Why are people scared of taxes?

[Richy_T]

Neither of these are really examples of natural monopolies. There is nothing but government regulation preventing competition in the first and in the second, it is perhaps arguable that a regulatory body is advantageous (though it is also arguable that they have stifled many great advancements from occuring) but monopoly it ain't.

Yes, they are due to the laws of physics.  There can be only one electric power supplier to every house.  High power cables/wires can't cross each other without interference.  For allowing more than one utility company access to every house, the companies must cooperate to allow for crossings without interfering with the service of the other company.  Why would a company which enjoy a monopoly allow this?  It is not likely, and would be terribly inefficient compared to one cable/line.

Nope. And efficiency or lack thereof does not imply a "natural" monopoly.

Similar for radio frequencies.  If I use the navaid frequencies for the closest airport for my own wlan, the airport would have to close for all IFR operations.  The airport needs to have a monopoly on using those frequencies for the navaids to work.

Right. So the government comes in and creates an *artificial* monopoly with laws and FCCs and whatnot.

Though it is somewhat circular. Arguably technology would improve to adapt. You know we got spread spectrum technology because the goverment's monopoly on force ran up against another government's monopoly on force, right?

Both monopolies are necessary by laws of physics, not artificial causes like government regulations.  (Thomas Robert Malthus' definition of a natural monopoly, I know there are many.)

I guess picking a definition so you can blame nature in support of your agenda is the way to go. What next? "The devil made me do it"?

[1714543170]

1714543170

[1714543170]

1714543170

[1714543170]

1714543170

[1714543170]

1714543170

[sturle]

Neither of these are really examples of natural monopolies. There is nothing but government regulation preventing competition in the first and in the second, it is perhaps arguable that a regulatory body is advantageous (though it is also arguable that they have stifled many great advancements from occuring) but monopoly it ain't.

Yes, they are due to the laws of physics.  There can be only one electric power supplier to every house.  High power cables/wires can't cross each other without interference.  For allowing more than one utility company access to every house, the companies must cooperate to allow for crossings without interfering with the service of the other company.  Why would a company which enjoy a monopoly allow this?  It is not likely, and would be terribly inefficient compared to one cable/line.

Nope. And efficiency or lack thereof does not imply a "natural" monopoly.

Lack of possibility certainly does!  Cooperation on crossings is a theoretical possibility, but only theoretical because it would be much much cheaper for both to just use the same lines.  And this ain't going to happen, because the one who built first have every interest in protecting their monopoly.

Similar for radio frequencies.  If I use the navaid frequencies for the closest airport for my own wlan, the airport would have to close for all IFR operations.  The airport needs to have a monopoly on using those frequencies for the navaids to work.

Right. So the government comes in and creates an *artificial* monopoly with laws and FCCs and whatnot.

Wordplay.  The frequency spectrum is a natural limited resource.  It is limited by the laws of physics, not by FCC or anyone else.  For it to be possible to use the frequency spectrum efficiently, one need exclusive use at the time it is used in the covered area.  Non-exclusive use will reduce the quality of the transmission, and no known technology will help that.  You can only work around the problem to a degree by sending more information (adding redundancy) by using more of the frequency spectrum.  The user of the spectrum monopolizes it, no matter how much or little the regulating body regulates.

Though it is somewhat circular. Arguably technology would improve to adapt. You know we got spread spectrum technology because the goverment's monopoly on force ran up against another government's monopoly on force, right?

We got spread spectrum technology for several reasons.  It was invented to make eavesdropping on communications difficult, and is much used today to comply with the regulators demands to reduce peak electromagnetic interference at certain frequencies.  It can help against some kinds of interference, but the Nyquist rate still limits the amount of information it is possible to send on a given bandwidth.

Both monopolies are necessary by laws of physics, not artificial causes like government regulations.  (Thomas Robert Malthus' definition of a natural monopoly, I know there are many.)

I guess picking a definition so you can blame nature in support of your agenda is the way to go. What next? "The devil made me do it"?

