Monopoly (not the board game)

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Most discussions about the plausibility of market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism usually taper off into a debate over whether or not vast concentrations of market power such as monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, etc. could possibly arise without the assistance of government intervention. So I decided to create a thread devoted entirely to this issue alone.

What free marketeers generally believe with regards to this subject can be summed up by this Rothbard quote:

"A monopoly price and a monopoly by any usable definition arise only through the coercive grant of exclusive privilege by the government."

Now, surely it's true that government can stifle competition through excessive tariffs, subsidies, intellectual property related legislation, and of course outright government grants of monopoly power. However, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to arrive at the conclusion that government alone is responsible for all forms of monopoly without any consideration of possible market barriers to entry? How about high fixed costs, economies of scale, the existence of imperfect competition in certain markets, etc.? Couldn’t these all possibly contribute to the formation of monopoly and its variations even in the absence of state intervention?

So, bearing that in mind, what do you all think?

[IcarusAngel]

Now, surely it's true that government can stifle competition through excessive tariffs, subsidies, intellectual property related legislation, and of course outright government grants of monopoly power.

Who's to say that this isn't required for capitalist "markets" to exist in the first place?

Prior to capitalism, markets and society were very different. Not necessarily better from a Marxist perspective, but different.



However, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to arrive at the conclusion that government alone is responsible for all forms of monopoly without any consideration of possible market barriers to entry? How about high fixed costs, economies of scale, the existence of imperfect competition in certain markets, etc.? Couldn’t these all possibly contribute to the formation of monopoly and its variations even in the absence of state intervention?

Or about the fact that deregulation leads to more consolidation.

So apparently a little deregulation is bad, but no regulation is good? How does one define "no regulation."


Also, even assuming that all the monopolies and concentrated industries are the "government's fault," shouldn't the government then be able to interfere into the economy to fix its mistake, in other words to take away the power that they helped create to encourage more competition? This is what many "liberals" seem to believe.

[LeftSideDown]

Most discussions about the plausibility of market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism usually taper off into a debate over whether or not vast concentrations of market power such as monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, etc. could possibly arise without the assistance of government intervention. So I decided to create a thread devoted entirely to this issue alone.

What free marketeers generally believe with regards to this subject can be summed up by this Rothbard quote:

"A monopoly price and a monopoly by any usable definition arise only through the coercive grant of exclusive privilege by the government."

Now, surely it's true that government can stifle competition through excessive tariffs, subsidies, intellectual property related legislation, and of course outright government grants of monopoly power. However, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to arrive at the conclusion that government alone is responsible for all forms of monopoly without any consideration of possible market barriers to entry? How about high fixed costs, economies of scale, the existence of imperfect competition in certain markets, etc.? Couldn’t these all possibly contribute to the formation of monopoly and its variations even in the absence of state intervention?

So, bearing that in mind, what do you all think?

High cost doesn't matter as long as there exists also the chance of high profits. Economies of scale mean that a company could never get too large or a smaller enterprise would be more efficient. What market-barriers? There exist only government ones to my knowledge.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

High cost doesn't matter as long as there exists also the chance of high profits.

I think you are too hasty to disregard other possibilities here. High fixed costs(meaning costs that a firm must incur irrespective of its business gains or losses) can discourage competition even if the potential profits may be high. In many cases, the financial risks associated with attempting certain ventures could be prohibitive.


Economies of scale mean that a company could never get too large or a smaller enterprise would be more efficient.

Aren't you referring to diseconomies of scale here? Anyway, you can't fathom how a firm that benefits from economies of scale could have an advantage over potential competitors? The existing firm's costs of operation and production can be significantly lower in many cases.


What market-barriers? There exist only government ones to my knowledge.

Well, since it seems that you subscribe to the Austrian School, I can see how this would be the case. But as I've elucidated above, market barriers to entry can exist in addition to governmental ones.

[RGacky3]

Economies of scale mean that a company could never get too large or a smaller enterprise would be more efficient.

I've heard that over and over again, but its never been proven or shown at all. So, like I did with hayenmill, I'm calling bullshit.


What market-barriers? There exist only government ones to my knowledge.

The Market by definition is a system of barriers, by means of property laws, competition (people win in competitions), market power, and wealth accumulation which leads to wealth concentration.

The fact is, if you took away all government interferance there would be no market at all, because there would be no property laws, however, if somehow, property laws could be enforced without a government, the "market" would essencially be a tyranny of Capitalists over everyone else.

