|
hymnofashes (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
First- be adults. I am not trolling. Don't flag me. You seem to be arguing that anti-monopolistic legislation is unwarranted because the government causes monopolies. That doesn't make sense. No one responded to my concerns. You just asserted that the government is really behind monopolies. I can show that monopolies are often behind the government. If you don't define the relationship between the government and business, it will exist anyway, and it will not be subject to democratic input.
freezyfreeze (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Mises was an economic genius. He preached free market and condemned socialism. I especially loved his take on price control. Alot of the time government thinks they are helping, but ultimately hurt. Like when govt. raises min. wage. Mises says if you raise min. wage with no regard to total capital income, raising min. wages actually creates mass unemployment. Leave economics to economists, politics to politics. Govt plays its hand into too much economics and alot of the time fail horribly.
TaylorDykstra (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
most monopolies that have appeared throughout history have been supported by government through protectionism ex. guild monopolies. But even with government sponsored monopolies, the free market will many times find ways around it. The government monopoly imposed on railroads and therefore swift transportation was overcome by the advancement of the automobile. Free market capitalism even has found ways around monopoly.
norcofreerider604 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
An exclusive monopoly is the invention of government, not the market. Since the market is driven by competition, abusive "monopolies" will fail quickly as better goods/services beat it out.
hugolp (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The best way to monopolize a market is having the goverment issuing a law and using people taxes to inforce that law. Otherwise, if you dont use the goverment, you have to pay the effort of keeping the monopoly. And that is very very expensive and ends up in having another company taking over your market anyways.
hymnofashes (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The fundamental problem with laissez-faire economies is that there is a demand in the market for devices and individuals whose purpose is to subvert the market itself by monopolizing information, creating barriers to entry, destroying equality of opportunity, or most commonly creating value for private shareholders by cannibalizing goods in the public sphere.I agree about the gold standard, though.
hymnofashes (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Markets are defined by regulation. (Patent regulations, delimited public goods, etc.) and economies are also subsets of the natural environment. Production decisions are generally consumer-driven, but often also by political forces or the preferences of those who either produce, seize, or happen to inherit (look at the Saudis) valuable capital. I have those reservations about 'free' markets.
voister81 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I plan to read Human Action. Man, as a guy in Science(math) I came to realize Social Science IS NOT CRAP :)). Maybe much more interesting than science!! I'll buy Human Action now.
mj011n1r (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Same here.
scientistwriter (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
dude im the same as you haha. |
