......um=32&26

Because people make threads like those, most everyone is pointing out the symptoms, but so few are willing to acknowledge the root cause.
They say "it's not perfect, but we have it the best it's ever been."
You know what, in many ways, they are completely RIGHT.
That doesn't mean it can't be better.

Danny, we also all know your position perfectly well, so why do you continue to repeat yourself?

Glenn, it's hard to take your Mises link seriously:

As if the only issue about monopolies were predatory pricing. It's about the concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands. What we see then is price gouging, and in the case of media outlets, unearned political influence.

As if, left to the "free market," market share will be evenly divided amongst an ever growing pool of competitors.

Even Capitalists don't believe that.
Especially Capitalists.
Time to open up some Marx.

"What we see then is price gouging, and in the case of media outlets, unearned political influence."

Price gouging can ONLY be sustained when barriers to entry are are established and maintained by regulation.

"An efficiency monopoly has no legal power to compel people to deal with it or to protect itself from the consequences of its unethical practices. It can only attain bigness through its excellence in satisfying customers and by the economy of its operations. An efficiency monopoly which turns its back on the very performance which produced its success would be posting a sign, “COMPETITORS WANTED.” The market rewards excellence and exacts a toll on mediocrity."

The entire notion that one company could clear out competition by predatory price cutting only to turn around and charge what ever they like simply doesn't stand up.

If they eliminated competition by price cutting, then that simply means competition could not be profitable at similar prices. However, once the company turns around and starts price gouging, unless their "gouged" prices are still less than their competition was charging (which would still be a win for the customer) then there is nothing to stop competition from re-entering the market, thereby eliminating any possibility of the "monopoly" charging "whatever they want."

"2. The large firm stands to lose the most. By definition, the large firm is already selling the most units. As a predator, it must actually step up its production if it is to have any effect on competitors. As Professor McGee observed, “To lure customers away from somebody, he (the predator) must be prepared to serve them himself. The monopolizer thus finds himself in the position of selling more—and therefore losing more—than his competitors.”"

"5. Any “beaten” firms may reopen. Competitors may scale down production or close only temporarily as they “wait out the storm.” When the predator raises prices, they enter the market again. Conceivably, a “beaten” firm might be bought up by someone for a “song,” and then, under fresh management and with relatively low capital costs, face the predator with an actual competitive cost advantage.

6. High prices encourage newcomers. Even if the predator drives everyone else from the market, raising prices will attract competition from people heretofore not even in the industry. The higher the prices go, the more powerful that attraction."

It simply does NOT work in a FREE market. It can't be done without using government to regulate out any potential competition re-entering the market.


"Standard’s service to the consumer in the form of lower prices is well-documented. To quote from Professor Armentano again:

Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to .452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.[8]

That story continued for the remainder of the century, with the price of kerosene to the consumer falling to 5.91 cents per gallon in 1897. Armentano concludes from the record that “at the very pinnacle of Standard’s industry ‘control,’ the costs and the prices for refined oil reached their lowest levels in the history of the petroleum industry.”[9]"

"in the case of media outlets, unearned political influence."

Political influence is only useful if the politicians have a hand in the market, which would make it, by definition, NOT a free market.

http://www.dadyer.com/Economic%20Reading......rons.htm

"An efficiency monopoly has no legal power to compel people to deal with it or to protect itself from the consequences of its unethical practices. It can only attain bigness through its excellence in satisfying customers and by the economy of its operations. An efficiency monopoly which turns its back on the very performance which produced its success would be posting a sign, “COMPETITORS WANTED.” The market rewards excellence and exacts a toll on mediocrity."

This is fantasy, Glenn. Capital is required to compete; how many new car companies are popping up every day despite the opportunity for the creation of a much better product? And as competitors compete, investors invest with the profitable side, creating more concentration and accruing greater advantages for a company's self preservation, which in turn creates more concentration. As a company gains a larger share of the market they begin to standardize and define the market as well.

Windows or Mac?

Yes, it does require capital, and there are plenty out there, even now, who have the capital, however, as I mentioned, the amount needed is increased exponentially by the barriers to entry created and maintained via the government.
There are people who could afford the start up, but it's simply no longer profitable.
Without these barriers, the ability to make a profit dramatically increases, along with the number of people who can afford to do so.

This is the entire foundation of the difference between an efficiency monopoly and a coercive one.

It's the same reason so many small business simply can't compete with big box stores now. The costs just to buy permission to do business make it not profitable.

iPhone, android, HTC, Rogers, Bell, Motorola, Siemens, LG, Sony, or Samsung?