Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[DrSammyD]

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

I can't believe he admitted that! Completely undercuts his case.

[1714095653]

1714095653

[grondilu]

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

I can't believe he admitted that! Completely undercuts his case.

Is it me or this debate is going through an endless loop?

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6775.msg99364#msg99364

Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies.  If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares?   A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only.  It just satisfies demand better.  Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.

Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition.  So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people.  How can that be a bad thing?  If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong.  The other companies can just stop producing/selling.

Say I build a product with some producing cost.  If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now?  Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!

Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company.  Otherwise it's just silly.  Free market just makes this clearer.

[JA37]

Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies.  If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares?   A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only.  It just satisfies demand better.  Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.

Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition.  So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people.  How can that be a bad thing?  If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong.  The other companies can just stop producing/selling.

Say I build a product with some producing cost.  If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now?  Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!

Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company.  Otherwise it's just silly.  Free market just makes this clearer.

Company A serves many markets, they make a lot of money. I figure out how to undercut them in one market, by using new technology and bringing something new to the table. I borrow money at an interest, build up a production line and start marketing my new product. I save enough money to keep everything going for 6 months while sales pick up. Company A sees this, realizes that they can't compete with my product. They then use profits from another market to lower the price of their product, until I go out of business. With no competition, the price goes back up to where they make money again.
I'm screwed. I owe a lot of money to my investors. The consumer is screwed, they didn't see any innovation in the market. How is this a good thing?
The next person who wants to innovate in this market will have a hard time finding investors I think.

Saying that I should stop producing until prices go up again is ignoring reality. I have wages to pay, interest on my loan, rent for machine and property....
I'm assuming here that the product is something non-trivial. Something that goes beyond a lemon stand outside your parents house.

[mouser98]

Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies.  If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares?   A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only.  It just satisfies demand better.  Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.

Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition.  So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people.  How can that be a bad thing?  If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong.  The other companies can just stop producing/selling.

Say I build a product with some producing cost.  If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now?  Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!

Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company.  Otherwise it's just silly.  Free market just makes this clearer.

Company A serves many markets, they make a lot of money. I figure out how to undercut them in one market, by using new technology and bringing something new to the table. I borrow money at an interest, build up a production line and start marketing my new product. I save enough money to keep everything going for 6 months while sales pick up. Company A sees this, realizes that they can't compete with my product. They then use profits from another market to lower the price of their product, until I go out of business. With no competition, the price goes back up to where they make money again.
I'm screwed. I owe a lot of money to my investors. The consumer is screwed, they didn't see any innovation in the market. How is this a good thing?
The next person who wants to innovate in this market will have a hard time finding investors I think.

Saying that I should stop producing until prices go up again is ignoring reality. I have wages to pay, interest on my loan, rent for machine and property....
I'm assuming here that the product is something non-trivial. Something that goes beyond a lemon stand outside your parents house.

that is a thought-provoking scenario, and not an unrealistic one, but the bottom line is that you were under-capitalized.  if your product was sound, your business plan sound, your management team sound, and you were that far into it, why couldn't you attract more capital to weather company A's attack?  company A has to give in sooner or later, they can't keep this up forever, you just have to have enough capital to outlast them.  if you don't, don't blame the free market.

[grondilu]

This is nothing but an other version of "they took our job" whining.   It's annoying as hell.



I don't give a crap about the reasons why someone suddenly starts to sell things at a ridiculously low price.  It is a given and it is outrageous to complain about that.  Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do.   And if they have to shut down, be it.  This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.

[JA37]

that is a thought-provoking scenario, and not an unrealistic one, but the bottom line is that you were under-capitalized.  if your product was sound, your business plan sound, your management team sound, and you were that far into it, why couldn't you attract more capital to weather company A's attack?  company A has to give in sooner or later, they can't keep this up forever, you just have to have enough capital to outlast them.  if you don't, don't blame the free market.

Most new businesses are under capitalized. It's a big risk starting up something new and attracting capital is hard. Most new companies fail during their first year, I hear a number around 80% but you can probably google that.
Why would Company A have to give in sooner or later? Unless they were competing with someone of equal size they don't have to give in at all. They use their profits to kill me off, I use borrowed money to try to stay alive. Guess which one is more sustainable.

I like the free market. I want it to remain free.

