[Paradigm]

Alright, then. Tell me how Standard Oil was the product of Big Gub'mint.

[PredatorOC]

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't hoping for leftists to list every big company they know and assume I'm going to debunk each of them individually. Also, I quite clearly stated I was looking for monopolies, not "my very subjective opinion is that this market has too competitors".. Now, since everyone seems to have the assumption that monopolies are a common phenomenon in free markets, one would assume that pointing to a free market monopoly would be easy. So, perhaps someone could supply me with ONE indisputable free market monopoly?

Alright, then. Tell me how Standard Oil is the product of Big Gub'ment.

Standard oil wasn't a monopoly. It had over a hundred competitors within the US alone.

[ingliz]

Monsanto would have been a monopoly in the US cottonseed market if government had not stopped them. There are oligopolies in many sectors of the US economy. Monopoly and cartels inhere to free market capitalism; Google cartelisation in 19th century America.

U.S. Antitrust: Comparisons to EC Competition Law

[dwix]

Standard oil wasn't a monopoly. It had over a hundred competitors within the US alone.

Only by the time it was dissolved. The standard oil monster obliterated competition and used underhanded tactics to eventually control 90% of oil production.

[Paradigm]

Technically, it'd be hard to point to a free market monopoly without qualification given that we don't live in a purely free market, nor has such a thing existed in the history of capitalism. A possible exception would be the black market, since it operates under the radar of government. In that case, one could point to the Medellin cartel, which had a monopoly on the cocaine trade.

[Dave]

Monopolies and cartels can be beneficial by stabilizing demand and allowing for predictable investment. I think it makes sense to allow monopolies to form, but then break them up into oligopolies once a decade or so has passed, assuming the market doesn't take care of it.

[PredatorOC]

Monsanto would have been a monopoly in the US cottonseed market if government had not stopped them. There are oligopolies in many sectors of the US economy. Monopoly and cartels inhere to free market capitalism; Google cartelisation in 19th century America.

Ok, so Monsanto is your best example of a free market monopoly? Hmm... you think government-granted patents on seeds might have anything to do with anything? Or that government prohibits farmers from saving seeds due to those parents?

Well, that was easy. I guess free market monopolies don't exist.

Only by the time it was dissolved. The standard oil monster obliterated competition and used underhanded tactics to eventually control 90% of oil production.

Except during the antitrust trial, no evidence of "underhanded tactics", like predatory pricing, was provided. In fact, no harm to consumers was shown to have resulted, since prices dropped during the time Standard Oil was claimed to have been a monopoly. And let us not forget that the antitrust trial took place long after the supposed monopoly, with Standard Oil market share being below 70% by 1907. The eventual reason for chopping up Standard Oil was an attempt to monopolize (or something, forgot the details).

If free market monopolies mean falling prices for the consumer, I'm all for them!

Technically, it'd be hard to point to a free market monopoly without qualification given that we don't live in a purely free market, nor has such a thing existed in the history of capitalism.

So why are people claiming that free market monopolies exist, if a free market supposedly has never existed?

Anyway, you could simply point to an unregulated market, since even the most regulated mixed economies tend to have some markets that are unregulated. In fact, it would be more accurate for me to ask for an example of a monopoly that wasn't directly or indirectly created by government regulations.

A possible exception would be the black market, since it operates under the radar of government. In that case, one could point to the Medellin cartel, which had a monopoly on the cocaine trade.

A black market can hardly be compared to a free market, since the rules of a black market are indirectly influenced by the government regulations that created the black market in the first place.

[ingliz]

Monsanto is an example of a capitalist monopoly prevented by government. It cannot be an example of a 'freemarket' capitalist monopoly as such a creature cannot exist without a freemarket.

[dwix]

How does the "free market" prevent monopolization?

[Paradigm]

Well, that was easy. I guess free market monopolies don't exist.

I will grant that in a truly free market, monopolies may be exceedingly difficult. But in a truly free market, there would be no intellectual property and no absentee landlordism, so it wouldn't really be anything we'd recognize as capitalism, since property rights as we know them would be vastly different, if they even existed at all.

If free market monopolies mean falling prices for the consumer, I'm all for them!

So you DO believe in free market monopolies! Well, that settles it.

By the way, a monopoly does not mean that one has no has no competitors whatsoever. It simply means that one has enough market share to significantly determine the terms on which others shall have access to a product or service. 70% of market share is still a rather large monopoly.

