This sums it up well.

[crumbcake]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

To my extensive knowledge their has NEVER been a monopoly that was enforceable absent a state. Going clear back to Babylon.

Odd choice of words.  Had to read that sentence a couple of times to catch the meaning.  Are you trying to say that monopolies need protection (from the state or anything else) to exist?
That's not just counterintuitive, but in most cases absurd on its face.

First, let me try to define the terms & list a few exceptions like monopolies which (probably) wouldn't exist without support from the state.  
Printing $$$ falls under that, it's explicitly forbidden*.   Here the lines between the monopoly & the state are pretty blurred (“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" -M.A. Rothschild, who was dead serious, afaik).  This blurring seems to be both intentional & necessary, though all this is an entirely different topic

The Beef:  Many industries tend towards natural monopolies.  
By definition, these result not from decree, but from purely economic factors:  Barrier to entry, economies of scale, etc.  These types of monopolies may incidentally garner assistance/protection from the state, though that's just gravy -- their success, once established, is guaranteed by anything short of draconian laws against them.  And i do mean draconian with all of the negative connotations -- like chemo for cancer, these laws must dispense with all niceties, or become more than pointless.  The cure will just weaken the patient & cancer will come back.

I'm sure you disagree, just not sure how & why, so i'll wait.

If you look to more recent history, before they butt raped him, Andrew Carnegie supported the various tarriffs for the STATED SOLE PURPOSE of protecting monopolies.

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

JMK was not exactly noted for his accuracy, even by his admirers. Charm, wit, and bravado, certainly. But not accuracy. Menger, Von Mises et. al. have won this one by being accurate. Which doesn't make them popular, as their analysis doesn't condone nor call for monopolistic interventions on the part of regulators.

Again, i'm not sure why it's worthwhile for us to drag out our hobbyhorses.  I have no interest of pitting Keynes against anyone, and have neither the time nor the motivation for verifying his accuracy.  This is the interwebz.  I'm sure you can dredge up bargeloads of evidence to support your position, though my guess is it's veracity will be much like the Standard Oil links in this thread.  Since i knew none of the people you've mentioned personally, i can't discuss their charm, wit, bravado, tendencies towards inaccuracy or mass appeal with any authority.  At best, i can deal with concrete, objective and verifiable examples of their work.  Though I feel we could discuss basic notions like monopolies without appealing to those mental giants for validation


*Even with money, though, you'll see a few cracks developing, Bitcoin's an example.

Edit: typos

[Biomech]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

To my extensive knowledge their has NEVER been a monopoly that was enforceable absent a state. Going clear back to Babylon.

Odd choice of words.  Had to read that sentence a couple of times to catch the meaning.  Are you trying to say that monopolies need protection (from the state or anything else) to exist?
That's not just counterintuitive, but in most cases absurd on its face.

First, let me try to define the terms & list a few exceptions like monopolies which (probably) wouldn't exist without support from the state.  
Printing $$$ falls under that, it's explicitly forbidden*.   Here the lines between the monopoly & the state are pretty blurred (“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" -M.A. Rothschild, who was dead serious, afaik).  This blurring seems to be both intentional & necessary, though all this is an entirely different topic

The Beef:  Many industries tend towards natural monopolies.  
By definition, these result not from decree, but from purely economic factors:  Barrier to entry, economies of scale, etc.  These types of monopolies may incidentally garner assistance/protection from the state, though that's just gravy -- their success, once established, is guaranteed by anything short of draconian laws against them.  And i do mean draconian with all of the negative connotations -- like chemo for cancer, these laws must dispense with all niceties, or become more than pointless.  The cure will just weaken the patient & cancer will come back.

I'm sure you disagree, just not sure how & why, so i'll wait.

If you look to more recent history, before they butt raped him, Andrew Carnegie supported the various tarriffs for the STATED SOLE PURPOSE of protecting monopolies.

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

JMK was not exactly noted for his accuracy, even by his admirers. Charm, wit, and bravado, certainly. But not accuracy. Menger, Von Mises et. al. have won this one by being accurate. Which doesn't make them popular, as their analysis doesn't condone nor call for monopolistic interventions on the part of regulators.

Again, i'm not sure why it's worthwhile for us to drag out our hobbyhorses.  I have no interest of pitting Keynes against anyone, and have neither the time nor the motivation for verifying his accuracy.  This is the interwebz.  I'm sure you can dredge up bargeloads of evidence to support your position, though my guess is it's veracity will be much like the Standard Oil links in this thread.  Since i knew none of the people you've mentioned personally, i can't discuss their charm, wit, bravado, tendencies towards inaccuracy or mass appeal with any authority.  At best, i can deal with concrete, objective and verifiable examples of their work.  Though I feel we could discuss basic notions like monopolies without appealing to those mental giants for validation


*Even with money, though, you'll see a few cracks developing, Bitcoin's an example.

Edit: typos

Unfortunately I don't have the time to address this properly right now. I'm leaving The People's Republic of Pennsylvania tomorrow morning and will be offline for at least a couple of weeks. I do have a serious rebuttal, but doing it off the top of my head is just ranting. I need to do some research for specific citations and examples.

I brought up Keynes because your position mirrors his (on those rare times when he had any sort of position) and we are talking directly about ideas and ideology that are directly relevant to his general theory (and also Menger and Von Mises, from a whole different angle.)

Anyway, I'm finding some rather interesting people to talk to here. I will return!

[Biomech]

Anyway, I'm finding some rather interesting people to talk to here. I will return!

You're moving?  Good luck & have fun, some of the best times i had was moving (a few times) from one coast to the other.

Me too. But this is the first time with a young family, and the wife has never been out of her bubble before. Plus the move is forced by poverty

But still, it's always an adventure, and I'm going to a place I'm very familiar with, and back to some very dear and loyal friends. Thanks for the well wishes.

Kevin Biomech.