[JA37]

 Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do.   And if they have to shut down, be it.  This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.

You're ignoring reality to have it fit your theory.
I think competition is a good thing and would like companies to compete on equal terms. That's what a free market is to me. What's your definition?
It seems that your way of thinking would lead to oligolipolys and less competition.

[BitterTea]

 Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do.   And if they have to shut down, be it.  This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.

You're ignoring reality to have it fit your theory.
I think competition is a good thing and would like companies to compete on equal terms. That's what a free market is to me. What's your definition?
It seems that your way of thinking would lead to oligolipolys and less competition.

I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.

[markm]

I keep coming back to thinking about the transition time between when a Lord would say hey I want you to run my feasting-hall, and put up the materials and labour and so on to build the hall, had his huntsmen and gardeners and fishermen bring in foodstuffs for the feasts and so on...

...And a time when the Lord came up with the brilliant gambit of instead announcing to a large number of wannabe feasting-hall-managers "hey you know what, me and my rich buddies would love to be able to frequent a nice feasting-hall such as any of you fine people could surely manage if only someone would loan you the capital to build it and get it up and running. How about you each borrow enough capital, at interest of course, then me and my rich buddies will maybe actually frequent one of your halls and the rest can be sold into indentured servitude for failure to pay your debts? Heck come to think of it why frequent any one of you? If we can breed a constant stream of suckers er I mean brilliant chefs such as yourselves, we can pick and choose day to day whether to visit any of you and if so which one, and let you all go down the tubes as soon as we have our capital back plus some profit. heck the amusement of the whole setup is itself almost a profit it is such an entertaining notion..."

-MarkM-

[JA37]

I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.

Nothing of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

And laws and regulations, enforced by the state. Fees mostly.

[grondilu]

I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.

Nothing of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

I have nothing against any of these practices.

Example:  so called price fixing:

« where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market. »

There is nothing against free market in companies "colluding" to set prices.  They basically come to a agreement about their prices, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they don't use force to prevent other people to sell at a lower price.

There is a nice video of Walter Block I think, where he mocks that by comparing it to a joke about three guys in a russian prison.

The first guy is asked why he is here and he answered:

-  it's because I had an appointment and I arrived too late.

The second guy said:

- I didn't want to be late so I was there much earlier but they said it wasn't good too.

Then the third guy said:

- I arrived at the exact time and they said I had some secret arrangement to collude with the others in order to be there at the exact time, so it wasn't good either.

Price regulation rules are just as ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

In the end, you are just dictating what people can and cannot do with their property and cripple man's ability to sustain. It is absolutely immoral.

[zef]

I would just like to say that i really support grondilu's arguments. Many believe we need competition for the sake of competition, and therefore many things that would presume to lower competition should be corrected, ie monopoly, or collusion, etc. People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

[compro01]

People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Force is expensive. Besides, the companies should be prepared to defend themselves against force. It should be in their budgets.

When you are competing with a monopoly on force with endless government-funding, it's a different story.

Natural force tends to have very mild effects that can be tackled by the common people.

[compro01]

Force is expensive. Besides, the companies should be prepared to defend themselves against force. It should be in their budgets.

When you are competing with a monopoly on force with endless government-funding, it's a different story.

Natural force tends to have very mild effects that can be tackled by the common people.

1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.

2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball.  obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.

[Anonymous]

Force is expensive. Besides, the companies should be prepared to defend themselves against force. It should be in their budgets.

When you are competing with a monopoly on force with endless government-funding, it's a different story.

Natural force tends to have very mild effects that can be tackled by the common people.

1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.

2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball.  obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.

1. Welcome to life.

2. It's called insurance.

Anyways, if this proves to unsustainable I can only imagine how horribly doomed totally governed systems are.

[zef]

People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly?

I stated no such belief, but i was pointing out that there is a distinction between the two.  I don't think its reasonable to assume that every monopoly obtained legitimately through providing superior services will devolve into force or violence when challenged by competition.

[grondilu]

People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly?

it is based on the fact that people have to be judged for they actually do, not for what you think they might do in some particular circumstances.

[JA37]

2. It's called insurance.

Yes, the state insures us against anticompetitive behaviour from market leaders. Good point.
But I have a feeling that's not what you meant, in which case you were just making a dim-witted point trying very hard not to understand what the OP was saying.