Bitcoin Forum

In the many discussions about state v.s. free market on this forum, the one thing I keep running across is people claiming how if someone establishes a monopoly in a libertarian society, then everyone else in that market is screwed. Their reasoning is that anyone else trying to enter the field will get kicked out by the established monopoly. Recent example was oil companies (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47747.msg568485#msg568485), where the claim is that starting your own oil company is now impossible, because established oil companies now have too much control over oil.

The mistake I keep seeing over and over and over (and over and over) is that people seem to think there is only one way to destroy a monopoly, which is to create a more competitive  business in the same market. There are actually two ways:

Outcompete the monopoly in their own market

OR

SUBSTITUTIONS

If a company has a monopoly on ALL soda (Coke, Sprite, 7-UP, etc) and prices go up too high, people substitute with drinking milk or juice.
If a company has a monopoly on all operating systems, people can substitute with built-in application platforms, like running Google Docs or Chrome apps on PCs regardless of the OS installed.
If a company has a monopoly on electricity (common, with public utilities being only options for running wires), people substitute by reducing power usage, buying generators, or using their own solar and wind generators.
If a company has a monopoly on cable TV, people substitute by buying satelite, or buying internet, only, and streaming TV through Hulu/Netflix.
If a company has a monopoly on oil, people can substitute by switching to natural gas, ethanol, or electric.

There once were monopolies on trains, typewriters, telephones, televisions, and a slew of other stuff, much of which we don't even use anymore. They were all killed by substitutions.
So, next time you want to bring up a point about how a monopoly you are thinking of is entrenched and can not be replaced by someone else selling the same stuff, PLEASE stop, remember the word "substitution," think, and see if there is anything else that people can use in place of that monopoly's product.

The substitution I've neen waiting for since the 80s is nuclear fusion.  Creating Helium out of water and having massive amounts of pollution free power.  No more oil, gas, coal or green powers.  Energy "too cheap to meter" in the words of the industry. 

Its been worked on forever - I really hope it happens.

The level of ignorance on these forums is staggering. Hopefully someone will learn something from OP.

Wondering why most statists are delusional is like wondering my most religious people are ignorant or scared of dying, because the rest of us stopped being religious.

I completely agree that the ignorance on these forums is staggering. For example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.0

... wtf is a C02?

good post mr... +1.5

Monopolies are a really interesting subject.  I'm trying to study and learn more about them.  It's interesting to note that I'm finding out that the examples commonly cited as the reason for anti-trust action, such as Standard Oil, weren't actually doing the harm people claimed they were.  No doubt Rockefeller was a ruthless businessman but his ruthless efficiency slashed the prices of kerosene benefiting millions of American consumers.  Also, by the time anti-trust action was taken against Standard Oil their market share had dropped from from 90+% to about 64% because of market competition.  Also, it seems that in general anti-trust action is very subjective in nature as it is hard to tell whether companies are truly engaging in "unfair" market practices.  And what is really "unfair" practice anyway...

A hypothetical for the sake of discussion: What if the same soda company also had a monopoly on the dairy farms, orchards and even the distilleries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2

My economics teacher in college mentioned that there is only one company in the United States that has a full on monopoly.

That company is the company that creates the little white collar things for priests.

Of course, because statist society has solved global warming.

We've got more than 6 billion people on the planet and no one has destroyed the oil monopoly yet. Odds are we'll all be dead before it's broken. It's not the government keeping down the electric car, it's the "free market" producing products that fit right into oil's plan. Demand for plastics aren't disappearing anytime soon, and hybrids killed electric cars off.

"The man with the visible hand" isn't trying to stop clean energy sources from gaining a foothold. There was no guy who made a car that got 120 MPG but got hushed up by the government. Clean energy gets you a tax break the oil monopolies don't get, and polluters have to buy carbon credits. Ethanol? Weren't some free-marketers complaining about corn subsidies earlier? As for natural gas, I'm fairly sure you know exactly which companies have the infrastructure to extract and transport it better than any others. Gasoline is heavily taxed, and even required to go through additional purification processes to be used in our vehicles. Despite what some people believe, there's no magic magnetic source of energy waiting for an angelic BTC investor to pick it up. I'd hate to see how poorly these substitutes would do without the massive assistance they're getting from the government as they are now.

