Against pvn, Part 1

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
This is false. The very definition of a monopoly is that you cannot buy widgets from any other company than company X, even if you need widgets. For example, replace Imtel with "FoodCorp" and you'll see what I mean. Recognize that monopolies are created where goods have no economic substitute, such as in oil and computer components, so this "consumer choice" you speak of is bogus. It's the very lack of consumer choice that creates the monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imtel doesn't have exclusive control of the supply. They are not a monopoly.

A lack of competitors is not necessarily a lack of competition.

Imtel's actions that hurt competitors are not necessarily actions that hurt competition.

[ QUOTE ]
What's the harm?

Monopolies lead to less competition.

Less competition leads to an inefficient market.

An inefficient market leads to an inefficient allocation of resources.

An inefficient allocation of resources leads to a smaller economy.

A smaller economy == teh bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but there's no monopoly shown here.

[ QUOTE ]
You can be an anarchist. That's fine. But you can't sit there and say a complete laissez-faire market is the most efficient way to run an economy. Unless, of course, you'd like to elaborate on the idiocy of Keynesian economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborating on the idiocy of Keynesian economics is not difficult, but could be quite time consuming.

We could start by pointing out the Keynesian tendency to ignore prices and microeconomic details and focus only on aggregates.

The real problem with Keynesian theory, though is the idea that goverment intervention can reduce unemployment at the cost of increased inflation, or that intervention can reduce inflation at a cost of increased unemployment.

Think about that. The central idea is that by *causing* inflation, by interfering with the proper processes through wich prices are set, that somehow production will increase and unemployment will decrease?

In an unregulated market, unemployment is only caused by one thing - the voluntary decision of the individual to remain unemployed. That decision might be made beause the individual is holding out for a higher wage, but the fact remains that his decision is voluntary. The same can be said for idle production capacity (factories, etc).

Keynesian economics thrives because it justifies government bureaucracy and interventionism. It assumes that people left to their own devices will not be able to sustain an economy. It teaches that government intervention is the only way to prevent inflationary boom and bust cycles. It ignores that such cycles are actually *created* by government intervention in the first place.

Keynesian theory will continue to be pushed because a bureaucrcay will never advocate a system that would advance its own dismantling.