Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Monopolies  (Read 5276 times)

Uhuru

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Monopolies
« on: November 08, 2006, 03:35:49 pm »

I may have missed this being addressed somewhere else, but I was wondering what protections there are to a regional monopoly such as a walmart that drives all competition out of a town, and then keeps other competion from starting by keeping prices artificially low until the new competitor is ruined?
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2006, 03:37:17 pm »

Wal-Mart competes with Target, K-Mart, and, in many areas, supermarkets. Strange kind of monopoly, I'd say.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2006, 03:43:30 pm »

I may have missed this being addressed somewhere else, but I was wondering what protections there are to a regional monopoly such as a walmart that drives all competition out of a town, and then keeps other competion from starting by keeping prices artificially low until the new competitor is ruined?

walmart and other big-box stores are only distribution efficient because we subsidies public infrastructure (Walmart has it's inventory sitting on trucks rolling over our highways) and allow the sky to be used as a dump.

also they are land-use inefficient where we subsidize them via our backwards property tax system (under valuing locations and taxing buildings incents speculation and sprawl).

it is a similar problem as the environment.
Logged

Uhuru

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2006, 03:49:25 pm »

Sounds like a very inhospitible environment for local freemarket entreprenurial competition.  :-(
« Last Edit: November 08, 2006, 03:57:12 pm by Uhuru »
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2006, 03:56:57 pm »

Sounds like a very inhospitible environment for local freemarket entreprenurial competition.

modern libertarians have to somehow shake this belief that big business are somehow anti-regulation and not using covert, subtle privileges to protect themselves from the market.

Rothbard and Hess were pretty clear on this in their day...waxing nostalgically
Logged

Uhuru

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2006, 04:06:45 pm »

It's tough to trust big corporations to regulate themselves when we are well aware of their penchant for rape the planet and everyone on it style tactics.  Think of Enron, and imagine the businesses that weren't caught!
http://www.stopcorporateabusenow.org/campaign/hallofshame
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2006, 04:10:52 pm »

Sounds like a very inhospitible environment for local freemarket entreprenurial competition.

modern libertarians have to somehow shake this belief that big business are somehow anti-regulation and not using covert, subtle privileges to protect themselves from the market.

Rothbard and Hess were pretty clear on this in their day...waxing nostalgically

It's impossible to know whether Wal-Mart would survive in a free market; I happen to believe that it would... I fully realize that many big businesses survive solely because of government subsidy, but I find it hard to believe that things like aircraft manufacturing, Internet pipeline services, pharmaceutical research and development, and manufacturing and retail of simple, mass-produced products could be done efficiently by local mom and pop businesses. "Big" does not necessarily equal "good," but it does not necessarily equal "bad" either.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2006, 04:20:54 pm »

if sharks are incredibly efficient killing machines then corporations are simply one great big, efficient, cost shifting machine - taking from what is classified as "unowned" by the neo-classicals of the environment and turning it into useful products and then using the environment as a dump socializing the costs.

the problem lies at the feet of the neo-classical revolution in economics which created what we call today the dismal science of economics (the classical liberals studied "political economy" a social science).

it is "dismal" because it was designed with an inherent flaw (we talked about in the environment post) that can only give us negative externalities and never give us true cost pricing.

so just like the shark killing being amoral we should think of the corporation as simply a reflection of it's internal nature.

we tried to create an amoral system of efficient distribution (invisible hand) and instead have wildly incentivized immoral behavior - the destruction of the environment and the violation of the rights of self-ownership of those excluded by the privilege to enclose what had formerly been owned in common as an individual equal access right.

the way to fix it is not so much to demonize corporations but rather to understand and address root causes.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2006, 04:32:11 pm »

if sharks are incredibly efficient killing machines then corporations are simply one great big, efficient, cost shifting machine - taking from what is classified as "unowned" by the neo-classicals of the environment and turning it into useful products and then using the environment as a dump socializing the costs.

the problem lies at the feet of the neo-classical revolution in economics which created what we call today the dismal science of economics (the classical liberals studied "political economy" a social science).

it is "dismal" because it was designed with an inherent flaw (we talked about in the environment post) that can only give us negative externalities and never give us true cost pricing.

so just like the shark killing being amoral we should think of the corporation as simply a reflection of it's internal nature.

we tried to create an amoral system of efficient distribution (invisible hand) and instead have wildly incentivized immoral behavior - the destruction of the environment and the violation of the rights of self-ownership of those excluded by the privilege to enclose what had formerly been owned in common as an individual equal access right.

the way to fix it is not so much to demonize corporations but rather to understand and address root causes.

Any evidence that "large" corporations pollute more than "small" ones (or than government or consumers)?
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2006, 04:32:56 pm »

Sounds like a very inhospitible environment for local freemarket entreprenurial competition.

modern libertarians have to somehow shake this belief that big business are somehow anti-regulation and not using covert, subtle privileges to protect themselves from the market.