[LeftSideDown]

The Market by definition is a system of barriers, by means of property laws, competition (people win in competitions), market power, and wealth accumulation which leads to wealth concentration.

Property laws are not a barrier, anyone can use them. Obviously there would be no competition if one man could just claim another man's factory for himself and then vice versa. Competition merely weeds out inefficient producers and lowers cost to consumers. What do you mean by market power? Wealth accumulation occurs because some people/producers are more efficient at meeting consumer demand than others. Why does wealth concentration matter? They did not steal this money.


The fact is, if you took away all government interferance there would be no market at all, because there would be no property laws, however, if somehow, property laws could be enforced without a government, the "market" would essencially be a tyranny of Capitalists over everyone else.

So laws don't exist without morality? Or just not enforcement? And whose to say there would not be "dispute-resolution" companies, since obviously this would be in demand? Why does the government (nothing more than a collection of fallible people) deserve to have a monopoly on force, coercion, and law?

[John_Jordan]

However, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to arrive at the conclusion that government alone is responsible for all forms of monopoly without any consideration of possible market barriers to entry? How about high fixed costs, economies of scale, the existence of imperfect competition in certain markets, etc.? Couldn’t these all possibly contribute to the formation of monopoly and its variations even in the absence of state intervention?

So, bearing that in mind, what do you all think?

I think, sure, it could happen. But I also think, sure, it's possible that it's very unlikely or unproductive.

In other words, I don't have much of an opinion, and I really don't see why anybody would bother to argue over it without any real evidence to point to. No true an-cap society has ever existed, so it's not like we have a model to show one or the other to be more likely.

In the end, does it really matter? Would an-caps stop being an-caps if it really was shown that monopolies happen without governments? I'm doubtful, but I don't know for sure.

[RGacky3]

Property laws are not a barrier, anyone can use them.

The same with regulation, it applies to everyone, the same with intellectual property laws, it applies to everyone, the same with taxes.


Wealth accumulation occurs because some people/producers are more efficient at meeting consumer demand than others. Why does wealth concentration matter? They did not steal this money.

Because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to make wealth, and stomp out competition, and control more and more of the market (thats what I mean by market power), and thus it would lead to a tyrannical situation.


So laws don't exist without morality? Or just not enforcement? And whose to say there would not be "dispute-resolution" companies, since obviously this would be in demand? Why does the government (nothing more than a collection of fallible people) deserve to have a monopoly on force, coercion, and law?

I don't think the government should have a monopoly of force, coercion, and law, but a government (which is responsive to democratic pressure) is MUCH MUCH MUCH perferable, than Capitalists (who are only responsive to profit) having that sort of power.

btw, by "dispute-resolution" companies, what you really mean is privatized government, which would be the worst type of tyranny possible.


In the end, does it really matter? Would an-caps stop being an-caps if it really was shown that monopolies happen without governments? I'm doubtful, but I don't know for sure.

Probably not because most of them are just sociopaths.

[LeftSideDown]

The same with regulation, it applies to everyone, the same with intellectual property laws, it applies to everyone, the same with taxes.

No, because intellectual property laws, regulations, and taxes give advantages to companies that are already established.


Because the more wealth you have, the easier it is to make wealth, and stomp out competition, and control more and more of the market (thats what I mean by market power), and thus it would lead to a tyrannical situation.

Really? Having a lot of money (dollars) makes your company inherently more efficient than other companies? Seems to me like you need to know what to spend that money on to make your company more efficient. If the owner of the company merely pockets all profits (something that you (by you I mean Revleft)) seems to happen all the time, than the company does not grow because none of the profits are reinvested. But if the money is reinvested in things that don't raise productivity (they decide to paint the building a more pleasant color or something) than wealth still doesn't affect efficiency. If a company is able to legitimately out compete other companies that try to enter the market, obviously the company that is able to do this is most efficient, so why would we want these less efficient competitors in the market?


I don't think the government should have a monopoly of force, coercion, and law, but a government (which is responsive to democratic pressure) is MUCH MUCH MUCH perferable, than Capitalists (who are only responsive to profit) having that sort of power.

How responsive is a democratic government to democratic pressure? How many millions of people were opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan? How long did it take for troops to be pulled out? You can only vote, at most, for changes in congress every two years, and for the senate its every 6, the president is every 4. If companies could ignore consumer demand for years, I could see the argument against capitalism, but the fact is they cannot. If they start ignoring consumer demand another company that does not will "steal" their costumers. And, let me ask, if a conflict-resolution company's profit is directly related to how fair/unbiasedly they judge cases, which would be more fair: the government or capitalism?


btw, by "dispute-resolution" companies, what you really mean is privatized government, which would be the worst type of tyranny possible.

