Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

You know, it appears monopolies are truly problematic. But it might help to look at a specific monopoly and see if it actually does result in all the negatives we listed.

Let's try, oh, what the hell: The Public School System.

I'll replace "monopoly" with "public schools" and see if the points are still valid:

1. Public Schools are not beholden to market forces anymore since they have no competitors.

2. Bad customer service. The public school system's customers and consumers have no recourse. They just get [censored] on.

3. The public schools often produces dangerous, substandard environments that we have no choice but to use.

4. The public schools exploit the public at the expense of an elite few.

5. The public school monopoly has undue influence on the government.

6. The public schools only exist as the primary schooling service through recruiting government to create an unfair environment through regulation, taxation, subsidy, or outright prohibition of competitors' products.

7. Only the extremely wealthy can afford to send their kids to the expensive alternatives, the poor must take whatever the the public school system offers.

8. Special interests that are tied to the the public school monopoly get special protections.

9. Public schools create a dead weight loss.

10. Public schools waste resources in order to achieve and maintain their monopoly.

Yep, I think I'm convinced.

Monopolies suck, especially when they have commandeered the power of government to perpetuate their position and squash competitors. It's disgusting.


natedogg

Hard and fast
 

I have a very simple rule : If you have a monopolistic situation, break it up. If you cannot break it up, make it a state-owned monopoly.

This goes the other way around too: If you already have a state-owned monopoly, privatizing it is counter-productive, unless you can introduce competition.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's try, oh, what the hell: The Public School System.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell. Let's try the armed forces!

...But already poster PVN has suggested that we privatize that one.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

The public school system is not a monopoly because it does not have exclusive control over education. Some private schools are expensive, but offer scholarships and work study programs. Other private schools (mainly religious schools) lower tuition through voluntary donations. Home schooling is also available to a lucky few.

A much better example of a government monopoly would be the department of motor vehicles.

Also, I resent the implication that the country would be better off without a public school system. Private schools would not become any cheaper or more available if they were the only option. Capitalism balances itself by adding competition, not removing it.

Public schools may be inferior to private schools, but they are still better than nothing.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Monopolies suck, especially when they have commandeered the power of government to perpetuate their position and squash competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially? How can you have a monopoly without government backing?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalism balances itself by adding competition, not removing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Your statement would be more correct if you said "Capitalism balances itself by not preventing competition."

"Adding competition" is interference. Government-subsidized "competitors" are not truly competing in the same sense that the private players are.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

I'm pretty sure you could have posted this in the other thread. Was there really a need to start a new one?

I'm not going to do anything about the current duplicates, but there seems to be a bit too much of this going on during the last few days. Try to keep the discussion in one thread, guys.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The public school system is not a monopoly because it does not have exclusive control over education.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct, so natedogg's example is a little flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
Private schools would not become any cheaper or more available if they were the only option. Capitalism balances itself by adding competition, not removing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't sound right at all. Do you believe that if there was an increase in the demand for a widget of 50 million people, that the number of widget companies and price would stay the same? Supply and Demand move towards equilibrium, last I checked. Why would this be any different for education?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

wouldnt the price of private schools falling to a level that all can afford (ie free) destroy the very thing that makes the private schools so much better than their public counterparts: a huge pool of money to draw on?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Monopolies suck, especially when they have commandeered the power of government to perpetuate their position and squash competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially? How can you have a monopoly without government backing?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could practically have one without government backing, which often would yield the same effects.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Monopolies suck, especially when they have commandeered the power of government to perpetuate their position and squash competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially? How can you have a monopoly without government backing?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could practically have one without government backing, which often would yield the same effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

Will

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

Regardless of the perfect analogy, no one seems to dispute that the listed items apply to the public school systems.

Any true bleeding-heart should recognize that the system screws over everyone except for those who are wealthy enough to get out, just like a monopoly.

And in fact a given local school district is very much like a monopoly. The district has full control over the school you can use. They even have the rigth to deny you permission to leave the district, even when another district has accepted your child. This happened to a friend of mine.

So... unless you have the money and resources to get private school education, you are in the same relationship as you are with a monopoly.

There is one service provider, the state has set it up so you can only go to them and you must accept whatever they offer. You have no recourse, no input, and no options. They are not subject to meaningful competition. They are mostly composed of special interests that spend most of their time focused on increasing their stranglehold on the state rather than serving their customers.

Why would anyone want to continue this insanity is beyond me

natedogg

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind, and the wealthy further ahead. Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind, and the wealthy further ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just presuming that that would be the case.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind, and the wealthy further ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just presuming that that would be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am, just like you (I assume) would presume that it won't be.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am, just like you (I assume) would presume that it won't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not presuming it either way, although my guess is that it would leave the very poorest further behind, but actually end up being better for the next lowest tier and all tiers above that.

A lot of factors play into something like this. I'd be cautious about making any hard and fast speculative presumptions.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am, just like you (I assume) would presume that it won't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not presuming it either way, although my guess is that it would leave the very poorest further behind, but actually end up being better for the next lowest tier and all tiers above that.

A lot of factors play into something like this. I'd be cautious about making any hard and fast speculative presumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is just an educated guess. Essentially everything about politics/economics is educated guessing. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is just an educated guess. Essentially everything about politics/economics is educated guessing. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have a hard time even listing all the main factors that would be relevant if such a switch were to be implemented, so I think it is likely more a "guess" than an "educated guess", no offense intended. Really, this is a very complex scenario and I doubt if anyone on this board could predict the overall results of such a changeover with any substantial degree of accuracy.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is just an educated guess. Essentially everything about politics/economics is educated guessing. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have a hard time even listing all the main factors that would be relevant if such a switch were to be implemented, so I think it is likely more a "guess" than an "educated guess", no offense intended. Really, this is a very complex scenario and I doubt if anyone on this board could predict the overall results of such a changeover with any substantial degree of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't hesitate much to say that private schooling across the board would negatively effect the very poor, and result in better educations for the wealthy. Do you agree?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hesitate much to say that private schooling across the board would negatively effect the very poor, and result in better educations for the wealthy. Do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it would very likely negatively affect the very poorest. It might not negatively affect the next level of "poor", though, and conceivably might even help them. As for the very wealthy, it might easily have no effect whatsoever upon them.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

no doubt about it. The rich always work over the poor, a terrible side effect of the capitalist system. It seems that this would be obvious to every one, but I'm sure all the rich guys will come and try to tell the simple folk how good it will be for them.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it would very likely negatively affect the very poorest. It might not negatively affect the next level of "poor", though, and conceivably might even help them. As for the very wealthy, it might easily have no effect whatsoever upon them.

[/ QUOTE ]

youd have to add income brackets on your tiers to make this mean anything.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

where does all the money for these vouchers come from? Private schools are great education because they have the money to make it so. If poor districts can onlysupport poor education systems how can they afford to send students to better schools with vouchers?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? This is clearly a ridiculous idea.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

where does all the money for these vouchers come from? Private schools are great education because they have the money to make it so. If poor districts can onlysupport poor education systems how can they afford to send students to better schools with vouchers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are seriously wondering how competition could improve quality? Are you serious?

natedogg

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind,

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't get further behind than zero. And giving vouchers would only be a detriment to those who didn't care. Any parent or child who had any inclination at all would get their child into a better school. We all know it.

[ QUOTE ]
and the wealthy further ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good grief, you people are obsessed. The wealthy are *already* further ahead. Vouchers would do jack squat for the wealthy.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean every poor child, then yes, that is pretty much the point. You don't seriously think I support "vouchers for the wealthy"? Put the poor in public schools/pens and give the wealthy some vouchers?

natedogg