John Stuart Mill uses the same definition, more or less.  Natural monopolies are "those which are created by circumstances, and not by law".  Both are commonly accepted, but be welcome and pick yours, and I'll find examples for it as well.

[myrkul]

Wires? We don't need no stinkin' wires!

[Richy_T]

Wordplay.  The frequency spectrum is a natural limited resource.  It is limited by the laws of physics, not by FCC or anyone else.  For it to be possible to use the frequency spectrum efficiently, one need exclusive use at the time it is used in the covered area.  Non-exclusive use will reduce the quality of the transmission, and no known technology will help that.  You can only work around the problem to a degree by sending more information (adding redundancy) by using more of the frequency spectrum.  The user of the spectrum monopolizes it, no matter how much or little the regulating body regulates.

A huge amount of the spectrum is effectively wasted because it is reserved for broadcast technologies when much better technologies for the use case exist. Once locked in, government control has been subverted to special interests.

But that's besides the point, it's not a natural monopoly. Unless you're positing some transmitter that transmits on all frequencies at enough power to drown out anything and somehow from every location also (cause it would have to mask directional transmission too). And it would have to do this by default since if it were designed to do so, well, there's that artificial monopoly again.

John Stuart Mill uses the same definition, more or less.

Let's look at what actually is rather than relying on definitions which advance an agenda. "Cuts" and "progressive" won't play well around me either.



Question: Is light a natural monopoly?

[Richy_T]

Wires? We don't need no stinkin' wires!

+1. Where's my solar satellite beaming free power directly to my house? (Oh, that's right, the government has been monopolizing space exploration for the past 2/3 century too). Where's my nuclear pile providing cheap, unmetered electricity?

Hey, here's an idea. Maybe if the government wasn't subsidizing the monopoly electric companies by using eminent domain to force right-of-way across people's land, perhaps all that solar and wind power the socialists love so much might actually be economically viable. And might therefore have been researched enough to be even cheaper than current electrical costs. Perhaps we'd be energy independent and not subsidizing terrorist attacks against our fellow countrymen.

Nah, let's just keep the monopolies in place and pump money into trying to fix the problems they cause. What could possibly go wrong?

[sturle]

Wordplay.  The frequency spectrum is a natural limited resource.  It is limited by the laws of physics, not by FCC or anyone else.  For it to be possible to use the frequency spectrum efficiently, one need exclusive use at the time it is used in the covered area.  Non-exclusive use will reduce the quality of the transmission, and no known technology will help that.  You can only work around the problem to a degree by sending more information (adding redundancy) by using more of the frequency spectrum.  The user of the spectrum monopolizes it, no matter how much or little the regulating body regulates.

A huge amount of the spectrum is effectively wasted because it is reserved for broadcast technologies when much better technologies for the use case exist. Once locked in, government control has been subverted to special interests.

Yep, in many countries with stronger regulation those old technologies has been deprecated and frequencies reallocated to e.g. wireless networking and mobile communications.  In my country the FM radio band will be freed for other uses in 2017, as we complete the switch to DAB and DVB.  I understand it is more difficult in the USA because the stations insists on having their own frequencies and transmitters.  DVB and DAB are very efficient because they are able to multiplex a lot of channels into the same stream, and allocate bandwidth as necessary.  For DAB all transmitters send on the same frequency, and due to the clever way redundancy is implemented the interference between two transmitters sending the same signal is actually beneficial.  It saves a lot of bandwidth and makes space for many more radio channels at the same time.

But that's besides the point, it's not a natural monopoly. Unless you're positing some transmitter that transmits on all frequencies at enough power to drown out anything and somehow from every location also (cause it would have to mask directional transmission too). And it would have to do this by default since if it were designed to do so, well, there's that artificial monopoly again.

A natural monopoly does not need to cover the entire universe to be defined as a monopoly.  The FCC, which you call a monopoly, has no powers outside the USA.  It is sufficient to monopolize an area which covers more than your own property.