Really? Which is more tyrannical a monopoly or an oligopoly? A monopoly or many firms?

In both cases, I imagine, you'd say monopoly. I think that monopolized government functions are the most tyrannical and I have a lot of history to back this up.

[mikelepore]

Actually, the board game is a useful simulation. In the beginning, everyone has the same amount of money. Then you have the constant input of random factors (dice throws) along with vigorous competition. The inevitable outcome of this process is that, in the end, one person has all the money, and everyone else is broke. A bit oversimplified, but in some important ways it's very much like real capitalism.

[LeftSideDown]

Actually, the board game is a useful simulation. In the beginning, everyone has the same amount of money. Then you have the constant input of random factors (dice throws) along with vigorous competition. The inevitable outcome of this process is that, in the end, one person has all the money, and everyone else is broke. A bit oversimplified, but in some important ways it's very much like real capitalism.

I assume by "the beginning" you mean when humans first came together to form civilization, and I see no flaw in that reasoning. I would however assert that if, when civilization came together, it was a loose organization of families that whichever family came into society already the largest family would have the most wealth. Where are the dice throws in capitalism? Investment/speculation? Well even then there are obviously some investments/speculations that are more likely to succeed than others (though non is guaranteed), so if the dice is loaded, maybe. Monopoly, the game, is essentially zero sum, as there is only a limited number of squares you can own. So it'd be like capitalism if, everytime you went around Go, the board grew so that there was something like 4 more blocks and more players could come and go for the cost of taking a loan from the bank you start getting an even more accurate picture.

[RGacky3]

No, because intellectual property laws, regulations, and taxes give advantages to companies that are already established.

Yeah, and property laws give advantages to people with lots of property, its the same damn thing.


Really? Having a lot of money (dollars) makes your company inherently more efficient than other companies? Seems to me like you need to know what to spend that money on to make your company more efficient. If the owner of the company merely pockets all profits (something that you (by you I mean Revleft)) seems to happen all the time, than the company does not grow because none of the profits are reinvested. But if the money is reinvested in things that don't raise productivity (they decide to paint the building a more pleasant color or something) than wealth still doesn't affect efficiency. If a company is able to legitimately out compete other companies that try to enter the market, obviously the company that is able to do this is most efficient, so why would we want these less efficient competitors in the market?


This is economics 101, it does'nt make it more efficient, but it makes it ABLE to be more efficient, it gives it a large advantage over smaller companies, there are tons of advantages that money gives when when competing in the market (is'nt it hillareous how i have to point out that having money helps in a market system :P). Being more efficeient MEANS bigger profits, bigger profits means more ability to reinvest and get EVEN BIGGER, and its a cycle, is all of this foreign to you? This is elementry stuff man.


How responsive is a democratic government to democratic pressure? How many millions of people were opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan? How long did it take for troops to be pulled out? You can only vote, at most, for changes in congress every two years, and for the senate its every 6, the president is every 4. If companies could ignore consumer demand for years, I could see the argument against capitalism, but the fact is they cannot. If they start ignoring consumer demand another company that does not will "steal" their costumers. And, let me ask, if a conflict-resolution company's profit is directly related to how fair/unbiasedly they judge cases, which would be more fair: the government or capitalism?


Its not as responsive to democratic pressure because it has a large financial pressure from the ruling class. THATS the problem with American democracy, its not compatible with Capitalism.

BTW, by consumer demand, you mean the market place, which is controlled by a small part of the population.

A conflict-resolution companies profit will be directly related to how people will money want thm to judge cases, because guess who pays their bills? People with money.


Really? Which is more tyrannical a monopoly or an oligopoly? A monopoly or many firms?

In both cases, I imagine, you'd say monopoly. I think that monopolized government functions are the most tyrannical and I have a lot of history to back this up.

Which is more tyrannical, a oligarchy or a democracy?

[LeftSideDown]

Yeah, and property laws give advantages to people with lots of property, its the same damn thing.

Its not the "same damn thing" because you don't need property to become wealthy, otherwise we'd all still be in caves.


This is economics 101, it does'nt make it more efficient, but it makes it ABLE to be more efficient, it gives it a large advantage over smaller companies, there are tons of advantages that money gives when when competing in the market (is'nt it hillareous how i have to point out that having money helps in a market system :P). Being more efficeient MEANS bigger profits, bigger profits means more ability to reinvest and get EVEN BIGGER, and its a cycle, is all of this foreign to you? This is elementry stuff man.

