What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets.

[Findeton]

[Wikipedia] In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μoνoς (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Yeah, under that definition monopolies can actually happen without government intervention. And they do happen.

Let me give you an example: Microsoft. Yeah, Microsoft. Almost everyone uses windows, so hardware designers and computer distributors want their products to be windows compatible. Microsoft had the monopoly so they forced sellers to sell their computers with windows installed if they wanted windows to work on their machines. That is the "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." part. Until that moment there was no government intervention. Fortunately, governments did intervene.

You are kidding me right? Microsoft biggest clients are government administrations. What regulations did the government pass that went against MS except some of the EU with no real impact?

Im not using MS. How is that a monpolly?

Monopollies, that is situation that harm the consumer, can only happen with government intervention.

I can give more examples of monopoly in the "free market". For example, there are many cases in which corporations cooperate instead of competing with each other, establishing a cartel, an oligopoly, a defacto monopoly.

But let's stick with the Microsoft example: there are more windows licenses bought by non-government people than for governments. I'm talking about windows licenses, not for the whole Microsoft product range.

[1714011115]

1714011115

[1714011115]

1714011115

[1714011115]

1714011115

[1714011115]

1714011115

[1714011115]

1714011115

[Anonymous]

Microsoft copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Intellectual property is not possible without government coercion on other's physical property.

In the case of natural monopolies, they are beneficial because they were consented to that position with good reason.

Standard Oil (before it was disbanded) gave us the lowest oil prices we ever had. They mainly formed in the first place because they avoided state-restrictions on interstate trade. So even Standard Oil's monopoly is due to some government restriction.

[Findeton]

Microsoft copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Intellectual property is not possible without government coercion on other's physical property.

Yeah but your position is very radical. I cannot give you any example in which there's no "government coercion on other's physical property" because every country has a government and for example every business has to pay taxes and that's coercion for you.

For the sake of the argument, you must accept that if the coercion is the same for all business, the example is valid. For example, all businesses have to pay 18% VAT. For example, everyone can create copyrighted software. Patents are not valid because they stop you from using ideas, that's a big difference with copyright and that's why I can use Microsoft as an example of monopoly "without" government intervention.

In the case of natural monopolies, they are beneficial because they were consented to that position with good reason.

You should read Adam Smith. He was scared to death of monopolies, NOT ONLY of government monopolies.

[LokeRundt]

Our current unregulated free markets are not fair. Prices fluctuate all the time. Free markets will create too much wealth for people.

lolwut?  Where you living with an unregulated free-market?

Life should be fair.

And yet it is not (regardless of whether or not it "should" be).  For example, I was born with a genetic disposition to a chronic neurological disorder and have to walk with those support canes (with the arm-braces for stability...protip: chicks dig it when you cyber-punk out your disability accouterments).  Saying it's "not fair" or "should have been otherwise" is like saying the sky should be red because I have such an aversion to the color blue (even if the majority of people shared this aversion).  It does not compute

[FreeMoney]

OP is sarcastic.

[LokeRundt]

dammit, people need to use the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags...

[manuelgar]

Our current unregulated free markets are not fair. Prices fluctuate all the time.

This must be a joke.  What unregulated free markets?

The fluctuation of prices are the language of the market.  Flattening prices would be like eliminating pleasure or pain on your nervous system.  You wouldn´t survive very long.

[Sovereign]

I tried make it sound as stupid as possible, so it would be obvious.




The sad thing is, as hard as I tried to be too stupid, it wasn't enough because this is what the average person actual thought process looks like.

[LokeRundt]

I tried make it sound as stupid as possible, so it would be obvious.




The sad thing is, as hard as I tried to be too stupid, it wasn't enough because this is what the average person actual thought process looks like.

Yeah, I haven't been here that long, but this seems about par for some folks here.

I'd recommend either using the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags or just try posting intelligent stuff, there's enough stoopid in the world

[Sovereign]

I tried make it sound as stupid as possible, so it would be obvious.




The sad thing is, as hard as I tried to be too stupid, it wasn't enough because this is what the average person actual thought process looks like.

Yeah, I haven't been here that long, but this seems about par for some folks here.

I'd recommend either using the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags or just try posting intelligent stuff, there's enough stoopid in the world

No. I want to bait these idiots and show them how silly and simplistic their world view is.

[Findeton]

No. I want to bait these idiots and show them how silly and simplistic their world view is.

So you want to eliminate government, taxes, minimum wage, police, public prisons, judges, universal/socialized healthcare, public education, unemplyment compensations, obliged vacations, retirement benefits, maximum number of hours per week, obliged security standards, minimum age for working and at the same time state that anyone that doesn't want to eliminate that is an idiot and simplistic.

Just summarizing.

[Anonymous]

No. I want to bait these idiots and show them how silly and simplistic their world view is.

