This comment, or mindset actually, is so stupid that I don't even know how to address it. I am used to, and somewhat ready to, respond to or rebut sort of high-minded arguments, but I can't figure out how to tackle this one.
And I ordinarily wouldn't bother with it, except that I hear it a lot.
It goes like this: I am arguing with someone about antitrust/monopolies etc, and the person will eventually claim that, between the two of us, he is the one who supports competition and a free(r) market. Why? Because, he wants the government to come in and crush monopolies so that there is more competition in that particular market.
I don't even know where to begin with this. The last time someone tried this tack with me (just a few minutes ago) I simply said, "What is free market about one company whining to the government, asking them to crush their competitors who are providing a better service or product at a lower cost?"
His response was a lot of words with no substance and then a repitition of the original claim.
Now, let's be clear: in one sense, this isn't a big deal at all. Let the dumbass think he is the one who believes in free markets. On the other hand, however, since this has come up so often, I would be interested in hearing how people here would respond to this very, very, very stupid assertion.
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
Knight_of_BAAWA: Judicator:You can get natural monopolies fairly easily with the privately optimal firm size is quite large.No, you can't.
Judicator:You can get natural monopolies fairly easily with the privately optimal firm size is quite large.
Even if there could be a natural monopoly that completely dominated an industry, it would only be to the detriment of less efficient firms in that industry. It would be to the benefit of the consumers.
Note: I said "even if".
liberty student: Next, I would point out that there can be no monopoly without colour of law. Without guns (violence) to back up a monopoly, competition will undermine its marketshare and bring it down. No one can charge high prices or give bad service in a bubble, without doing something aggressive to deter competitors. Again, if the firm is doing something illegal, then we are against that, but if they are more efficient, with more products, better service and better prices, then the consumer is already being well served.
Next, I would point out that there can be no monopoly without colour of law. Without guns (violence) to back up a monopoly, competition will undermine its marketshare and bring it down. No one can charge high prices or give bad service in a bubble, without doing something aggressive to deter competitors. Again, if the firm is doing something illegal, then we are against that, but if they are more efficient, with more products, better service and better prices, then the consumer is already being well served.
I don't disagree with a word you wrote, but after all this, you're going to have the socialists come back with "What about the workers? A company that is a monopoly because it's the best could still keep wages low, provide crappy working conditions, and little or no benefits to people working in that industry!"
Not that I don't have paragraphs to write in response to this myself, but I'm always up for hearing other perspectives as well.
what about hte workers, in a free market there are powerful dynamic forces pushing their wages towards their DMVP.
if a business was awesome terrific, became large, then mistreated its workers, it could hardly hope to remain awesome. this is like imagining you can be good at stuff now by having once been good at stuff and now being bad at stuff.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ansury: you're going to have the socialists come back with "What about the workers? A company that is a monopoly because it's the best could still keep wages low, provide crappy working conditions, and little or no benefits to people working in that industry!"
If their labour is valuable, to say that, they contribute to the greatness of the company, then they have leverage to negotiate the terms of their employment because they can always threaten to compete in a free market.
Socialists are locked into the paradigm of worker-boss. Left-libertarians are guilty of this as well. In a free market, we're all our own bosses, and with the potential for sound money and no regulation, we're all able to compete and accumulate capital. So the whole boss-worker paradigm, rather than being something that needs to be reformed, may become uncommon in a free market, because new dynamics will appear with workers able to compete direcly against their former employers with low barriers to entry.
Now the downside (to their perspective) that socialists are not looking at is that in a free market, you will have more worker/worker competition and less solidarity. Solidarity only benefits the unproductive employees. That is why unions used violence against scabs, to deter worker-worker competition.
Get him to read this: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap7.html
Are there examples of this happening in a free market?
Judicator:On patent rights - what do you think will be the incentive to innovate if innovations are so easily stolen?
It's broken up into parts here:
Here's a more condenced version from CS:
Thanks for responses to the "what about the workers?" counterpoint. Couldn't have said it better.. (which is why I asked :P)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M