In a real free market, the oil monopoly would end when they ran out of oil or kill off all ocean life (and the rest of the world) with another BP leak they can't stop (Where's the free market obligation for them to stop the leak anyway? The consumers haven't punished BP at all, only the government has).

I'd say the biggest mistake/ignorance I see here is people assuming the "free market" is a giant reset button. This isn't like starting a new game of Civilization or playing EVE on a clean server. The same people who own all the land/wealth/means of production now will own all the land/wealth/means of production even if every single government was abolished this second. I'm sure you'd want to call a "do over" and let everyone grab what they wanted (and your free-market children would ask for exactly the same thing), but that's not happening. You'd still be the 99% with 1%, and they'd still be the 1% with 99%. 100 years from now, they'd be the 1% with 99.9%. I'm sure everyone here thinks they've got the skills, expertise, or talent to be in that 1%, but I'd say about...1% of you are right about that.

Incidentally, placing 24th out of 26 isn't being in the top 1%. It's not the top 50% either.

Oil is still highly subsidized mostly by governments. It's far from regulated into the negative.

The same people who own all the land/wealth/means of production now will own all the land/wealth/means of production even if every single government was abolished this second.

Who owns what isn't relevant. It's only a matter of who controls the monetary policy and the means of exchange. Our shackles are only enforceable by the monetary policy that allows money to flow into our political systems. Allow competing monies internationally and people's desires will overthow any coercion that may come from owning certain things. There will be too much value to be had from people to hoard and there will be no power structures to inhibit people.

That's all that will matter in the end: what people want.

Yeah, that's CO2, not C02.

They can drink water, or wine, or anything else. It's unlikely that a single company will own all drink able products, because due to them being so different, a company trying to be the jack of all trades will end up being horribly inefficient, and a more focust comtetitor will emerge.
Also, not buying the product is a form of substitution (substituting it for nothing). Didn't want to go into it in the OP,  but if soda becomes too expensive, people will buy it less, meaning drop in demand, and thus drop in price.

Re: ParrotyBit

Ethanol is doing just fine in Brazil, and our corn farms would likely get decimated by Brazilians if they weren't so heavily subsidized.

I actually wish oil wasn't so heavily subsidized by the government in the form of land leases, tax subsidies, and international security (wars). If gas at the pump was actually $6 a gallow, like it's likely supposed to be, other options like electric, compressed air, hydrogen, ethanol, etc. would actually become competitive and see a lot of push for tech development. Worst case, there's always rail with electric (I envy Europe for that one)

As for who owns what it would be a terrible catastrophy is the 99%ers were suddenly given everything the 1%ers own. Those 1%ers own what they do because they know how to make it work, and how to keep it producing more. A 99%er who suddenly found himself with a chunk of land with an apartment building, a factory, or a restaurant on it will very likely soon find himself with a bare worthless chunk of land with a boarded up empty building. It would be as if the entire world has suddenly suffered a Millionaire's Curse (see majority of people who strike it rich through lotteries or windfalls, who end up destroying the wealth and being way worse off that they started)

Surely the issue is the 1% are getting richer by taxation and chicanery on the 99%.  If a mid-tier firm is in trouble, they get the sword of death from the free market.  If a big bank is in trouble, they get bailed out.  America seems to have bought into the idea of survival of the fittest for those who work and socialism for those who inherit money.

I don't think any of us support the current system.

Fair point :)  I was responding to Rassah's assertion that the 99% are far better off without the money that has been transferred to the 1%.

My assertion is that the 99% don't have a clue what to do with the wealth, and redistributing the 1%'s wealth to the 99% will have the exact same result as giving control of a 747 to a ramdon Joe in coach.
The 99% are far better of when the people who know what they are doing are in charge, even if that 1% sometimes makes colossal mistakes (and, admittedly, who in the 99% knew about credit default swaps and could foresee the crash they caused? If none, then why do you suppose the 99% would do better?)

Slave owners used to say the same about slaves being far better off in bondage.

Seriously, people seemed to manage their money just fine in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  How did they get so stupid that it had the be funnelled to the top 1%?  Was it something in the water?