[Dave]

The classical definition of a monopoly was that of a corporation with no competitors because it was granted said monopoly by the government. The East India Company, for instance. With the rise of the giant industrial corporation in the late 19th century the definition changed.

[PredatorOC]

Monsanto is an example of a capitalist monopoly prevented by government. It cannot be an example of a 'freemarket' capitalist monopoly as such a creature cannot exist without a freemarket.

See, this is why I usually ignore your posts and will remind myself to keep doing that in the future. Any normal person's bullshit-meter would have gone into meltdown processing that argument. But for some reason yours didn't and apparently didn't smell anything funky.

How does the "free market" prevent monopolization?

Competition.

Actually, a monopoly can theoretically develop in a free market, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. One supplier can exist, as long as that one supplier is more efficient at what it does than any potential competition would be.

But in a truly free market, there would be no intellectual property and no absentee landlordism, so it wouldn't really be anything we'd recognize as capitalism.

That is a problem of semantics. Capitalism is just supposed to mean a method of production, and as such the term encompasses a very wide spectrum. Basically, any system with a functional stock market can be denoted as capitalistic. Which means economies which we would never categorize as capitalistic, are in fact capitalistic. But the leftists have expropriated the term to mean some vague menacing free market boogieman that rapes your women and roasts your children on a fire, even if the term is used to describe a highly regulated mixed economy.

By the way, a monopoly does not mean that one has no has no competitors whatsoever. It simply means that one has enough market share to significantly determine the terms on which others shall have access to a product or service. 70% of market share is still a rather large monopoly.

Again, semantics. The original definition was what is now referred to as a legal monopoly (a monopoly granted by government). Then it progressed to mean a situation with only one supplier and these days the definition has been blurred more to include oligopolies and whatnot. I wouldn't really mind, if this wasn't done for propagandist ends. But it seems there is a constant attempt to redefine terms to fool economically semi-literate people. Not to mention it is annoying having to spend half your time simply trying to sort out the definitions of words.

That being the case, it would be more accurate to talk about whether or not a particular market share harms the consumer. During the "monopoly" of Standard Oil, prices fell and consumers benefited. I suppose you could claim that the prices would have fallen more if Standard Oil wouldn't have been a "monopoly", but that discussion is a what-if dead end and wouldn't really mesh with the whole concept of monopolies being exploitative juggernauts.

[Dave]

While Standard Oil succeeded enormously in lowering the price of oil, it used its market power to control the cost of rail transport of oil, which stifled competition. This would seem to indicate that though it was initially beneficial, it later used its market power to negative ends. That said, the market effectively ended Standard Oil's monopoly due to the building of pipelines (eliminating the rebate benefit) and new oil discoveries in Texas and Oklahoma. There was no longer any reason to breakup Standard Oil.

[ingliz]

We all agree that the US is not an unregulated market, yes? It is not a free market, but it is unmistakeably capitalist! Therefore, any monopoly in the US cannot be a 'freemarket' monopoly , but it is still capitalist monopoly.

If a perfect laissez faire economy is unrealiseable, does it matter that monopoly is theoretically good but almost impossible in a perfect laissez faire market. Why, when such a pefect laissez faire economy has never existed, can we not discuss monopoly in the market as it stands?. We can agree, I hope, that antitrust and competition law is desirable in all managed economies whether they are near laissez faire or highly regulated - markets where monopoly and cartelisation are inevitable.

In a move somewhere between brilliantly audacious and unbelievably outrageous, Monsanto's Aug. 15 offer to buy Delta & Pine Land Co. will create a titan with a hammer lock on every corner of the cottonseed market - seed genetics, seed distribution and seed price.

The $1.5 billion deal marries Delta, with an estimated 50 percent of the U.S. cottonseed market, to Monsanto, whose biotech traits are found over 80 percent of all American cotton acres.

But the deal is even bigger than those numbers suggest.

In 2004 and 2006, Delta signed licensing agreements with Syngenta, Dow and DuPont, Monsanto's smaller cottonseed biotech competitors. The moves came after years of court-docket troubles between Delta and Monsanto after the St. Louis giant walked away from a May 1998 deal to buy Delta.

This would have given them a 95+% share of the US cottenseed market

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... e_3323.cfm

[PredatorOC]

While Standard Oil succeeded enormously in lowering the price of oil, it used its market power to control the cost of rail transport of oil, which stifled competition.

