Why Hardcore Liberalism fails

[Raubritter]

t's like the cost of social freedoms is economic restrictions and the cost of economic freedoms is social restrictions.

Don't make me laugh! Social freedoms ? How on earth is economic freedom "social restriction". dahell.....

People should read more books.
John Stossel: - No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed

[Himster]

How on earth is economic freedom "social restriction". dahell.....

I don't understand the conservative agenda either.

[The spartan]

Don't make me laugh! Social freedoms ? How on earth is economic freedom "social restriction". dahell.....

People should read more books.
John Stossel: - No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed

John Stossel used to be kinda cool, once upon a time. Now he is just such a shill and really doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time. Economic freedoms certainly can limit social freedoms. Slave wages, company stores, and the like.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

The answer is simple. The Liberalism deponds on free markets but the free markets tend to create monopolies and oligopolies which would disable free markets.

[Denny Crane!]

The answer is simple. The Liberalism deponds on free markets but the free markets tend to create monopolies and oligopolies which would disable free markets.

The only monopolies that naturally form in free markets are natural ones that I am aware of. Very difficult without exploiting government power/regulations or other.

[The spartan]

The only monopolies that naturally form in free markets are natural ones that I am aware of. Very difficult without exploiting government power/regulations or other.

It is actually not that difficult. Any market that requires an exorbitant amount of initial capital tends to monopolize naturally, and a lot of markets are like that.

[Denny Crane!]

It is actually not that difficult. Any market that requires an exorbitant amount of initial capital tends to monopolize naturally, and a lot of markets are like that.

I'd disagree. Where the cost of entry is to high there is usually an alternate market or service that might not take such high proceeds. The obvious counter examples would be the likes of banking and other financial services like visa and mastercard, these are monopolies and the barriers to entry are huge but I'd also suggest the entire financial system has been a regulatory mess (a wonderful of hodge podge of both to much and to little in all the wrong places) and innovation is at an all time low. But that still didn't stop PayPal coming around and I suspect that will spread. It wasn't so long ago setting up an online merchant payment portal was atrociously expensive and now it is a simple wordpress or joomla widget preprogrammed and easy to install by a novice (well basic wordpress or other CMS user).

[The spartan]

I'd disagree. Where the cost of entry is to high there is usually an alternate market or service that might not take such high proceeds. The obvious counter examples would be the likes of banking and other financial services like visa and mastercard, these are monopolies and the barriers to entry are huge but I'd also suggest the entire financial system has been a regulatory mess (a wonderful of hodge podge of both to much and to little in all the wrong places) and innovation is at an all time low. But that still didn't stop PayPal coming around and I suspect that will spread. It wasn't so long ago setting up an online merchant payment portal was atrociously expensive and now it is a simple wordpress or joomla widget preprogrammed and easy to install by a novice (well basic wordpress or other CMS user).

I mean, I don't really know how to approach this other than saying that our previous understanding of monopolies (in the economic field) is wrong. Alternative markets either don't show up or are muscled out by established markets more often than not. There are plenty of markets that have capital startups as something ridiculous compared to their expected returns, like cable companies, telecommunications, metal processing, fine machining, mining, and so on, that simply require too much capital to substantially threaten established markets.

[Denny Crane!]

I mean, I don't really know how to approach this other than saying that our previous understanding of monopolies (in the economic field) is wrong. Alternative markets either don't show up or are muscled out by established markets more often than not. There are plenty of markets that have capital startups as something ridiculous compared to their expected returns, like cable companies, telecommunications, metal processing, fine machining, mining, and so on, that simply require too much capital to substantially threaten established markets.

Well we had just the BBC. Sky was considered the only alternative that couldn't happen then there was Virgin, now the internet is making it all largely irrelevant. Mining I'd consider largely a natural monopoly but yeah that is a given. But I don't consider it breaking the monopolies theory.

[The spartan]

Well we had just the BBC. Sky was considered the only alternative that couldn't happen then there was Virgin, now the internet is making it all largely irrelevant. Mining I'd consider largely a natural monopoly but yeah that is a given. But I don't consider it breaking the monopolies theory.

It isn't about breaking the theory, the point is that more is going on behind the scenes regarding monopolies. Just because a ball drops to the ground when you let go of it doesn't mean Newton's first law is wrong, just that you aren't taking gravity into account.

[Heathen Hammer]

The only monopolies that naturally form in free markets are natural ones that I am aware of. Very difficult without exploiting government power/regulations or other.

Indeed, but with financial power anyone would exploit his influence over government to regulate economy in his favor.

[Coalition]

Freedom over equality any day.

[chilon]

The only monopolies that naturally form in free markets are natural ones that I am aware of. Very difficult without exploiting government power/regulations or other.

Naw, not at all true. If someone/comp is first at a technology/resource exploit its easy to create a monopoly with no government/nation state relevance. Just look at DaBeers with diamonds. Or Microsoft with Windows. Not to mention historic "natural" monopolies like in oil and rail in America.

Absolutely no exploiting government/regulations needed to make monopoly. That might be a natural consequence and might help entrench the monopolies but its not at all necessary to form monopolies. Monopolies naturally form under capitalism in certain areas. Thats reality and why anti-trust regulations were founded.

[Denny Crane!]

Diamonds is a natural monopoly and Microsoft was never a monopoly with Windows, it was just a long time before Apple gained a market position, there wasn't anything stopping them in fact they were up and down during that time.

[Thorn777]

You have such an interesting grasp on the concept of "natural"?

[Denny Crane!]

Limited resources like gas, oil or other natural reserves. If I could find diamonds in my back garden Id set up in competition tomorrow

[SorelusImperion]

Diamonds is a natural monopoly and Microsoft was never a monopoly with Windows, it was just a long time before Apple gained a market position, there wasn't anything stopping them in fact they were up and down during that time.

No. A natural monopoly is when all factors together but especialy high entry barriers and high fixed costs tend to favour the formation of a monopoly. A good example for a natural monoply would be Space Flight. The enormous costs associated with developing a working space craft make it extremely unlikely and also unprofitable to set up various competing space agencies.

[Denny Crane!]

No. A natural monopoly is when all factors together but especialy high entry barriers and high fixed costs tend to favour the formation of a monopoly. A good example for a natural monoply would be Space Flight. The enormous costs associated with developing a working space craft make it extremely unlikely and also unprofitable to set up various competing space agencies.

Diamonds was a bad example made after a few beers. However the point remains I think it is exceptionally difficult for a company to retain a monopoly that isn't natural or based on extremely limited resources. The reason I brought up DeBiers was that they had a monopoly based on limited resources up until the discoveries in Russia/Siberia etc that opened up new supplies of diamonds.

[SorelusImperion]

However the point remains I think it is exceptionally difficult for a company to retain a monopoly that isn't natural or based on extremely limited resources.

The examples we have available do not support this. While in the long run everything falls apart a monoply on a good that is in high demand tends to be sustainable untill an outside force intervenes.

[Denny Crane!]

The examples we have available do not support this. While in the long run everything falls apart a monoply on a good that is in high demand tends to be sustainable untill an outside force intervenes.

I didn't say they couldn't form I said retaining it is difficult. In the shorter term of course it can form and exist. But unlike say a water piping company or rail network it is unlikely to outlast the kids.