You're right, but it still has to be invested wisely in the company or its efficiency won't increase. If the owner decides to profit the money himself his company does not grow, therefore thats at least one situation where money does not improve the companies efficiency. We've already been over what happens when you get too large.


Its not as responsive to democratic pressure because it has a large financial pressure from the ruling class. THATS the problem with American democracy, its not compatible with Capitalism.

IF democracy is incompatible with economic freedom then that is a point against democracy, not against capitalism.


BTW, by consumer demand, you mean the market place, which is controlled by a small part of the population.

Non sequitur.


A conflict-resolution companies profit will be directly related to how people will money want thm to judge cases, because guess who pays their bills? People with money.

Would YOU agree to have your dispute resolved by a company whose only measure of fairness is the largeness of the bribe they receive? I sure as hell wouldn't.


Which is more tyrannical, a oligarchy or a democracy?

Its a trick question, they are both tyrannical.

[mikelepore]

I assume by "the beginning" you mean when humans first came together to form civilization, and I see no flaw in that reasoning. I would however assert that if, when civilization came together, it was a loose organization of families that whichever family came into society already the largest family would have the most wealth.

I meant the board game. In the beginning each player is given $1,500.

My point is about competition. The process of competition causes a concentration of wealth into the hands of a few. This fact can be tested by a competitive simulation which has everyone's initial conditions being equal, but then introduced unpredictable factors.


Where are the dice throws in capitalism? Investment/speculation? Well even then there are obviously some investments/speculations that are more likely to succeed than others (though non is guaranteed), so if the dice is loaded, maybe.

Capitalism has dice throws all over the place.

As for the chances for working class people to save a little bit of capital, suppose you and I have the same work schedule, the same income, and the same predictable monthly expenses. Then a tree falls through the roof of my house - the damage comes to $1,049, and my insurance has a $1000 deductable. Then, on my car that has a 12,000 mile warranty, the transmission burns out when the odometer says 12,135. I plant some vegetables but then there isn't much rain. My medical bills exceed my insurance benefits. Now you and I go together to the mutual fund representative and we plop down all of our available savings accumulated during the past year. You put down $10,000 and I put down $100. In both cases, your investments as well as mine, during the next year we receive a capital gain of 10 percent. You make $1000 and I make $10.

Investment choices made by capitalists are also randomized because they have to make guesses. When Colonel Sanders thought people would buy more fried chicken, he guessed right. The recording companies that turned down the Beatles made a wrong guess. After several hundred years of this unpredictability, wealth gets further concentrated into fewer hands.


Monopoly, the game, is essentially zero sum, as there is only a limited number of squares you can own. So it'd be like capitalism if, everytime you went around Go, the board grew so that there was something like 4 more blocks and more players could come and go for the cost of taking a loan from the bank you start getting an even more accurate picture.

Zero sum or not, the effect of competition has a large percentage of the wealth being owned by a small percentage of the population. A few people will therefore dominate the communications media, buy political offices for their friends, and otherwise control society.

[LeftSideDown]

I meant the board game. In the beginning each player is given $1,500.

My point is about competition. The process of competition causes a concentration of wealth into the hands of a few. This fact can be tested by a competitive simulation which has everyone's initial conditions being equal, but then introduced unpredictable factors.

"The desire for an increase of wealth can be satisfied through exchange, which is the only method possible in a capitalist economy, or by violence and petition as in a militarist society, where the strong acquire by force, the weak by petitioning. In the feudal society ownership of the strong endures only so long as they have the power to hold it; that of the weak is always precarious, for having been acquired by grace of the strong it is always dependent on them. The weak hold their property without legal protection. In a militarist society, therefore, there is nothing but power to hinder the strong from extending their wealth. They can go on enriching themselves as long as no stronger men oppose them.

Nowhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone. As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely. Neither at their formation nor in their maintenance have economic causes operated. The great landed fortunes did not arise through the economic superiority of large scale ownership, but through violent annexation outside the area of trade. "And they covet fields" complains the prophet Micah[1], "and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away." Thus comes into existence the property of those who, in the words of Isaiah, "join house to house ... lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of earth."[2]

The non-economic origin of landed fortunes is clearly revealed by the fact that, as a rule, the expropriation by which they have been created in no way alters the manner of production. The old owner remains on the soil under a different legal title and continues to carry on production.