Using all high frequencies suitable for medium range communications at a decent bandwidth this way is fairly easy.  Let's say ~80 MHz to ~280 MHz.  Even a normal 802.11n network uses up to four channels with a bandwidth of up to 40 MHz each, but at higher frequencies with much lower range.  This is only five times more.  No, it won't have to mask directional transmission, unless you want FM radio transmitters to target every individual FM radio, of course.  It doesn't have to drown out everything else to make the frequency band useless for a large area.  You aren't going to listen to that FM station if there is a lot of static on the channel.  For DVB, DAB and other digital modes the interference will be even worse.  For current air navigation systems it would be a killer.  (VOR/ADF in the HF band will survive, but those are very inaccurate.)

John Stuart Mill uses the same definition, more or less.

Let's look at what actually is rather than relying on definitions which advance an agenda. "Cuts" and "progressive" won't play well around me either.

Question: Is light a natural monopoly?

No.  If another light source interferes with yours, it can easily be blocked out.  Two people can, but don't have to, share the same light source.  Light can be created by many means (no monopoly on the source) and by anybody.

[sturle]

Wires? We don't need no stinkin' wires!

+1. Where's my solar satellite beaming free power directly to my house?

Free?  Are you a commie as well?  Do you have any idea that those would cost to launch those to orbit compared with installing solar arrays on the ground?  And if you want it to your house, you must say good bye to all other satellite communications, because the spectrum passing through to earth is very small, and multiple kW of power will mask all the low powered signals from communication and navigation satellites.

(Oh, that's right, the government has been monopolizing space exploration for the past 2/3 century too). Where's my nuclear pile providing cheap, unmetered electricity?

What!?  Are private companies forbidden access to space in your fscked up country?  Your nuclear pile is straight below you.  Drill far enough down, and the power is there.  It doesn't provide electricity directly (nuclear piles don't), but heat you can use to generate electricity.  It isn't regulated, just expensive.  Probably much less expensive than a safe nuclear reactor for home use.

Nah, let's just keep the monopolies in place and pump money into trying to fix the problems they cause. What could possibly go wrong?

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies.  If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all, you could do with half of your healthcare spendings.  That's almost 9% of your GDP in savings.  If you did it ten years ago, the USA wouldn't have any national debt now, and people and companies wouldn't have to pay insurance money for health either.  If you do it right now, the number will start decreasing.

[01BTC10]

A former political organizer for Mr. Tremblay’s party says the mayor was one of three people in a 2004 meeting where a Union Montréal official showed the two sets of books the party was keeping – clean records designed to fall within spending limits and satisfy the chief electoral officer, and an unofficial cash-only accounting that had the party spending double the $46,000 campaign limit.

Mr. Dumont described how the money flowed from a dozen construction bosses, who the inquiry has heard had close connections to the mob. The bosses made dozens and dozens of visits to the offices of both the party and local politicians, usually with the blinds drawn, from 2004 to 2010. The bosses also bought tickets to fundraising events with little regard for spending limits, he said.

Mr. Dumont described several instances where cash flowed wildly. At one point, cash donations stuffed a party safe until it was impossible to close. At one event, chief fundraiser Bernard Trépanier could no longer button his coat, its pockets were so full of envelopes of cash. A student who was working as a receptionist for the summer complained to him that she had spent all day locked up in Mr. Trépanier’s office counting out $850,000 in cash.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/testimony-at-quebec-corruption-probe-directly-implicates-montreal-mayor/article4754334/

[myrkul]

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies. 

"Your monopoly on force needs to fix a 'monopoly' by creating a monopoly."

huh?

See, this is why I demanded payment to deal with your idiocy.

[Richy_T]

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies. 

"Your monopoly on force needs to fix a 'monopoly' by creating a monopoly."

huh?

See, this is why I demanded payment to deal with your idiocy.

Don't you know, the answer to broken government is *more* government. Just we'll get it right, this time

[Richy_T]

Free?  Are you a commie as well?

That gets funnier every time you do it.

Free was, perhaps, the wrong word. Unmetered would be a better one. Just pay for service and use what you like.