Slaves didn't have the option to quit, to start their own business, and to become one of the %1. Isn't 1% an income of $300,000? While that is difficult to archive, it's by far not impossible.

As for why? My guess is that thanks to technology, productivity increased exponentially, while the number of skilled employees remained about the same. As a result, the 1% who can drive wealth creang machines were able to drive them with much higher output, while the workers doing the work never increased their own unique contribution, instead just augmenting it with technology. I.e. workers are in too high numbers (high supply, same demand, same or lower price) and are easily replacable, but what they can pump towards those with unique skills has increased dramatically.

I agree on why.  There is no strange conspiracy to crush the middle class.  I was just amused at your assertion people are better off now without the money.

Again, not my assertion. My only assertion is that people will be much worse off if their demands of having the wealth of the 99% just given to them were answered. This is why:

 http://www.google.com/search?q=the+lottery+curse  (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+lottery+curse)

I have no problem with people demanding change that allowed them to work and earn enough to become one of the 1%. I haven't seen a lot of those demands though.

No need to get down on yourself. You'll learn some day.

Was it you who was quoting stuff from the Heartland Institute? If so, that's already been covered in another thread.

I think you are confused, and it wouldn't be the first time.

It's like you people don't live in the real world or something.


What happens when the soda monopoly starts buying up the substitutes, running ad campaigns saying their substitutes are poisoned, etc?
How low do you think the barrier of entry for "electricity generation" is? Building and buying up solar panels and generators? Oh yeah, I've got spare parts for a turbine in my garage and several thousand dollars on hand for solar panels and batteries.
Cable TV? Really? What about companies like Comcast who have local monopolies all over the US? Do you think some entrepreneur will think to themselves "There might be some money here in starting my own ISP. Since Comcast won't let me use their network without paying, I better have a lot of cash upfront to lay my own fiber and install networking gear, plus enough extra money left over to absorb lots of losses when I have to sell my service at a loss when the previous monopoly tries to leverage their existing infrastructure and capital to price me out of the market,"

Sorry, won't happen. Business doesn't work that way. Fantasy world.
(Plus satellite, DSL/FIOS, web over electrical wires, wifi mesh, cell/4G network)

Yes it does. Monopolies don't just fill up an industry and wait for another person to roll in and provide a better service. They keep expanding, branching into other industries, setting up safeguards to stomp out competition, etc until they are broken up by an antitrust hearing.

See: Standard Oil, old AT&T, United States Steel

If that was true, there wouldn't be an entire body of studies of the subject of corporate divestiture. As I said, corporations that get too big by focusing on too many things end up too cumbersome and slow to change. They quickly lose their ability to grow and innovate because, almost as if by design, they end up being just large, stable, cash producing companies focused on doing what they are doing because it "works." Any company with a bit of venture/investor capital behind it can swoop in, try very radical and risky things, and overtake he large competitor before it knew what hit it.
See: Kodak (lost to digital), IBM (lost to generics), Microsoft (lost to Google), soon to be Apple's iPhone (quickly losing to android). Also do see Comcast (losing to FIOS, and soon ClearWire).

Everything you described involved a technology shift. What about commodities, where monopolies really matter? I doubt someone will invent an iron2.0. Monopolies are far more destructive when their influence allows them to soak up resources and access to them.

Haven't you heard? It's all about carbon fiber now. Even during they hey days of iron, skill mini-mills started popping up all over, using new, much cheaper and more efficient, melting technology. Same iron, different way to process. And even when Big Iron did finally catch up and switch to the same technology, they still lost simply because they were too cumberson to control outputs, while the small mini-mills could start up production as soon as someone needed steel, and shut down immediately as soon as that need was filled. Just In Time production killed Big Iron, who ended up with a bunch of expensive but unneeded steel sitting around in its yards.
The only possible monopoly I can think of is land/real estate. But even then we still have a lot of open ocean, and if it comes to it, can dig underground.

None of this changes the fact the we have a limited number of supplies on this planet (and we've somehow let corporations start buying exclusive rights to fresh water supplies), but if you think you are properly equipped to build a floating ocean fortress or a cave-lair deep under someone else's property, feel free to try.

Why are you assuming that people can not group together and pool their wealth and resources? Almost no one starts a business with just their own savings any more.

