[+Donny]

When I'm denied a second, viable, option; it's a monopoly.

You said this: "All the staples of the economy. Phone service, electric service, water, sewer, cable, gas..."

For phone service, there are multiple options, and they are competitive. For electric, you are right, as far as I know. For water, I think that's run by the city, as is sewage, which is government enforced monopoly and not natural. Same for garbage disposal, though it used to be free market, and there used to be multiple companies.
Cable, there is satellite to compete with, so given the legitimate substitute, it isn't a true monopoly, at least in the sense that they can charge horrific prices. Gas, I have no clue.

This is all for my local area.

a mall :P

A mall is a collection of stores. And a lot of people hate malls.

You'll find I run the gambit... but that most of the areas I'm conservative (and I think there are more than where I'm liberal) are the areas that the left is conservative. (for clarity, I've defined "conservative" as "lazie-faire", and "liberal" as "socialist")

Ill keep that in mind.

Care to share the numbers you are using?

No, because then I would have to make them up.

1. Other poducts to pick up the slack.

How did they get that big in the first place? They have to start in a smaller market and build up.

2. Other stores to pick up the slack.

Other stores are in similar competition.

[JerryLove]

You said this: "All the staples of the economy. Phone service, electric service, water, sewer, cable, gas..."

For phone service, there are multiple options, and they are competitive. For electric, you are right, as far as I know. For water, I think that's run by the city, as is sewage, which is government enforced monopoly and not natural. Same for garbage disposal, though it used to be free market, and there used to be multiple companies.
Cable, there is satellite to compete with, so given the legitimate substitute, it isn't a true monopoly, at least in the sense that they can charge horrific prices. Gas, I have no clue.

This is all for my local area.

Hrm... how to explain.

Phone service: Out of physical neccessity, there are only one set of phone lines coming into my house. The requirement to run cables across the US from evereyone who has service to everyone else makes having multiple sets impossible... it's a natural monopoly.

So in my area (or anyone else's) there is one set of lines owned by one entity. That entity has a monopoly on phone service and, in a purely capitalistic economy, could (and likely would) lock out all competition and force you to buy their service at their price.

The fact that you have competition is because of governmental intervention. The government used to directly regulate prices and services, in order to get around this, MaBell created ATnT and sold long-distance to itself. The government then stepped in and required the local bells to provide access to other long-distance companies and let the users choose. Have no doubt that without this government intervention, you would still have only one long-distance provider.

Cable: Same boat though without the history.

Electric service, water, sewer: Are also controlled by government intervention specifically to prevent explotation of the monopoly. I'm pointing out the dangers of "pure capitalism" (which is not going on in the US) in terms of the fact that compeating water companies are not reasonably possible.

At the most extreme, any water or roads would be impossable as it would require private companies to build with cooperation from everyone in-route (why do I want to let your sewer pipe run through my lawn?).

A mall is a collection of stores. And a lot of people hate malls.

A lot of people hate WalMart. Though I have my own idea on how I would build a WalMart competitor that would be more flexable and modular. It would be somewhere between WalMart and a one-company mall (kind of like the old Montgomery Wards, but better).

No, because then I would have to make them up.

LOL

How did they get that big in the first place? They have to start in a smaller market and build up.

It varies. Get a backer and buy a company. Use the new assets to get a loan to buy another and merge... use your now bigger still assets to again merge. etc.etc. Do you really think all these bank buy-outs were funded with profits? WalMart didn't build new stores on the profit from the old ones.

Other stores are in similar competition.

Not neccessairily. I can kill smaller competition one area at a time. If I can keep one city afloat at a loss long enough to drive everyone out, I can inflate its prices to help fund another city... wash, rinse, repeat. If someone expands into one of my cities, I hit them early when their expenses are high and their cash reserves are low.

[RhythmicAndy]

I was just wondering, if Communism works so well, then why was everyone trying to leave Russia and everyone trying to leave China and Cuba?
I have a family friend who escaped from Cuba and almost died to reach America. He said in Cuba people don't live, they just survive, it is an oppressed and poor country.

If capitalism is corrupted,unequal, and gilded than why does the U.S. have the highest immigration numbers in the world?

In theory Communism believes that everyone can be equal and the world be fair, except when you put it into action it fails.

Qingu said: You appear to be living in a dream world

There is your dream world Qingu. The world isn't fair, if Communism thought it could make it that way, they are dreaming.