So you want to eliminate government, taxes, minimum wage, police, judges, universal/socialized healthcare, public education, unemplyment compensations, obliged vacations, retirement benefits, maximum number of hours per week, obliged security standards, minimum age for working and at the same time state that anyone that doesn't want to eliminate that is an idiot and simplistic.

Just summarizing.

No, he does not want to eliminate police, judges, healthcare, education, compensation for valid losses, low working hours nor the ability for people to save for the future.

He actually wants such things actually existing beyond the substandard monopolies on services we have today.

[Findeton]

No, he does not want to eliminate police, judges, healthcare, education, compensation for valid losses, low working hours nor the ability for people to save for the future.

He actually wants such things actually existing beyond the substandard monopolies on services we have today.

Those things exist because people protested and government then enforced it as law, they won't happen in any real way without government intervention. Example: we get those things here in europe because government enforces them, people in china don't get those things because government doesn't enforce it there.

[amincd]

Those things exist because people protested and government then enforced it as law, they won't happen in any real way without government intervention. Example: we get those things here in europe because government enforces them, people in china don't get those things because government doesn't enforce it there.

No, that is not why people in poorer countries don't get those things. It's only because they have less capital relative to their population. Capital concentration is the only determinant of standard of living, and while Europe has a lot now relative to the rest of the world, the ideology of social democracy has resulted in several decades of stagnation.

[Findeton]

the ideology of social democracy has resulted in several decades of stagnation.

It's been neoliberalism that has caused this crisis.

Those things exist because people protested and government then enforced it as law, they won't happen in any real way without government intervention. Example: we get those things here in europe because government enforces them, people in china don't get those things because government doesn't enforce it there.

No, that is not why people in poorer countries don't get those things. It's only because they have less capital relative to their population. Capital concentration is the only determinant of standard of living, and while Europe has a lot now relative to the rest of the world,

We got those benefits here in Europe when the standard of living and productivity was way lower than now. Therefore, all your theory goes to the trash bin.

[amincd]

It's been neoliberalism that has caused this crisis.

You can maybe blame free trade, but there's no way you can blame liberalism in general. Europe has become extremely socialist. In fact, the Western world in general has embraced ever greater levels of government redistribution of earnings, which has led to economic stagnation.

Gov. spending as a % of GDP is the primary determinant of economic growth, and it is at 50% in Europe. Even in countries where it's slightly lower, like in Spain, gov. regulations are so extensive as to give the government significant control over the rest of the economy that is not directly controlled by government. Take Spain's labor market as one instance. It's obstructed by a ridiculous amount of regulation that prevents people from freely hiring/firing staff and offering them wages/benefits.

We got those benefits here in Europe when the standard of living and productivity was way lower than now. Therefore, all your theory goes to the trash bin.

There was no universal health care in Europe 100 years ago. What state provided health care there was was extremely primitive compared to what the governments offer now. On the upside, economic output wasn't confiscated by the government, which allowed Europe's industrial base to expand.

[bustaballs]

Microsoft copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Intellectual property is not possible without government coercion on other's physical property.

In the case of natural monopolies, they are beneficial because they were consented to that position with good reason.

Standard Oil (before it was disbanded) gave us the lowest oil prices we ever had. They mainly formed in the first place because they avoided state-restrictions on interstate trade. So even Standard Oil's monopoly is due to some government restriction.

Standard Oil never had a monopoly by any definition of the word. Even the Supreme Court was unable to prove any monopoly. There's a good chapter on this in a book titled "How Capitalism Saved America".

Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Unfair systems that only benefit the rich are impossible in a free market. Wide-scale long-term poverty is impossible in a free market.

[Hunterbunter]

Fair will always be a matter of opinion. If any group of people try to impose a law or regulation on a market, in a manner they think is fair, there will be those that the law does not suit.

The word regulate only means control, or to channel down a particular path. It's very naive to think that the beings in control can think of every future failing, or of every way that their regulation isn't fair. Humans aren't naturally unfair because they are evil, they're unfair because they are stupid.

[Findeton]

Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Unfair systems that only benefit the rich are impossible in a free market. Wide-scale long-term poverty is impossible in a free market.

Some markets need to be regulated. We need a good enough minimum wage, for example.

[bustaballs]

Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Unfair systems that only benefit the rich are impossible in a free market. Wide-scale long-term poverty is impossible in a free market.

Some markets need to be regulated. We need a good enough minimum wage, for example.

Wrong. Nearly every economist from almost every spectrum of the economic field, be it Keynesian or Austrian, agree that the minimum wage increases unemployment, increases poverty (particularly for minorities), kills many small businesses, and many other serious issues. The minimum wage hurts the poor and never helps them. The minimum wage has zero real benefits. This is true of every regulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI - Walter Williams on the minimum wage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk