Legal monopolies, what is your preference? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Legal monopolies, what is your preference?

1. No monopolies at all, not even of arms.
3
19%
2. No monopolies for any civilian trade. A martial monopoly is desirable.
1
6%
3. No monopolies for most things, except a few key industries - please specify which ones and why.
6
38%
4. Monopolies on most things, only trivial trades such as begging are exempted.
No votes
0%
5. Everything, literally everything!
No votes
0%
6. Other - please elaborate because most who vote "other" are just being pointlessly contrarian.
6
38%
#14999743
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.
#14999762
SolarCross wrote: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.
#14999766
Truth To Power wrote: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?
#14999768
SolarCross wrote: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.
#14999773
B0ycey wrote:So Adam Smith makes no sense? :lol:

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.
#14999775
SolarCross wrote: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.
#14999776
B0ycey wrote: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.
#14999787
B0ycey wrote::lol:

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


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.
#14999789
SolarCross wrote: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?? :lol:

I haven't mentioned an opinion on legal monopolies FYI. I responded to something you wrote about competition.
#14999790
B0ycey wrote:This was a reply about your sex life?? :lol:

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.

Image
Last edited by SolarCross on 17 Apr 2019 21:48, edited 1 time in total.
#14999791
SolarCross wrote:You said one company parasitising another through legal means was good for competition.


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

Or I should say that is what Smith said and I just paraphrased it for him for you to read.
#14999792
B0ycey wrote:No. I said it droves down costs as it creates competition. :roll:

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. :lol:
#14999794
SolarCross wrote: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. :lol:


Whether you think it is fair or not is irrelevant. You were discussing if competition makes things cheaper. :roll:
The Huawei dilemma

Anyway, I always thought/believed that what th[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Trump has given AG Barr the power to declassify an[…]

@anasawad I am sympathetic to your point of v[…]

May 24, Friday As stealthily as partially train[…]