 |
Brass
Registered: Jan 2012
Posts: 3509 |
05-08-12 06:26 PM
The beauty of laissez-faire capitalism is that it requires no thinking and suits the monied interests very well. And it helps the monied interests that the rest are not doing any thinking. In this manner of non-thinking, Invisible Hand economics has its parallel in Intelligent Design: "Fuck science, god did it." Talk to the Invisible Hand.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
trefoil
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 3383 |
05-08-12 06:32 PM
Quote from achilles28:
And had the Apple not been sparred, no other OS would enter the market to compete with Bill Gates? And you know this how, exactly? Can you show us your crystal ball?
It wasn't just OS's that Microsoft was stifling. This was only a few years ago, you know. It's not like you have to read a big brick of a book to remember everything that Microsoft was up to.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
achilles28
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 7534 |
05-08-12 06:37 PM
Quote from trefoil:
It wasn't just OS's that Microsoft was stifling. This was only a few years ago, you know. It's not like you have to read a big brick of a book to remember everything that Microsoft was up to.
Your claim holds no water because it portends the future. 'If Apple were crushed, Bill Gates would own the planet'. Very good. Except it ignores the small fact the market invents alternatives when none exist. It does this very well.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
GoldStandard
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 105 |
05-08-12 06:38 PM
Quote from achilles28:
No, you didn't. Because once they squeeze the captive market with higher prices, competitors enter in force, and drive prices down. The only way a monopoly can exist is via predatory pricing (which is economically beneficially), or Government regulation (which is not, obviously).
This.
The idea that government has ever or can ever protect us from monopolies is laughable. Government is in fact the sole creator and enabler of monopolies.
Can any of you statists name a single instance of a monopoly that has existed for any substantial length of time without government support? I'll bet you cannot.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
piezoe
Registered: Jan 2006
Posts: 4934 |
05-08-12 07:26 PM
Quote from achilles28:
Competition can only be destroyed by offering a superior product or service at the lowest possible price. That's what you don't understand. Monopolies only exist, at least in the free market, because they are the best provider in the market, at the cheapest price. As soon as a competitor comes up with something cheaper, or better, which offers more value to consumers, market share weighs to the new entrant. The circumstances you allude too don't exist. They can't exist. Standard oil proves it.
I thought if you re-read your post above you would realize it contains contradictions that I couldn't imagine you really meant to write.
For example, "Monopolies only exist, at least in the free market..."
And you seem to have redefined "Monopoly" as something that one can compete against. Monopoly is the opposite of free market, isn't it? If one has a monopoly, by definition, one does not have competition. Are you suggesting that if one has an established monopoly that it can easily be lost to competition? If so, I don't think that is correct. A monopoly exists because it is able to eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay. Usually the only way a monopoly can be broken up is via third party intervention, such as via anti-trust laws, etc.
I am having a hard time accepting your arguments because they seem to fly in the face of reality, and go counter to what is generally understood to be true..
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
GoldStandard
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 105 |
05-08-12 07:48 PM
Quote from piezoe:
I thought if you re-read your post above you would realize it contains contradictions that I couldn't imagine you really meant to write.
For example, "Monopolies only exist, at least in the free market..."
And you seem to have redefined "Monopoly" as something that one can compete against. Monopoly is the opposite of free market, isn't it? If one has a monopoly, by definition, one does not have competition. Are you suggesting that if one has an established monopoly that it can easily be lost to competition? If so, I don't think that is correct. A monopoly exists because it is able to eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay. Usually the only way a monopoly can be broken up is via third party intervention, such as via anti-trust laws, etc.
I am having a hard time accepting your arguments because they seem to fly in the face of reality, and go counter to what is generally understood to be true..
"A monopoly exists because it is able to eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay. " This statement is true, but it just proves his point, because in reality, the means by which monopolists "eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay" is nearly always the government.
"Usually the only way a monopoly can be broken up is via third party intervention, such as via anti-trust laws, etc." This is not true because monopolies are broken up every day by the free market. Any new, unique product or service is a temporary monopoly for at least a little while, until the free market generates competitors, which ends the monopoly. The only reason monopolies can exist long enough to need to be broken up by third party intervention is because they're supported by some form of law or regulation (which includes patents and copyright laws) in the first place.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
| Receive
an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing
to it. |
|
|
|
|