  Do you have any idea that those would cost to launch those to orbit compared with installing solar arrays on the ground?  And if you want it to your house, you must say good bye to all other satellite communications, because the spectrum passing through to earth is very small, and multiple kW of power will mask all the low powered signals from communication and navigation satellites.

Now that private exploitation of space is starting to become a reality, it's starting to look affordable. If you thing ground-based solar arrays have anything on space-based ones, you have to be kidding me. Zero gravity and no atmosphere? Of course, you have to get these things out of the gravity well but there's a handy big white ball in the sky with 1/6th of the gravity and plentiful quantities of the raw material for solar. The government got bored of that one in the early 70s of course.

What!?  Are private companies forbidden access to space in your fscked up country?

It has been very hard for development of space exploration to occur due to the government, yes. I have no doubt it would be the same in your country if it was a place worth launching from.

Your nuclear pile is straight below you.  Drill far enough down, and the power is there.  It doesn't provide electricity directly (nuclear piles don't), but heat you can use to generate electricity.  It isn't regulated, just expensive.  Probably much less expensive than a safe nuclear reactor for home use.

I counter your probably with a "probably not"

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies.  If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all, you could do with half of your healthcare spendings.  That's almost 9% of your GDP in savings.  If you did it ten years ago, the USA wouldn't have any national debt now, and people and companies wouldn't have to pay insurance money for health either.  If you do it right now, the number will start decreasing.

It is because the government spends with no consequences. The only way to prevent it is to rein in government. When you can just write another check, why not? (until the day you can't).

[sturle]

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies. 

"Your monopoly on force needs to fix a 'monopoly' by creating a monopoly."

huh?

See, this is why I demanded payment to deal with your idiocy.

I didn't pay this guy, I promise.

I wrote fixing monopolies, not creating them.  You need to apply force in terms of laws to make sure natural monopolies don't hinder free market competition more than necessary by the condition which create the natural monopolies.   The force is a mild one, and the net result is less monopoly.  If you don't like laws, you may move to a country without laws.  It's up to you.  Most people think laws are beneficial, and support them.

[TheButterZone]

Most people think laws are beneficial, and support them.

The majority most certainly does not think the government should be able to evilly steal, murder, and kidnap, with impunity. Do not mistake the majority being woefully underequipped to enforce their own human rights (and their elections, which are rampantly decided by fraud in favor of the worst possible tyrants) for tacit approval.

If voting actually accomplished anything that fully respected human rights, it would be made a summary executable offense.

[myrkul]

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies. 

"Your monopoly on force needs to fix a 'monopoly' by creating a monopoly."

huh?

See, this is why I demanded payment to deal with your idiocy.

I didn't pay this guy, I promise.

I know, which makes me wonder why I'm responding to you. Masochist, I guess.

I wrote fixing monopolies, not creating them. 

You wanna re-read what you wrote, then?

If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all...

That's a monopoly, chummer. One that funds itself by force, no less.

[sturle]

Free?  Are you a commie as well?

That gets funnier every time you do it.
Free was, perhaps, the wrong word. Unmetered would be a better one. Just pay for service and use what you like.

Limited and very expensive then.

Do you have any idea that those would cost to launch those to orbit compared with installing solar arrays on the ground?  And if you want it to your house, you must say good bye to all other satellite communications, because the spectrum passing through to earth is very small, and multiple kW of power will mask all the low powered signals from communication and navigation satellites.

Now that private exploitation of space is starting to become a reality, it's starting to look affordable. If you thing ground-based solar arrays have anything on space-based ones, you have to be kidding me. Zero gravity and no atmosphere? Of course, you have to get these things out of the gravity well but there's a handy big white ball in the sky with 1/6th of the gravity and plentiful quantities of the raw material for solar. The government got bored of that one in the early 70s of course.

The investment in getting to the moon in the first place is way higher than what any company on earth would be able to muster for nothing in financial returns.  And getting there is only the first step.  Do you really think space exploration had come further without the competition between two superpowers with the money to do it for the honour alone?