Now the highest concentrations of fortunes is to be found just in agriculture, where concentration of establishments is impossible and the concentration of enterprises economically purposeless, where the large property appears to be economically inferior to the small and unable to withstand it in free competition. Never was the ownership of the means of production more closely concentrated than at the time of Pliny, when half the province of Africa was owned by six people, or in the days of Merovingians, when the Church possessed the greater part of all French soil. And in no part of the world is there less large-scale land ownership than in capitalist North America.

The assertion that wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other are ever increasing was maintained at first without any conscious connection with an economic theory. Its supporters think they have derived it from an observation of social relations. But the observer's judgement is influenced by the idea that the sum of wealth in any society is a given quantity, so that if some possess more others must possess less[4]. As, however, in every society the growth of new riches and the coming into existence of new poverty are always to be found in a conspicuous manner whilst the slow decline of ancient fortunes and the slow enrichment of less propertied classes easily escape the eye of the inattentive student, it is easy to arrive at the premature conclusion summed u pin the socialist catchword "the rich richer, the poor poorer."

No protracted argument is required to prove that the evidence completely fails to substantiate this assertion. It is quite an unfounded hypothesis that in a society based on the division of labour the wealth of some implies the poverty of others. Under certain assumptions it is true of militarist societies, where there is no division of labour. But of a capitalist society it is untrue. Moreover an opinion formed on the basis of casual observations of that narrow section with which the individual is personally acquainted is quite insufficient proof of the theory of concentration.

Attempts to demonstrate by statistical research the progressive increase of the misery of the masses and the growth of wealth among a numerically diminishing rich class are no better than these mere appeals to emotion. The estimates of money incomes at the disposal of statistical inquiry are unusable because the purchasing power of money alters. This fact alone is enough to show that we lack any basis for comparing arithmetically the distribution of income over a number of years. For where it is not possible to reduce to a common denominator the various goods and services of which income are composed, one cannot form any series of historical comparison from known statistics of income and capital.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I assume by "the beginning" you mean when humans first came together to form civilization, and I see no flaw in that reasoning. I would however assert that if, when civilization came together, it was a loose organization of families that whichever family came into society already the largest family would have the most wealth. Where are the dice throws in capitalism? Investment/speculation? Well even then there are obviously some investments/speculations that are more likely to succeed than others (though non is guaranteed), so if the dice is loaded, maybe. Monopoly, the game, is essentially zero sum, as there is only a limited number of squares you can own. So it'd be like capitalism if, everytime you went around Go, the board grew so that there was something like 4 more blocks and more players could come and go for the cost of taking a loan from the bank you start getting an even more accurate picture.
You must be joking. Open up any corporate finance textbook, they'll pretty much tell you that individual returns and economic shocks are randomised to a large extent.

[LeftSideDown]

You must be joking. Open up any corporate finance textbook, they'll pretty much tell you that individual returns and economic shocks are randomised to a large extent.

Source please.

[RGacky3]

Its not the "same damn thing" because you don't need property to become wealthy, otherwise we'd all still be in caves.

Wealth IS property!!!


You're right, but it still has to be invested wisely in the company or its efficiency won't increase. If the owner decides to profit the money himself his company does not grow, therefore thats at least one situation where money does not improve the companies efficiency. We've already been over what happens when you get too large.


If your making 1000 you pocked 100 and reinvest 900, your still doing btter than the guy making 500 and reinvesting all of it, is this too complicated?


IF democracy is incompatible with economic freedom then that is a point against democracy, not against capitalism.


Capitalism is not economic freedom, sooo, strawman.


Would YOU agree to have your dispute resolved by a company whose only measure of fairness is the largeness of the bribe they receive? I sure as hell wouldn't.


I woul'nt have a choice now would I, because whoever has the monst money wins, because guess what, a dispute resolution company, has no power unless it can force its outcome, and if it can, then its just a government, except one controlled by the market, aka, the rich.


Its a trick question, they are both tyrannical.

I asked which is MORE tyrannical dumbass, and you know the answer.

[LeftSideDown]

Wealth IS property!!!

My point is that the artificial regulations, laws, and taxes are an impediment to wealth movement and creation. Companies that are already established do not need to invest as much into themselves to remain successful, whereas a new company needs to invest lots of its profits in order to grow in size, if you tax profits you tax the ability of firms to compete. I'm not saying wealth isn't property, but that the existence of wealth in some people's hands and laws protecting that wealth does NOT impede, by itself, the creation of wealth or the movement of wealth.



If your making 1000 you pocked 100 and reinvest 900, your still doing btter than the guy making 500 and reinvesting all of it, is this too complicated?

If you're making 1000 you're meeting consumer demand more/better so of course you should be allowed to expand your company to the point where your reach normal profit. The guy making 500 is meeting consumer demand as much, or his capacity is smaller, but if he reinvests 500 his capacity will increase and if he still meets consumer demand he can gain more wealth and eventually be earning 1000.


Capitalism is not economic freedom, sooo, strawman.

And I suppose communism is? What would you define "economic freedom" as? I view it as the freedom to freely exchange goods and services with anyone whom you choose at a price mutually agreed upon.


I woul'nt have a choice now would I, because whoever has the monst money wins, because guess what, a dispute resolution company, has no power unless it can force its outcome, and if it can, then its just a government, except one controlled by the market, aka, the rich.

Why wouldn't you have a choice? Don't you have a choice of what barber to go to? What retail outlet? What grocery store? And you haven't proven that whoever has the most money wins at all, you just keep making that assertion. It can force an outcome if both parties agree to it, but that doesn't make it government because government is a monopoly on force/coercion. Again, if the rich that all that mattered why aren't the rest of us normal people dead? Because, the more people you can attract to your business, the better off, in general, you are


I asked which is MORE tyrannical dumbass, and you know the answer.

That depends on the situation. Unbridled democracy (majority rule only, no minority rights, or rights at all) can be incredibly tyrannical (see: Early America and slavery). But a constitutional oligarchy, one where the rulers are compelled to follow the constitution to a writ, could be very untyrannical. Hell, I wouldn't mind a king if there was a constitution that limited his power to almost figurehead status.

[Zanthorus]

To a large extent monopolies are the creation of government through obvious means like patents as well as various regulations that provide barriers to entry. A lot of the worst monopolies in history have been creatures of the govenrment (East india company anyone?).

The key to the criticism of capitalism isn't anything to do with capitalism, it's the law of value and all it's pernicious consequences. Monopolies, duopolies and ogliopolies might be able to supress capitalist competition and it's laws on a small scale but they intensify it on a large scale.


the existence of imperfect competition in certain markets, etc.?

Imperfect competition exists in all markets. Perfect competition is physically impossible. Here's a list of things that would need to exist for perfect competition to exist:


1. Consumers' sole motivation is to maximize utility - the satisfaction derived from the consumption of goods and services.

2. Producers maximize profits.

3. All economic actors are completely rational.

4. Only circumstances that can be quantified count.

5. All economic actors have perfect knowledge - they are omniscient and omniprescent.

6. All economic actors act independently; they are not affected by the actions of others.

7. Economic actors communicate only through price.

8. There are an infinite number of consumers and producers and infinite “supplies” of factors of production.

9. There are no barriers to entry, competition or mobility.

10. No market power

10a. No advertising

10b. No control over resources

10c. No proprietary technology,

10d. No patents

10e. No trademarks

10f. No copyrights

10g. No geographical advantages

10h. No customer loyalty

10i. No branding or marketing

10j. No government regulation

10k. No collusion

10l. No labor contracts or trade unions

10m. No research and development costs

10n. No sunk costs

10o. No stocks of inputs

10p. No distribution networks

10q. No middle-men

10r. No economies of scale

10s. Each producer produces an infinitely small quantity of goods or services.

11. Free entry and exit - there is no need to build factories - they just pop up wherever needed. In fact, there are no factories, no workers and no consumers in any material physical sense - production materials, inputs (labor, materials, capital), are instantaneously transformed into products which are instantaneously consumed.

12. Free mobility of factors of production

13. No inventories

14. All goods are instantaneously consumed - all products are instantaneously produced.

15. All goods and services are perfectly homogeneous.

16. No government

17. Time does not exist.

18. System is closed and deterministic.

19. No transaction costs

20. No information costs

21. All economic activities are flows rather than stocks - production is similar to gauging the flow of a river past a point (i.e. gallons per minute).

22. The system's preferred state is equilibrium in all markets.

23. All economic activities - production, exchange, distribution and consumption - are perfectly efficient.

24. No externalities - good or bad.

In fact, perfect competition is the last thing that any capitalist would want to occur because it would mean that the innovation of production techniques which is one of the key elements of capitalism would have stopped.


Or about the fact that deregulation leads to more consolidation.