[JerryLove]

I was just wondering, if Communism works so well, then why was everyone trying to leave Russia and everyone trying to leave China and Cuba?

If dolphins are so smart, how come they live in igloos?

If capitalism is corrupted,unequal, and gilded than why does the U.S. have the highest immigration numbers in the world?

If a train leaves Chicago at 5am with 20 passengers, and another leaves LA travelling 45mph, then how, Mr.Moroni, did your fingerprints goet on the murder weapon?

Since no one is asserting that communism works, and since the US isn't a purely capatalist economy, WTH are you talking about?

[+Donny]

Hrm... how to explain.

Phone service: Out of physical neccessity, there are only one set of phone lines coming into my house. The requirement to run cables across the US from evereyone who has service to everyone else makes having multiple sets impossible... it's a natural monopoly.

I was referring to the actual phone service providers, though that has mainly switched over to cell phone competition for the average consumer.

So in my area (or anyone else's) there is one set of lines owned by one entity. That entity has a monopoly on phone service and, in a purely capitalistic economy, could (and likely would) lock out all competition and force you to buy their service at their price.

The fact that you have competition is because of governmental intervention. The government used to directly regulate prices and services, in order to get around this, MaBell created ATnT and sold long-distance to itself. The government then stepped in and required the local bells to provide access to other long-distance companies and let the users choose. Have no doubt that without this government intervention, you would still have only one long-distance provider.

Okay, true, and this is true because of how small the phone bill is. If it was a major expense, people could move to other areas for other providers.
But yet, in that market, a monopoly is easy and I see government interference legitimate.

Cable: Same boat though without the history.

But there is a valid supplement, just as cell phones would serve to prevent local phone service providers from getting ridiculous in pricing.

Electric service, water, sewer: Are also controlled by government intervention specifically to prevent explotation of the monopoly. I'm pointing out the dangers of "pure capitalism" (which is not going on in the US) in terms of the fact that compeating water companies are not reasonably possible.

And I suppose in such extreme examples, the government should intervene, but they have to make sure they don't intervene too much (which means we agree, which is terrifying).

the most extreme, any water or roads would be impossable as it would require private companies to build with cooperation from everyone in-route (why do I want to let your sewer pipe run through my lawn?).

I think it's potentially doable, but a hell of a lot easier, I'm sure, for the roads to all be done by government so they have better organization.

A lot of people hate WalMart. Though I have my own idea on how I would build a WalMart competitor that would be more flexable and modular. It would be somewhere between WalMart and a one-company mall (kind of like the old Montgomery Wards, but better).

So a mall under one name? That's true, Walmart doesn't have a food court and doesn't specialize like a mall. You would really need a grocery store, though, and no mall I have ever seen has that.

It varies. Get a backer and buy a company. Use the new assets to get a loan to buy another and merge... use your now bigger still assets to again merge. etc.etc. Do you really think all these bank buy-outs were funded with profits? WalMart didn't build new stores on the profit from the old ones.

Yeah, I know, but that takes time and isn't automatic. While they are doing that, they don't have the money to price-gouge, and maybe the other stores in the area do.

Not neccessairily. I can kill smaller competition one area at a time. If I can keep one city afloat at a loss long enough to drive everyone out, I can inflate its prices to help fund another city... wash, rinse, repeat. If someone expands into one of my cities, I hit them early when their expenses are high and their cash reserves are low.

Okay, true; then I guess I'm more skeptical about the ease of getting that dominatingly big in the first place with no competition that is that big.

[JerryLove]

I was referring to the actual phone service providers, though that has mainly switched over to cell phone competition for the average consumer.

The appearance of cell-phone towers does poke a modern hole in an old problem... assuming that you don't mind that your cellphone doesn't talk to any groundlines. I think in an unrestricted MaBell monopoly, we would never have seen cellphones from non-MaBell people.

Okay, true, and this is true because of how small the phone bill is. If it was a major expense, people could move to other areas for other providers.

Perhaps we can agree to exclude "you can move" as a reaponse? It begs the question of why it would be better where you moved to and can be reduced to absurdity with "you can move out of the capatalist country".

But yet, in that market, a monopoly is easy and I see government interference legitimate.
[...]
I think it's potentially doable, but a hell of a lot easier, I'm sure, for the roads to all be done by government so they have better organization.