Rothbard and Hess were pretty clear on this in their day...waxing nostalgically

It's impossible to know whether Wal-Mart would survive in a free market; I happen to believe that it would... I fully realize that many big businesses survive solely because of government subsidy, but I find it hard to believe that things like aircraft manufacturing, Internet pipeline services, pharmaceutical research and development, and manufacturing and retail of simple, mass-produced products could be done efficiently by local mom and pop businesses. "Big" does not necessarily equal "good," but it does not necessarily equal "bad" either.

there are overt subsidies and then the mother of all root causes - covert statist privileges.l

yes possibly but neither does it portend that the structure of those business have to be traditional corporate hierachy either...for example there is Emila-Romagna and Mondragon.

the single most decisive step in making small-scale production competitive against the large factory was the invention of electricity, along with the rest of what Lewis Mumford called the "neotechnic revolution." The invention of small, electric-powered production machinery enabled production to take place anywhere, at or near the point of consumption, instead of being dependent on some giant prime mover like a river or a steam engine. In terms of purely internal unit costs of production, small-scale production is considerably less efficient than the factory. But when the drastically reduced distribution costs are
factored in (all heavily subsidized and privileged by the state) , goods produced with modern machinery in the home or small shop are significantly cheaper.

have you ever looked in detail at the work of the "real" Ralph Borsodi a radical decentralist homesteader?

he did extensive studies of all the cost-inputs involved in the home growing and canning of vegetables, the raising of cereal grains for bread, the raising of livestock, and home spinning and weaving, and found that in every case these things could be done with less total cost (including the labor) than buying them from the store.
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2006, 04:38:45 pm »

if sharks are incredibly efficient killing machines then corporations are simply one great big, efficient, cost shifting machine - taking from what is classified as "unowned" by the neo-classicals of the environment and turning it into useful products and then using the environment as a dump socializing the costs.

the problem lies at the feet of the neo-classical revolution in economics which created what we call today the dismal science of economics (the classical liberals studied "political economy" a social science).

it is "dismal" because it was designed with an inherent flaw (we talked about in the environment post) that can only give us negative externalities and never give us true cost pricing.

so just like the shark killing being amoral we should think of the corporation as simply a reflection of it's internal nature.

we tried to create an amoral system of efficient distribution (invisible hand) and instead have wildly incentivized immoral behavior - the destruction of the environment and the violation of the rights of self-ownership of those excluded by the privilege to enclose what had formerly been owned in common as an individual equal access right.

the way to fix it is not so much to demonize corporations but rather to understand and address root causes.

Any evidence that "large" corporations pollute more than "small" ones (or than government or consumers)?

it is not so much about size as it is about ownership structure...

we know that a basic tenet of the civic humanism philsophy includes one of scale...people achieve individual liberty while practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face to face, participatory, democratic cultural institutions.

people don't foul their own or their neighbors nests because they are held accountable for their actions while living in a community.

this is the problem with global corporations - they are sharks unleashed in schools of minnows (communities).
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2006, 04:53:41 pm »

Sounds like a very inhospitible environment for local freemarket entreprenurial competition.

modern libertarians have to somehow shake this belief that big business are somehow anti-regulation and not using covert, subtle privileges to protect themselves from the market.

Rothbard and Hess were pretty clear on this in their day...waxing nostalgically

It's impossible to know whether Wal-Mart would survive in a free market; I happen to believe that it would... I fully realize that many big businesses survive solely because of government subsidy, but I find it hard to believe that things like aircraft manufacturing, Internet pipeline services, pharmaceutical research and development, and manufacturing and retail of simple, mass-produced products could be done efficiently by local mom and pop businesses. "Big" does not necessarily equal "good," but it does not necessarily equal "bad" either.

there are overt subsidies and then the mother of all root causes - covert statist privileges.l

yes possibly but neither does it portend that the structure of those business have to be traditional corporate hierachy either...for example there is Emila-Romagna and Mondragon.

the single most decisive step in making small-scale production competitive against the large factory was the invention of electricity, along with the rest of what Lewis Mumford called the "neotechnic revolution." The invention of small, electric-powered production machinery enabled production to take place anywhere, at or near the point of consumption, instead of being dependent on some giant prime mover like a river or a steam engine. In terms of purely internal unit costs of production, small-scale production is considerably less efficient than the factory. But when the drastically reduced distribution costs are
factored in (all heavily subsidized and privileged by the state) , goods produced with modern machinery in the home or small shop are significantly cheaper.

have you ever looked in detail at the work of the "real" Ralph Borsodi a radical decentralist homesteader?

he did extensive studies of all the cost-inputs involved in the home growing and canning of vegetables, the raising of cereal grains for bread, the raising of livestock, and home spinning and weaving, and found that in every case these things could be done with less total cost (including the labor) than buying them from the store.