Also, even assuming that all the monopolies and concentrated industries are the "government's fault," shouldn't the government then be able to interfere into the economy to fix its mistake, in other words to take away the power that they helped create to encourage more competition?

This is a good point to make. In fact one that many "libertarians" (propertarians) miss. Most of the current socio-economic system in the west is the result of heavy regulations. Propertarians will shout from the rooftops about how the economy is corporatist and not capitalist, and yet when companies are found to be engaged in serious abuses of the workforce this is "voluntary" and a result of glorious capitalist competition.

If they were being consistent they would oppose most corporations out there, since most of the ones around today only survive through government intervention.

The reason I can't take most propertarians seriously is because most of what they say is simply apologism for the current socio-economic system. I'm willing to have serious dialogue with the ones that do seriously oppose the current system, but they're in a small minority.


Property laws are not a barrier, anyone can use them.

What he meant was that there are limited resources in the world and property laws give control of one set of resources at the expense of everyone else, giving that person an advantage.


Where are the dice throws in capitalism? Investment/speculation? Well even then there are obviously some investments/speculations that are more likely to succeed than others, so if the dice is loaded, maybe.

Not everyone is born into the same conditions and the conditions you are born into will have a serious effect on who you are and your likelihood of succeeding in the world.

Compare social mobility in Scandinavian welfarist and anglo-saxon capitalism and you can see that government intervention and redistribution of wealth improves social mobility.

[LeftSideDown]

What he meant was that there are limited resources in the world and property laws give control of one set of resources at the expense of everyone else, giving that person an advantage.

People don't control resources at the expense of everyone else, they control them to the benefit of everyone else.


Not everyone is born into the same conditions and the conditions you are born into will have a serious effect on who you are and your likelihood of succeeding in the world.

Yes, and this is a terrible tragedy, but egalitarianism, taking to its logical extreme, leads to the reduction of humanity to the lowest common denominator of humanity. Do you punish those who are born beautiful, or born with a supportive family, or born with a more athletic-tending body, or born with a better voice/tone, or with more smarts, or who are taller? Than why punish those who are born rich? Its just one more situation in which people are born that make up the multitude of humanity


Compare social mobility in Scandinavian welfarist and anglo-saxon capitalism and you can see that government intervention and redistribution of wealth improves social mobility.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf

Also see the effect of government intervention on standards of living among other things. I guess it just depends on your preference (i.e. whether you desire a chance for a much higher standard of living, even if its small, vs mobility in a relatively limited range), but its important to note that Scandinavian countries, at least in some economic areas, have more freedom than the United States, which accounts for part of their success.

[Zanthorus]

People don't control resources at the expense of everyone else, they control them to the benefit of everyone else.

This is not the argument you were having. RGacky said that property is a barrier to market entry and you asserted that it wasn't


Yes, and this is a terrible tragedy, but egalitarianism, taking to its logical extreme, leads to the reduction of humanity to the lowest common denominator of humanity. Do you punish those who are born beautiful, or born with a supportive family, or born with a more athletic-tending body, or born with a better voice/tone, or with more smarts, or who are taller? Than why punish those who are born rich? Its just one more situation in which people are born that make up the multitude of humanity

This is a strawman of egalitarianism, or at least egalitarianism as I understand it. Egalitarianism as I understand it seeks to remove the differences between people that are a result of social power structures. People being born into rich families is an inequality that exists because of social power structures and there is no reason why that child should get any more respect than any other child. Hence why education and basic standards of welfare should be a right and not a privilege. Bakunin lays it down here:


Socially: it seeks the confirmation of political equality by economic equality. This is not the removal of natural individual differences, but equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor.

- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf

This just talks about economic efficiency and doesn't say anything about mobility.

[LeftSideDown]

This is not the argument you were having. RGacky said that property is a barrier to market entry and you asserted that it wasn't

But its not. If the existence of property in other people's hands was a barrier to market entry than our productivity would not have increased.


This is a strawman of egalitarianism, or at least egalitarianism as I understand it. Egalitarianism as I understand it seeks to remove the differences between people that are a result of social power structures. People being born into rich families is an inequality that exists because of social power structures and there is no reason why that child should get any more respect than any other child. Hence why education and basic standards of welfare should be a right and not a privilege. Bakunin lays it down here:

Socially: it seeks the confirmation of political equality by economic equality. This is not the removal of natural individual differences, but equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor.