What if someone already bought up all the resources and sells them to those pools of people at super-outrageous prices that prevent them from properly starting a business? Total control of an asset prevents competition, and just assuming "someone will invent something better!" does not work for all cases.

Life isn't an Ayn Rand novel

You're making the same mistape I pointed out in my OP. Take total control of an asset, someone else will create a substitute. Or people will substitute nothing for the assets, and the business will lose money until they lower the price.

Standard Oil isn't a very good example.   By the time they were ordered broken up they had already lost a significant portion of market share (down to about 64% from a high of 90+%) through competition.  While a lot of their business practices were what we might consider unethical, I've never seen an example where they actually charged "predatory" prices.  In fact, in a five year period they dropped the price of kerosene by more than half. 

There are only two kinds of monopolies: coercive monopolies and efficiency monopolies.  Standard Oil may have been a mixture of both, but they were mostly an efficiency monopoly from the evidence that I've seen.  I'm not condoning any use of force or aggression they may have employed.  That should be prosecuted by law, but they shouldn't have been broken up by anti-trust action because they were out-producing and out-competing all the other firms.

If my history from decades ago serves correctly, Standard Oil was the only oil company that decided to transcend state borders while the others remained stuck in their respective states due to trade restrictions by their governments.

I am not too worried by monopolies since I am forced to live with many of them everyday. It's only the nature of man.

I've argued against the free market because my research has lead me to find many examples of its failings, but in all honestly I really really want to have my mind changed and see it work, because if it does work, it would be the best most efficient system.  I just don't know that it can.  But I really enjoyed that PDF you posted for me on the other thread, and I will be scouring the forum for your other posts.  I think I can learn a lot from you, and I will eagerly await your refutations of any points I may make arguing against you.

Say what!?  Yes they do!  Is this a troll joke or something?

That PDF wasn't me, it was Atlas. But thanks nonetheless for the compliment.

It sort of was. I didn't feel like debating JeffK on the details, so kinda blew him off with the least thought full and explanatory reply possible. It was kind of a retort to his almost "Nuh-uh! That's not how it is because I'm saying it's not!" replies.

What if the substitute is inferior to the product offered by the monopolist?

I'm not saying this is always the case, but if if was it the utility-maximizing justification for state intervention would still be valid.

Even if it was inferior, people switching away would force the monopolist to lower prices until they are more reasonable again, and there is a big risk that people will not switch back from the inferior product, and new support for it would give it the funds to be much better. Kodak and digital cameras is an example. Kodak had a massive market share for camera stuff (wasn't a monopoly, but was close), but people started switching to digital cameras, even if they only took 640x480 pics and stored them on floppies. Kodak really should have lowered prices to compete, or better, adopt the new digital camera technology, but they ignore it. With new money going into digital, Kodak was quickly overtaken and pretty much lost the camera market entirely.

Substitutions generally don't work when they're extremely expensive to implement and use. A substitute for gasoline, for example, would involve fitting every petrol station in america with that technology, or starting competing filling stations with that technology to provide coverage to almost all of america. If it doesn't have good coverage from the outset, then people will be very reluctant to use it.

Also fyi ethanol fueled cars in Brazil are only prevalent because the government mandated and financed efforts to get the country off of oil after the 1973 oil crisis. in '76 the government then mandated that all fuel sold has to have some percentage of ethanol in it in order to reduce fuel usage further. Using Bioethanol in brazil as a marvel of private enterprise in substitution is therefore a retarded position to take since without the government of Brazil forcing companies and consumers to use bioethanol, it never would have occured.

also lol:

This is hilarious since Generators are horrifically inefficient (larger plants are more efficient than smaller ones) and solar and wind generators are prohibitively expensive to build and fit and you would have extremely intermittent electricity, something which 99% of people would feel is unacceptable.

Substitutions for gasoline:
Ethanol
Electric battery
Biodiesel
Compressed air
Hydrogen
Solar
Driving less
Taking the bus
Taking the train
Carpooling
Walking
Biking
Teleworking
Just not driving

Hope you get the picture. If you don't, substitution doesn't mean equivalent/similar thing. Email is substitution for paper letters through post office. The two are entirely unrelated technologies.