What!?  Are private companies forbidden access to space in your fscked up country?

It has been very hard for development of space exploration to occur due to the government, yes. I have no doubt it would be the same in your country if it was a place worth launching from.

We have been sending rockets into space for more than 50 years from Andøya Rocket Range.  More than 1000 launches.  And a Norwegian company built the platform and command ship for Sea Launch, and owned 20% in the company.  Sea Launch ended in bankruptcy.  It is a complicated and expensive business.

Your nuclear pile is straight below you.  Drill far enough down, and the power is there.  It doesn't provide electricity directly (nuclear piles don't), but heat you can use to generate electricity.  It isn't regulated, just expensive.  Probably much less expensive than a safe nuclear reactor for home use.

I counter your probably with a "probably not"

How are you going to produce enough fuel for a minimum sized reactor, and keep it safe and contained within, at anything close to the price of drilling a dozen holes a few km down?

This is because your government doesn't do enough for fixing the monopolies.  If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all, you could do with half of your healthcare spendings.  That's almost 9% of your GDP in savings.  If you did it ten years ago, the USA wouldn't have any national debt now, and people and companies wouldn't have to pay insurance money for health either.  If you do it right now, the number will start decreasing.

It is because the government spends with no consequences. The only way to prevent it is to rein in government. When you can just write another check, why not? (until the day you can't).

Most governments can control their spending just fine.  Japan has more net credit than the USA has net debt.  Your country has many problems, and right now it seems the politicians are stuck in some pissing contest instead of doing anything.  The natural consequence should be a total replacement of Congress, but it seems the piss has created so much fog in the cold political environment that people can't see what is going on.

[sturle]

If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all...

That's a monopoly, chummer. One that funds itself by force, no less.

No, it isn't!  You are free to provide healthcare for free or any price as a supplement or alternative to the public service.  Most countries with a public health service have private alternatives for those who want to pay for it.

[myrkul]

If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all...

That's a monopoly, chummer. One that funds itself by force, no less.

No, it isn't!  You are free to provide healthcare for free or any price as a supplement or alternative to the public service.  Most countries with a public health service have private alternatives for those who want to pay for it.

I see. So Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, then?

[sturle]

If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all...

That's a monopoly, chummer. One that funds itself by force, no less.

No, it isn't!  You are free to provide healthcare for free or any price as a supplement or alternative to the public service.  Most countries with a public health service have private alternatives for those who want to pay for it.

I see. So Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, then?

Standard Oil?  What do you think Standard Oil and free public health care have in common?  Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

[myrkul]

If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all...

That's a monopoly, chummer. One that funds itself by force, no less.

No, it isn't!  You are free to provide healthcare for free or any price as a supplement or alternative to the public service.  Most countries with a public health service have private alternatives for those who want to pay for it.

I see. So Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, then?

Standard Oil?  What do you think Standard Oil and free public health care have in common? 

You know a price scheme more "predatory" than free?

Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

Try and get your story straight, chief.

[sturle]

If e.g. the government provided free healthcare for all...

That's a monopoly, chummer. One that funds itself by force, no less.

No, it isn't!  You are free to provide healthcare for free or any price as a supplement or alternative to the public service.  Most countries with a public health service have private alternatives for those who want to pay for it.

I see. So Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, then?

Standard Oil?  What do you think Standard Oil and free public health care have in common? 

You know a price scheme more "predatory" than free?

I don't know anything about Standard Oil.  I think it was run by some John D. Rockefeller, and that's just about all I know.  You really need to explain what you mean here.

Standard Oil produce oil, I guess?  I don't know if they drill for it or refine it or what the heck they do, but the net result is making a product to sell from some natural resource.

Healthcare is completely different from oil.  You can't buy a gallon of healthcare at any gas station.  I already explained why healthcare is a natural monopoly in many cases, and therefore it must be regulated (not necessarily public for that reason).  Oil is not.  You need to explain what you mean by comparing healthcare with oil.

Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

What did I say wasn't a monopoly or is?  I don't get it.