[SolarCross]

To what extent do you support (by voting, campaigning, wistful wishing, agitprop, activism or terrorism) legal* monopolies?

*a "legal" monopoly is defined here as an actual monopoly not a metaphorical or allegorical monopoly as for instance "natural" monopolies. IE: a monopoly where a person, party or group are using force to remove, acquire or destroy independent actors in the business or trade.

[Hong Wu]

It's complicated these days by the need to have tech giants compete internationally while being heavily regulated (or they probably should be) but social networks and local stuff should not monopolise.

[SolarCross]

Already some troll has voted "other".

[Truth To Power]

To what extent do you support (by voting, campaigning, wistful wishing, agitprop, activism or terrorism) legal* monopolies?

Competition is generally beneficial, but in certain naturally monopolistic industries like utilities and transport infrastructure it is wasteful. Those should be run as public monopolies, like the roads. Thatcher privatized water supply utilities in the UK, but the private ones became more expensive and less efficient than public ones. It is also notable that where US cities have private power utilities, whether monopolistic or competing, electricity is more expensive than where it is provided by a public monopoly power utility.

[SolarCross]

Competition is generally beneficial, but in certain naturally monopolistic industries like utilities and transport infrastructure it is wasteful. Those should be run as public monopolies, like the roads. Thatcher privatized water supply utilities in the UK, but the private ones became more expensive and less efficient than public ones. It is also notable that where US cities have private power utilities, whether monopolistic or competing, electricity is more expensive than where it is provided by a public monopoly power utility.

How much of that cheapness is down to efficiency and how much to subsidies from the general tax take?

If company A gets tax from company B and uses that revenue to make its products cheaper than company B is it really cheaper?

[B0ycey]

If company A gets tax from company B and uses that revenue to make its products cheaper than company B is it really cheaper?

Competition drives down cost so yes.

Although not against monopolies per se, penalties in the form of corporation tax and subsidises are needed to keep competition in vital services high to drive down living costs.

[SolarCross]

^ that literally makes no sense.

----

I voted 1. no monopolies (ancap) but I very nearly went with 2 (minarchist). I think 2 is pretty okay in all honesty as long as the military monopoly is okay with people emigrating if they want.

[B0ycey]

^ that literally makes no sense.

So Adam Smith makes no sense?

Competition is the regulator of self interest. As known by most as the invisible hand. Educate yourself.

[SolarCross]

So Adam Smith makes no sense?

Competition is the regulator of self interest. As known by most as the invisible hand. Educate yourself.

A legal entitlement to steal is not "competition". Putting arbitrary expenses on companies can't very well make them cheaper because they have to pass as much of that expense as they can on the consumer.

[B0ycey]

A legal entitlement to steal is not "competition". Putting arbitrary expenses on companies can't very well make them cheaper because they have to pass as much of that expense as they can on the consumer.

You are not repeating VSs mantra that tax is theft are you? Very well. Let there be monopolies on on luxury items if the conditions are right for such a product to exist to encourage ingenuity and productivity. But things like water and fuel etc. no - unless you feel like paying your rent again filling your taxi up.

[SolarCross]

You are not repeating VSs mantra that tax is theft are you? Very well. Let there be monopolies on on luxury items if the conditions are right for such a product to exist to encourage ingenuity and productivity. But things like water and fuel etc. no - unless you feel like paying your rent again filling your taxi up.

^ okay that makes no sense either.

[B0ycey]

^ okay that makes no sense either.

I told you already, it's Smith. A monopoly on oil means self interest results in the owner charging what they like if there is high demand. If you want to learn more look into marginalism.

[SolarCross]

^ I hope your sex drive isn't as perverse as your economic morals.

I half expect @B0ycey next to recommend getting infected with tapeworms as a way of staying healthy.

[B0ycey]

^ I hope your sex drive isn't as perverse as your economic morals.

On the contrary. Nonetheless I hope your sex life isn't as lacking as your economic knowledge.

[SolarCross]

:lol:

On the contrary. Nonetheless I hope your sex life isn't as lacking as your economic knowledge.

The fact that you are trying to sell legal monopolies on the lie that they are better for competition is a basic concession that competition is good. That you are not even trying to sell legal monopolies on any of their actual merits just shows even you don't think they have any.

[B0ycey]

The fact that you are trying to sell legal monopolies on the lie that they are better for competition is a basic concession that competition is good. That you are not even trying to sell legal monopolies on any of their actual merits just shows even you don't think they have any.

This was a reply about your sex life??

I haven't mentioned an opinion on legal monopolies FYI. I responded to something you wrote about competition.

[SolarCross]

This was a reply about your sex life??

I haven't mentioned an opinion on legal monopolies FYI. I responded to something you wrote about competition.

You said one company parasitising another through legal means was good for competition. That is halfway a legal monopoly.

[B0ycey]

You said one company parasitising another through legal means was good for competition.

No. I said it drives down costs as it creates competition.

Or I should say that is what Smith said and I just paraphrased it for him for you to read.

[SolarCross]

No. I said it droves down costs as it creates competition.

Or I should say that is what Smith said and I just paraphrased it for him for you to read.

It's not fair competition, it's competition like piracy is competition. It's like suggesting a race is fair if one runner has to carry the other halfway.

[B0ycey]

It's not fair competition, it's competition like piracy is competition. It's like suggesting a race is fair if one runner has to carry the other halfway.

Whether you think it is fair or not is irrelevant. You were discussing if competition makes things cheaper.