I agree... but in doing so, we've moved into the world of governmental regulation. The question is no longer "do you interfere" but "where, how, and how much"... the question plaguing most economies in the world.

So a mall under one name? That's true, Walmart doesn't have a food court and doesn't specialize like a mall. You would really need a grocery store, though, and no mall I have ever seen has that.

"like a mall"... but I'm digressing into my own "this would be a neat store" fantasy.

Yeah, I know, but that takes time and isn't automatic. While they are doing that, they don't have the money to price-gouge, and maybe the other stores in the area do.

The first bull to get fat can run off the other bulls from the food and keep getting fatter while they loose weight.

Okay, true; then I guess I'm more skeptical about the ease of getting that dominatingly big in the first place with no competition that is that big.

It eventually happens. Take away regulation preventing it and I could imagine several companies, or small groups of companies (RIAA for example) that could do it.

[+Donny]

The appearance of cell-phone towers does poke a modern hole in an old problem... assuming that you don't mind that your cellphone doesn't talk to any groundlines. I think in an unrestricted MaBell monopoly, we would never have seen cellphones from non-MaBell people.

How would they have established a monopoly on cell phones? Isn't the technology entirely different? If the basis of their monopoly was power lines...

Perhaps we can agree to exclude "you can move" as a reaponse? It begs the question of why it would be better where you moved to and can be reduced to absurdity with "you can move out of the capatalist country".

Well, that depends. It is a legitimate response for major expenses, like real estate, but not so for small ones, like groceries and phone bills.

I agree... but in doing so, we've moved into the world of governmental regulation. The question is no longer "do you interfere" but "where, how, and how much"... the question plaguing most economies in the world.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

The first bull to get fat can run off the other bulls from the food and keep getting fatter while they loose weight.

Provided the other bulls don't team up on him or there isn't another around it's size.

It eventually happens. Take away regulation preventing it and I could imagine several companies, or small groups of companies (RIAA for example) that could do it.

Yes, and that is why you see more and more oligopolies forming. Again, the community association management market seems to be one the road to an oligopoly fairly obviously. Because not all markets are easily made nationwide at the beginning, as technology develops and the market expands, the company that may have taken over one area comes in conflict with other companies of other areas and is forced to compete again evenly.

[JerryLove]

How would they have established a monopoly on cell phones? Isn't the technology entirely different? If the basis of their monopoly was power lines...

Imagine you are living in 1980 in a country where all the phones are owned by MaBell and she won't sell you access to the phone lines. You get some money to put up some towers and sell cell service.

"who can I call" your first customer asks.
"no one, not until other people buy cellphones, and then you can call only them", you reply.

Think they'd sell well?

Well, that depends. It is a legitimate response for major expenses, like real estate, but not so for small ones, like groceries and phone bills.

But we can't really do "major" by cost. You'd be saying abuse was not possible by asserting it would definately not be endemic.

Provided the other bulls don't team up on him or there isn't another around it's size.

An early coalition aginst a single growing rival would week before the monopoly set in... but that gang would then have its own monopoly and could just as easily decide to use their collective power to do what the monopoly would have done.

[+Donny]

Imagine you are living in 1980 in a country where all the phones are owned by MaBell and she won't sell you access to the phone lines. You get some money to put up some towers and sell cell service.

"who can I call" your first customer asks.
"no one, not until other people buy cellphones, and then you can call only them", you reply.

Think they'd sell well?

I think that, over time, MaBell would eventually fall to the fact that cell phones kick butt. I mean, come on, they have cool ringtones.

But we can't really do "major" by cost. You'd be saying abuse was not possible by asserting it would definately not be endemic.

No no, I didn't say abuse wasn't possible, I just said there was a ceiling in every market, some absurdly high, some not high at all, depending on the circumstances.

An early coalition aginst a single growing rival would week before the monopoly set in... but that gang would then have its own monopoly and could just as easily decide to use their collective power to do what the monopoly would have done.

Shut up, Jerry. Fine, such coalitions should be (and are) illegal.
Oil anyone?

[Dark Tofu]

I'd respond if I knew much more about governments.

[JerryLove]

It's a dead thread. Leave it alone.

[Dark Tofu]

Why is it a dead thread, you two were really going at it and I enjoyed reading it. I don't see a clear winner.