Well, again, I find it hard to believe that advanced robotics technology or high-tech laboratory pharma research could be deployed effectively "in the home or small shop." In the economics research I've read, industry structure tends to conform closely to expected economies of scale, implying that, as regulated as our economy is, competitive market dynamics are still the main driving factor behind industry structure (including concentration). Just for instance - horizontally integrated multinational firms tend to be concentrated in industries with high R&D or advertising expenditures, matching theoretical expectations about how knowledge impactedness creates incentives for merger and acquisition over a more decentralized pattern of contractual market relationships (Richard Caves).
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Uhuru

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2006, 07:13:45 pm »

Sounds like a very inhospitible environment for local freemarket entreprenurial competition.

modern libertarians have to somehow shake this belief that big business are somehow anti-regulation and not using covert, subtle privileges to protect themselves from the market.

Rothbard and Hess were pretty clear on this in their day...waxing nostalgically

It's impossible to know whether Wal-Mart would survive in a free market; I happen to believe that it would... I fully realize that many big businesses survive solely because of government subsidy, but I find it hard to believe that things like aircraft manufacturing, Internet pipeline services, pharmaceutical research and development, and manufacturing and retail of simple, mass-produced products could be done efficiently by local mom and pop businesses. "Big" does not necessarily equal "good," but it does not necessarily equal "bad" either.

there are overt subsidies and then the mother of all root causes - covert statist privileges.l

yes possibly but neither does it portend that the structure of those business have to be traditional corporate hierachy either...for example there is Emila-Romagna and Mondragon.

the single most decisive step in making small-scale production competitive against the large factory was the invention of electricity, along with the rest of what Lewis Mumford called the "neotechnic revolution." The invention of small, electric-powered production machinery enabled production to take place anywhere, at or near the point of consumption, instead of being dependent on some giant prime mover like a river or a steam engine. In terms of purely internal unit costs of production, small-scale production is considerably less efficient than the factory. But when the drastically reduced distribution costs are
factored in (all heavily subsidized and privileged by the state) , goods produced with modern machinery in the home or small shop are significantly cheaper.

have you ever looked in detail at the work of the "real" Ralph Borsodi a radical decentralist homesteader?

he did extensive studies of all the cost-inputs involved in the home growing and canning of vegetables, the raising of cereal grains for bread, the raising of livestock, and home spinning and weaving, and found that in every case these things could be done with less total cost (including the labor) than buying them from the store.


Well, again, I find it hard to believe that advanced robotics technology or high-tech laboratory pharma research could be deployed effectively "in the home or small shop." In the economics research I've read, industry structure tends to conform closely to expected economies of scale, implying that, as regulated as our economy is, competitive market dynamics are still the main driving factor behind industry structure (including concentration). Just for instance - horizontally integrated multinational firms tend to be concentrated in industries with high R&D or advertising expenditures, matching theoretical expectations about how knowledge impactedness creates incentives for merger and acquisition over a more decentralized pattern of contractual market relationships (Richard Caves).

Naturally, there are many industries that require a massive organizational and technical structure to function, which other complex industries are necessary to compete.  but in middle man type industries such as retail and services, along with small scale production like agriculture and light manufacturing, entrepreneurs in a free market system should be allowed to jump in at any time.

Could for instance, a Target open up in a town in NH, and I rent a chunk of land across the street and erect a small kiosk that sells locally designed clothing, some garden herbs and imported crafts?  I'm not sure since I have not yet been to NH.  In Pennsylvania, you need all these licenses and permits for business, etc. etc.

I lived in Kenya for about 2.5 years, and in 2000 - 2001, they had a full blown free market system with regard to retail.  Kiosks were everywhere lining the streets selling anything you can find, all in competition with each other.  Thailand was also similar in their form of capitalism from what I saw.
Logged

Uhuru

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2006, 07:19:48 pm »

What is good is that all of these things are open for rational debate and the Free State Movement isn't a strict unyielding black and white ideology.

The best part is that we are merely discussing the finer details of governance rather than the complete diversions that riddle the political debate in the rest of the country.

How much time has been wasted fighting the theocratic movement in this country?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2006, 07:22:53 pm by Uhuru »
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Monopolies
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2006, 07:32:39 pm »

Quote
In Pennsylvania, you need all these licenses and permits for business, etc. etc.
yes the business currently in place don't want the competition so lobby for these regulations...theft by political means.

it is my contention that when all statist privilege, subsidies, tarrifs, etc. are removed which would effect distribution & land use most acutely that local and small-scale will ALWAYS be less expensive.

but the history of state capitalism has been a never ending cycle between wealth building via labor and the political class that then steals the wealth of those who labor via statist privilege...the privilege first leads to primitive accumulation (like the enclosure of the commons in England), then over-accumulation/labor shortages and then successive cycles of under consumption and labor surpluses only to start again with another interjection of statism (example being Keynesianism).

to read more:

http://www.jackross.net/theidyllic/php/article.php?article=35

http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html



Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up