When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[Jdanz]

clearly i don't really care about this one instance, it's more the general tone.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Legislating based on what "might" happen or even what is "likely" to happen is oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if scientific research establishes with reasonable certainty that artificially created substance XYZ causes the evolution and spreading of a virus that is "likely" to lethally attack the human body and without any antidote currently existing, you are saying that any law that aims at regulating the manufacturing, possession or trading of substance XYZ is "oppression".

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your system, imagine that I'm sued and lose to the tune of $100,000. Now what, I'm not paying. What are you going to do about it? No real means to collect a judgment. Go F*** yourself, you aren't getting a dime from me

[/ QUOTE ] Nobody else in the community will trade with a deadbeat who won't make good on his obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What this translates to is simple enough:

If you gonna screw 'em, screw 'em good! Not for some measly dollars!
Go for the retirement amount!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Since it's so obvious, maybe you could provide an example where prices rose as a result of unfettered competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt really want to go down this road, but you seem adamant, so I'll bite.



In general, deregulation occurs when the industry in question no longer fulfills the conditions of a natural monopoly. It follows then that deregulation is unlikely to cause higher prices. To a large degree then, your question is meaningless. That said, a good answer to your question is cable television. There was an article in the Rand Journal of Economics, Market Power and Price Increases for Basic Cable Service Since Deregulation, Spring 1993, R. Rubinovitz, that addresses this point. Here is the abstract from that paper:

Since the deregulation of rates for basic cable television service, increases in price have outpaced the rate of inflation. This article examines whether or not cable systems' increased market power, or their increased exercise of market power, explains these price increases. An estimated "quasi-supply" function for cable systems before and after deregulation implies that real basic cable prices increased 18% since deregulation, holding quality and other costs constant, accounting for 43% of the total real price increase. A demand equation is also estimated, and the estimated demand elasticity of basic cable does not change after deregulation, implying that this 18% real price increase is due to greater exercise of existing market power, made possible by the elimination of price regulation, rather to an increase in market power caused by a change in the demand elasticity for cable.




There are also later papers that show that the quality adjusted price of cable services has risen since deregulation.

Again, when you make claims like "natural monopolies are a myth", you undermine the credibility of your arguments. Even U. of Chicago economists, a notably anti-interventionist group as a whole, dont deny the existence of natural monopoly.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, deregulation occurs when the industry in question no longer fulfills the conditions of a natural monopoly. It follows then that deregulation is unlikely to cause higher prices. To a large degree then, your question is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've simply sidestepped my question. I'm asking for an actual example of a natural monopoly - where the introduction of competition led to higher prices. Possibly when a market was "prematurely" deregulated, for instance, with harmful results.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the deregulation of rates for basic cable television service, increases in price have outpaced the rate of inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in almost every market, cable operators have government-granted monopoly. Obviously, when you prevent other cable operators from operating in an area, then remove rate regulation for the monopoly, you get gouging. This is not an example for your case.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, when you make claims like "natural monopolies are a myth", you undermine the credibility of your arguments. Even U. of Chicago economists, a notably anti-interventionist group as a whole, dont deny the existence of natural monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for your example since it's so obvious that I'm wrong.