Before you lol, ask, what is the point of having a more efficient generator or a cheaper solar/wing generator if electric power grids are good enough? No one is putting money into those technologies because everyone is happy with gov subsidised current ... uh... current (electricity). Only market for those technologies are fringe or specific needs users. If electricity goes up in price, those technologies will get a lot of cash dumped into them, and will quickly become cheaper and more efficient.
It's like, "lol! Computer mainframes are so massive, expensive, and inefficient! The idea that anyone would waste money on them instead of keeping records with pen and paper is hillarious."
Or, "lol! This is hillarious because self powered horse buggies are horribly noisy and inefficient, and are prohibitively expensive compared to a horse you just feed, plus 99% of the people don't have access to motor fuel"
By laughing without thinking, you only demonstrated how much of an idiot you are.

True but the point was valid.  Monopolies are more sustainable when there are high barriers to entry.  For example for a hydrogen car to be VIABLE (not just an inferior substitute for substitution sake) it would require massive infrastructure. 

Infrastructure the dominant technology (gasoline powered cars) has the benefit of decades of build out and hundreds of billions in subsidies since its inception.  That creates a high barrier to entry.  Now yes if gasoline tomorrow was $82 a gallon then barrier to entry or not you would see alternatives but when there is a high barrier to entry it allows monopolistic forces to drive prices higher but not so high as to make alternative infrastructure viable. 

For example (and these numbers are just for argument sake) lets say the non-taxed cost of production for a single gallon of gasoline at retail to be $3.00 per gallon.   However due to the need for massive infrastructure build-out the cost equivalent for hydrogen at retail would be $9.00 per gallon.  The high barrier to entry would allow the gasoline monopolies to sell gasoline at $5.00, $6.00, even $8.00 while still being superior to hydrogen car.

I agree with your OP when a free market exists but due to decades of prior subsidies and public infrastructure spending there are cases where the market isn't exactly free.   In my hypothetical example H2 needs to compete with highly subsidized (both currently and all prior subsidies) product.  Without those prior subsidies gasoline might be $6.00 per gallon and thus competition more viable.

How much of a barrier to entry did email have to overcome to overtake the Post Office. How much of a barrier to entry is there for an electric plug in car you can charge at home? How much of a barrier to entry is there for Google Docs or MS Exchange to overcome for bringing your office home to you? Or for Skype or Magick Jack, or even cell phones to take out the phone land line monopoly? High barriers to entry only make sure that entering that specific technological nieche is difficult, but even then there are lots of parallel infrastructures that already exist, and many we haven't even thought of yet, that tend to allow monopolies a temporary existance at most. Actually, barriers to entry still follows the same "monopolies can only be replaced with similar stuff" thinking I was trying to address in my OP. Hell, I've been enjoying touring cities and museums around the world for free using Google Street view recently, and historic landmarks and museums are seemingly obvious monopoly infrastructures you can't move or replace. Who would've thought that Google's cameras would be a substitute for jet fuel, hotels, and museum tickets.

Email had a high barrier to entry but it was so MASSIVELY superior to post office that it was able to overcome that barrier to entry. If it had only been slightly better it wouldn't have displaced the entrenched and heavily subsidized competitor.  Which isn't exactly a free market.  H2 cars, or tele-pressence technology could overcome the artificial barrier that gasoline has, but just because it does doesn't invalidate that barrier and the reality that the barrier helps to insulate monopolies from technological advances.

That is a false statement.  The rest of your examples have nothing to do w/ public infrastructures and the barrier gained by them.  I thought you were willing to be open minded and expand upon your original position.  I see you are simply an absolutist.  The world is made up of gray not black & white.

It's true that there are barriers that can't be invalidated, but I don't see why we should care about those monopolies when much alternatives arise.
Phone land lines we're government controlled/subsidised monopolies. Other large infrastructure monopolies I can think of (and things disrupting them): Cable TV (Web based tv, satellite), Railroads (trucks and highways), MS Windows and IE (browser based OS independent cloud services and Chrome)... actually, I'm having trouble thinking up of any actual true monopolies. Even the US Military is out sourcing to private mercenaries. I can't think in black&white of monopoly or not. Every "monopoly" I can think of isn't one really.

