Are monopolies so bad? Part II?

[natedogg]

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

[Cyrus]

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.

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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[AngryCola]

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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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?

[theweatherman]

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?

[Autocratic]

[ 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.

[WillMagic]

[ 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