I recently read this article by some PhD in psychology:
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html
Though his title gives him no power to discuss economics, me being a high school student doesn't give me power either. We must evaluate him by his logic, not his title.
I overall liked the article and found that it squared with my views. The problem I have is that I would like some evidence behind its claims. I will pull them up for easy reference:
there were many attempts to “corner the market” on various commodities (such as cotton and wheat, to mention two famous examples)—then close the field to competition and gather huge profits by selling at exorbitant prices. All such attempts failed. The men who tried it were compelled to give up—or go bankrupt. They were defeated, not by legislative action—but by the action of the free market.
I really like this claim, but it's a floating claim. Anyone know links to the actual story?
It is a matter of historical fact that no “price war” has ever succeeded in establishing a monopoly or in maintaining prices above the market level, outside the law of supply and demand
Nice claim, but opponents simply claim the opposite, and we arrive at a stalemate. Is there a link to affirm this? For example something that discusses how price wars failed, or whether or not Standard Oil had such a price war (which is a common belief).
observe that International Nickel of Canada produces more than two-thirds of the world’s nickel—yet it does not charge monopoly prices. It prices its product as though it had a great many competitors—and the truth is that it does have a great many competitors. Nickel (in the form of alloy and stainless steels) is competing with aluminum and a variety of other materials.
Good evidence, but did the company operate under regulation anyway? Or was this at the time when there was no such regulation.
Overall, I recommend this article to others, yet would like a few clarifications before I use this as evidence in debates.
Wasn't Nat Branden a harsh Rand follower at her peak?
I have read what I think is monopolies in history that could not be directly attributed to government involvement. That was in the american rail way and certain organisations were ruthless and bought up entire regions of competing companies and even went as far as using violence to meet their objectives of monopoly.They would tell the competition you either sell your company for X or I will kill you and steal it.
How much of that is true i do not know.
Even if that did happen there is even less evidence that it was government that put a stop to it or even prevented it from occurring in the future.