There is no middle. A service is either subsidized by force or it isn't.

All of which require either a massive change in lifestyle (which a lot of people would find annoying, especially if suddenly the bus service was overloaded by millions of other people doing the same thing) or such a massive investment either from you or infrastructure wise that it would unsustainable (Eg, every petrol station would need to provide ethanol, and the charging technology for electric cars which isn't a tremendous hassle (refueling a car is about equivilent to a 10MW power line running into it) hasn't even been invented yet). Substitution doesn't have to mean an equivalent or similar thing but it does however have to the same outcome as before you started.

[/quote]

The maximum possible thermal efficiency you can get for most diesel engines (no one uses gasoline for generators because gasoline is less energy dense and more of a hassle to run effectively because of the thermodynamic cycle it uses) is about 45%-55%. Most engines can get that quite easily since you can run an engine in a generator at any rpm and then just find the "sweet spot" of the best rpm/torque characteristics. However, with smaller engines you get bigger and bigger losses becuase you get a higher proportion of surface area to volume inside the pistons and so you get higher heat losses compared to the power output (which is bad) Unless you can find a way to invalidate the laws of thermodynamics by throwing money at it no one is going to magically make a more efficient generator that the ones we have now, really.

Incidently by saying no one puts money and research into generators you are showing how much of an idiot you are. Guess what cars use. Is it engines? My god! it is! guess part of the car gets more R and D money spent on it than any other part? Could it possibly be the engine? Gee, turns out it is. Generators are hardly fringe products either. Every single building or construction company will have a few in stock becuase the sheer hassle of getting mains electricity onto a construction site is so great that generators are a more attractive choice. Hospitals, Government buildings, police stations, fire stations and sometimes private residences (if the owner is wealthy enough) Will all have them too, since power isn't completely infallible and mission critical operations can go incredibly wrong without power (Like people dying because all of the life support systems died, or because then lights in the operating theatre went out)

Email is used because there is no barrier to entry apart from owning a computer, which most people will own for (at least) work purposes, Pen and paper isn't used because computer servers offer faster response times for finding, checking and writing reports (this one should be obvious I don't even know why you tried to use this as a rebuttal honestly), and frankly if I even have to describe the advantages of a motorised vehicle over a horse to you I'm going to assume you're brain damaged.

I have one question:

Does a governing body invest the people's money into innovation better than the population acting freely?

Governments can jump start entire industries, for example jet engines and nuclear power.  But free market investment is preferable as the investor loses if the decision is bad whiel with government, the taxpayer loses.

You do realize that driving is actually a substitution for taking a train, right? No one imagined that an infrastructure like railroad tracks can be replaced. Yet it was, even despite the massive changes in lifestyle. Personally I still prefer trains, and hope someday they will replace cars again. Or at least that cars will not be necessary, because work could be done from anywhere online, and so few people need to travel that trains will be more than enough.



Again, you are only focusing on internal combustion engines, and the need for an engine, period. Sure, many businesses have generators, but only for emergencies. Barely any depend on them for their main source of power, and barely any personal houses have generators. Once generators become something people actually buy for their home as a main source of power, we will likely look at today's tech same way we look at typewriters now. Japan is working on a personal nuclear plant the size of a trailer that can be buried in the back yard. My university is working on a gassificator that turns garbage into combustible gas to generate power. Solar powered stirling engines are getting more research and may be becoming more efficient than photovoltaic cells. Houses are using more tech that lets them stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer without generating power. And that's just for electricity.
I am not arguing that there isn't a semi-monopoly on gasoline and internal combustion engines, I am arguing that this monopoly is as relevant as a monopoly on land lines, type writers, and horse buggy whips.



But according to your argument, the high barrier to entry for running a monopoly like the post office would not have allowed email to even exist!


But that's exactly what you have been doing: defending the modern equivalent of a horse by saying there are no substitutes for "horses," and the barrier to entry for "horses" is too high, ignoring the fact that within a few years, the modern equivalent of a horse monopoly is irrelevant.

I would open one up in my backyard, massively overhype it, and when they come to buy it up sell it to them for 100x what it's actually worth. Rinse and repeat until they're bankrupt.