What are you referring to? The volume deals with the railroads? Unless I'm mistaken, one of the railroad bosses offered Standard Oil's competitors the same price, if they could match Standard Oil's volume, which no one could.

Therefore, any monopoly in the US cannot be a 'freemarket' monopoly , but it is still capitalist monopoly.

Only if you choose to abuse the terminology to an absurd extent. Besides, even a regulated economy like that of the US, still has unregulated markets in it. Those unregulated markets should have monopolies, if the most basic argument against free markets is true. In other words, just because an economy is regulated as a whole, doesn't mean you can't trace cause and effect to deduce the source of a monopoly and see whether the source is regulations or lack thereof.

This would have given them a 95+% share of the US cottenseed market

Are you still going on about Monsanto? What exactly didn't you understand about patents being legal monopolies?

Also, please humor me; how is Monsanto a monopoly prevented by government?

[ingliz]

What exactly didn't you understand about patents being legal monopolies?

What, exactly, didn't you understand about perfect freemarket economies being an impossibility. You can indulge your fantasies but I think it more sensible to discuss capitalism as is.

Also, please humor me; how is Monsanto a monopoly prevented by government?

"Monsanto has reached an agreement with the US Department of Justice that will allow it to complete its proposed acquisition of Delta and Pine Land Company, but it must divest its US cotton seed business.
Monsanto plans to close its acquisition and resulting divestitures as soon as possible following the required approvals from the court and the DOJ"

Monsanto acquisitions force cotton business rethink

Many believe the DOJ did not go far enough, but Monsanto is not a monopoly merely part of an oligopoly

[PredatorOC]

What, exactly, didn't you understand about perfect freemarket economies being an impossibility. You can indulge your fantasies but I think it more sensible to discuss capitalism as is.

So abolishing patent legislation is impossible?

Also, you are avoiding the question. You are accusing Monsanto of being a "capitalist" oligopoly and attempting to be a "capitalist" monopoly (which the government prevented). Yet you refuse to address the role of patents (legal monopolies) in all this, even as they play an absolutely pivotal role in Monsanto's oligopoly/monopoly. And you accuse me of indulging in fantasies?

Look, you can mangle the terminology and claim that because the US overall has a capitalist economy, everything within that economy is capitalist. But that doesn't mean your claim isn't absurdly naive and full of shit. In reality, your argument regarding Monsanto has NOTHING to do with capitalism, since it is a problem created by government to begin with. And until you address that aspect of your argument in some meaningful way, your argument will remain absolutely incoherent and unimportant.

[Vesputin]

So to take Monsanto.

Am I to understand that Monsanto, embracing the "Free Market" I assume it would be advocating, would stumble over itself to support the abolishment of patents, seeing as they are government interference in that "Free market" ideology.

If so, why is there still patents legislation?

[ingliz]

..... your argument will remain absolutely incoherent and unimportant.

Please name a perfect laissez faire economy, past or present, and then we can decide who is indulging in fantasy? If you cannot then capitalism is what it is and not what you would wish it to be. Monsanto's oligopoly/monopoly will then have everything to do with 'capitalism' as capitalism, the managed economy, is all there is.

[dwix]

So to take Monsanto.

Am I to understand that Monsanto, embracing the "Free Market" I assume it would be advocating, would stumble over itself to support the abolishment of patents, seeing as they are government interference in that "Free market" ideology.

If so, why is there still patents legislation?

Monsanto would not want repeal of patents legislation, since it owns the patents.

Competition.

No, that's how a free market would hypothetically correct a monopolistic situation, not how it would prevent one. The answer is that a free market would not be able to prevent monopolization. Yes, theoretically, competition would erode a monopoly's market share, but the fault lies in that the monopoly would have the ability to terrorize its market with monopoly power for an extended amount of time. Consider the example of a massive car company monopoly (this is all hypothetical, so bear with me if you please) that has achieved its status by buying up most major manufacturers and at least somewhat superior technology, administration, &c. Is a start-up "competitor" going to have any hope of challenging their market share, even if the monopoly is using monopolistic pricing methods? Eventually, maybe. But the monopoly would use every tactic it could, and with its massive cash reserves and absurd power projection, it would be a tremendous effort. The point, for me at least, is not that a free market cannot eventually correct a monopoly, just as it can eventually correct every other problem we apparently face (sarcasm!), but that it is unable to prevent or even lessen the real potentiality of harm.