Are monopolies so bad?

[natedogg]

I can think of some reasons:

Monopolies are not beholden to market forces anymore since they have no competitors.

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

The unchecked monopoly often produces dangerous, substandard products that we have no choice but to use.

Exploitation of the public at the expense of an elite few.

It leads to the monopoly having undue influence on the government.

The monopoly usually only achieves monopoly status by recruiting government to create an unfair environment through regulation, taxation, subsidy, or outright prohibition of competitors' products.

Only the extremely wealthy can afford to consume the expensive alternatives, the poor must take whatever the monopoly offers.

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

Any others?

natedogg

[Matty]

You damn dirty Socialist.

I can't wait to see where this goes!

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The monopoly usually only achieves monopoly status by recruiting government to create an unfair environment through regulation, taxation, subsidy, or outright prohibition of competitors' products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Delete "usually" and you've got it right.

[whiskeytown]

first time I've ever agreed with pvn - it'll probably be the last, but what the hell.

RB

[ptmusic]

Monopolies create a dead weight loss.

Monopolies waste resources in order to achieve and maintain their monopoly (kind of covered in your points).

-ptmusic

[bholdr]

It's pretty clear that monopolies are one of the major problems with unrestricted capitalisim, but not all monopolies have to be bad...

there are certian industries, such as telecom, energy, defense, etc, that are 'natural monopolies'- areas where free market forces don't really encourage competition that benifits both the business and the consumer, mostly because of logistical forces and infrastructure/capital requirments... service and product improves as competition diminishes, but when the monopoly is in place, the incentive to provide good products and services disappears...

some countries try to control this through regulation, some socialist nations handle it by nationalizing those industries... neither solution is complete, as regulation is complicated and expensive, and government isn't always that efficient [/understatment].


I'd like to hear your thoughts on natural monopolies and how to handle them, natedogg.

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty clear that monopolies are one of the major problems with unrestricted capitalisim,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in fact, monopolies are one of the problems of regulated and govt-subsidized capitalism.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear your thoughts on natural monopolies and how to handle them, natedogg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural monopolies are fictional. There's never, ever, ever been a documented case of one actually existing. The concept is used by government to justify the awarding of lucrative monopolies to politically-connected companies.

The idea that some industries are more efficient with less (or rather, NO) competition is simply and obviously not bourne out by historical fact.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear your thoughts on natural monopolies and how to handle them, natedogg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural monopolies are fictional. There's never, ever, ever been a documented case of one actually existing...The idea that some industries are more efficient with less (or rather, NO) competition is simply and obviously not bourne out by historical fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there are no sectors in which despite allowed competition one company has come to dominate to the exclusion of all others in a given geographical area? That has genuinely never happened? Not even in for example water distribution? I'd be interested to hear more.

"The concept is used by government to justify the awarding of lucrative monopolies to politically-connected companies."

Your explanation of them is weird; generally natural monopolies are used to justify state control of a sector rather than "giving lucrative monopolies" to cronies.