[SolarCross]

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

I was discussing whether one company parasitising another really made things cheaper. You said yes.

[B0ycey]

You said yes.

...because it does.

Although I wouldn't use the terminology you did.

[SolarCross]

...because it does.

Although I wouldn't use the terminology you did.

How? Look two people are are going to have a race. Which way will produce the best track times?

1. free competition, whoever runs fastest gets the prize.
2. subsidy, the faster runner has to carry the slower runner.
3. full monopoly, the faster runner is shot and the slower runner wins by default without even running.

[B0ycey]

How? Look two people are are going to have a race. Which way will produce the best track times?

1. free competition, whoever runs fastest gets the prize.
2. subsidy, the faster runner has to carry the slower runner.
3. full monopoly, the faster runner is shot and the slower runner wins by default without even running.

I'm not going through the invisible hand for you. But your metaphors are stupid as they are irrelevent. We are discussing cost not what is fair for business itself. So we are discussing what the spectator pays to watch the race not who takes part. The more options they have to watch different races the cheaper it is for them to watch a race.

[SolarCross]

I'm not going through the invisible hand for you. But your metaphors are stupid as they are irrelevent. We are discussing cost not what is fair for business itself. So we are discussing what the spectator pays to watch the race not who takes part. The more options they have to watch different races the cheaper it is for them to watch a race.

Quote the passage where Adam Smith endorses subsidies and monopolies for the purpose of free competition or Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation While you are at it you can show me his endorsement of the Corn Laws.

[B0ycey]

Quote the passage where Adam Smith endorses subsidies and monopolies for the purpose of free competition or Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation. While you are at it you can show me his endorsement of the Corn Laws.

Or you can read him yourself as I am not your teacher. Although I said competition restricts self interest which drives down... cost!!!

[SolarCross]

Or you can read him yourself as I am not your teacher. Although I said competition restricts self interest which drives down... cost!!!

So in fact Adam Smith does not endorse subsidies or monopolies. Thanks I guess that settles that.

[Without trade restrictions] the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man...is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.... The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty [for which] no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.

- Adam Smith

There is no art which government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people

- Adam Smith

[B0ycey]

So in fact Adam Smith does not endorse subsidies or monopolies. Thanks I guess that settles that.

We were discussing cost right???!!?

Adam was a libertarian. He endorsed no interference as can be read in the Wealth of Nations. But that didn't stop him writing about the invisible hand. And remember I was only discussing cost!!!

[SolarCross]

We were discussing cost right???!!?

Adam was a libertarian. He endorsed no interference as can be read in the Wealth of Nations. But that didn't stop him writing about the invisible hand. And remember I was only discussing cost!!!

A subsidy is a cost imposed on someone else. It is one runner being forced to carry another.

[B0ycey]

A subsidy is a cost imposed on someone else. It is one runner being forced to carry another.

I am not repeating the same things over again. Monopolies will dive up costs because it is a monopoly. If the solution is to tax a monopoly to subsidise competition then the price will go down due to competition. That is down to marginalism and restricting the invisible hand. But even though Smith understood this he was a libertarian so didn't endorce government interference as to him it made the price of things artifical to what it would be naturally.

[SolarCross]

I am not repeating the same things over again. Monopolies will dive up costs because it is a monopoly. If the solution is to tax a monopoly to subsidise competition then the price will go down due to competition. That is down to marginalism and restricting the invisible hand. But even though Smith understood this he was a libertarian so didn't endorce government interference as to him it made the price of things artifical to what it would be naturally.

This thread is about legal monopolies not imaginary monopolies, see the OP.

[Truth To Power]

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

I don't know of any public power utility that is subsidized to compete with private ones. For example, BC Hydro has paid massive dividends to the BC government.

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

Can you give any examples of public utilities getting subsidies to compete with private ones? It happens in some industries like airlines; but unlike roads, railroads, power and water utilities, etc., airlines aren't a natural monopoly.

[Truth To Power]

Monopolies will dive up costs because it is a monopoly.

Not so. A natural monopoly that is made a public utility costs less than private competitors building multiple copies of the same infrastructure. There is nothing to be gained by competition in natural monopolies. That's one reason the history of railroad construction was a history of bankruptcies despite immense subsidies.

If the solution is to tax a monopoly to subsidise competition then the price will go down due to competition. That is down to marginalism and restricting the invisible hand. But even though Smith understood this he was a libertarian so didn't endorce government interference as to him it made the price of things artifical to what it would be naturally.

That depends on the type of market. Market failure conditions like natural monopoly can make a regulated monopoly more efficient, and able to provide service at lower cost to consumers, than a market with competing private firms.

[SolarCross]

I don't know of any public power utility that is subsidized to compete with private ones. For example, BC Hydro has paid massive dividends to the BC government.

Are we specifically talking about BC Hydro?

Can you give any examples of public utilities getting subsidies to compete with private ones? It happens in some industries like airlines; but unlike roads, railroads, power and water utilities, etc., airlines aren't a natural monopoly.

I don't carry the same assumption as you that there are some things which are public utilities and some things that are not. Anything open to the public and is used by the public can be called a "public utility" whether it is wholly private or public. Many (if not all) businesses owned by government are actually subsidised out of general taxation often wholly subsidised eg. primary and secondary schooling is almost ubiquitously wholly subsidised.

[Truth To Power]

Are we specifically talking about BC Hydro?

It's a counterexample that disproves your claim -- for which you haven't actually provided any empirical evidence.

I don't carry the same assumption as you that there are some things which are public utilities and some things that are not.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

Anything open to the public and is used by the public can be called a "public utility" whether it is wholly private or public.

Equivocation fallacy. A public utility is publicly owned.

Many (if not all) businesses owned by government are actually subsidised out of general taxation often wholly subsidised eg. primary and secondary schooling is almost ubiquitously wholly subsidised.

But public grade school education is a service, not a business; and unlike infrastructure-based utilities such as roads and railroads, water and sewer systems, power grids, etc., it is not a natural monopoly.

[SolarCross]

@Truth To Power

I looked into BC hydro:

1. The company was created by a private citizen and stolen off him by the government. So whatever you think it represents of government efficiency it better represents government larceny.

2. The company now is horrendously in debt, so apparently the govs aren't even managing it that well.

The thread is actually only about legal monopolies not "natural monopolies".

[SSDR]

There should be no classified enterprises. No human should belong to any "enterprise." And there should be no family modes of production.

Clans, groups, gangs, nationalities, and families should all not be classified over any human, and that every human should be free and live their own life.

[SolarCross]

Neither option 4 nor 5 is getting any love yet. Where are all the commies?

[Rich]

I voted other because the whole debate is utterly absurd. The whole concept of property relies on monopoly. How does one become the owner, the legal monopolist of land or other scarce resources? How does one become the owner, the legal monopolist of goods produced with scarce resources?

[SolarCross]

I voted other because the whole debate is utterly absurd. The whole concept of property relies on monopoly. How does one become the owner, the legal monopolist of land or other scarce resources? How does one become the owner, the legal monopolist of goods produced with scarce resources?

No it doesn't. Look if I have a pokemon card in my pocket which I claim is mine then I have a property claim. If I claim that no one else in the world is allowed to own pokemons just me and I can and will smash in the faces of all those that disagree then I have a legal monopoly on pokemons. See the difference? Good now for your next lesson: basic addition.