SO people who use their natural/innate skills will constantly have their wealth taken and redistributed to ensure equality? Not only is this inefficient, but what then is the incentive to use ones abilities? Even if you don't make all beautiful people wear masks, you essentially destroy any incentives they have to model... or whatever else. You cannot ensure any of those things listed at all. Equal means of subsistence? You give everyone a paycheck for food for their children, but some people may give their children unhealthy food, hampering them in the future. Support? Can you really force all parents to be equally supportive? Education? There are differences just between teachers and especially between different schools, how do you solve this? Opportunity? A naturally gifted singer has more opportunities for singing careers than anyone else.
- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm


This just talks about economic efficiency and doesn't say anything about mobility.

I never said it did, nor did I debate your contention that Scandinavian countries have more mobility (although you provided no facts to support this, I took you at your word) I just wanted to point out that the increased government intervention led to failings in other areas. So it comes down to which is more important: being able to choose more from a smaller choice of options, or being able to choose less from a larger choice of options.

[Zanthorus]

But its not. If the existence of property in other people's hands was a barrier to market entry than our productivity would not have increased.

Obviously only a significantly large concentration of property in the hands of some people is a barrier to market entry.


SO people who use their natural/innate skills will constantly have their wealth taken and redistributed to ensure equality? Not only is this inefficient, but what then is the incentive to use ones abilities? Even if you don't make all beautiful people wear masks, you essentially destroy any incentives they have to model... or whatever else.

What a beautiful strawman. I'm not even going to bother engaging you if you're not interested in taking anything I say seriously.

Just some advice though, if you actually care - Try and broaden the range of literature you read to stuff outside of stuff that you'll just mindlessly agree with. I've read Mises, yet for some reason I've never met a Misesian who's read Marx and took him seriously. Plus it stops you from constructing godawful strawmen.


Equal means of subsistence? You give everyone a paycheck for food for their children, but some people may give their children unhealthy food, hampering them in the future.

Ever heard of schools? You know children eat food at those places right?


Support? Can you really force all parents to be equally supportive?

Maybe not, but then we can bring in guardians, other relatives (Uncles, aunts, grandparents), teachers and social workers.


Education? There are differences just between teachers and especially between different schools, how do you solve this?

Strict standards for qualification as a teacher, equitable resources for all schools, regular inspections of schools by outside bodies.


Opportunity? A naturally gifted singer has more opportunities for singing careers than anyone else.

Their is a difference between the oppurtunities given to you by natural ability and by social circumstances. The latter can be adressed.

[LeftSideDown]

Obviously only a significantly large concentration of property in the hands of some people is a barrier to market entry.

So I wonder how capitalism came about since all that wealth was concentrated in the landed-gentry...


What a beautiful strawman. I'm not even going to bother engaging you if you're not interested in taking anything I say seriously.

Just some advice though, if you actually care - Try and broaden the range of literature you read to stuff outside of stuff that you'll just mindlessly agree with. I've read Mises, yet for some reason I've never met a Misesian who's read Marx and took him seriously. Plus it stops you from constructing godawful strawmen.

I care, and I've read the Manifesto, but I just can't subscribe to historical materialism and I can't just ignore economic calculation... so whats the point?


Ever heard of schools? You know children eat food at those places right?

One meal a day... when I went to middle/high school it was only lunch they provided, still leaves breakfast and lunch free to the parents. Unless, as your next comment implies, we will have a massive network of people watching people. If you don't value privacy at all, I guess thats okay.


Maybe not, but then we can bring in guardians, other relatives (Uncles, aunts, grandparents), teachers and social workers.

Would imply you KNOW they're doing something wrong, which would imply they're being watched/reported on.


Strict standards for qualification as a teacher, equitable resources for all schools, regular inspections of schools by outside bodies.

Seems like we'd need a large authoritarian state for this. I imagine this would stagnate the teaching industry as well.


Their is a difference between the oppurtunities given to you by natural ability and by social circumstances. The latter can be adressed.

But how far do you go? Some people will be lucky enough to live near influential political figures, and some parents will have better jobs/more pull when it comes to getting their child things they need/want. Social connections will still exist that can be "exploited", so unless you have some way of eliminating these, good luck with your system actually working.

[Robert]

Strict standards for qualification as a teacher, equitable resources for all schools, regular inspections of schools by outside bodies.

Zanthorus, are you really an "anarcho-communist"?

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus, are you really an "anarcho-communist"?

Yes. Anyway I have no idea about how this got into an argument about egalitarianism. I feel I made the main point that needed to be made in my first post. One point though:


and I've read the Manifesto,

The Manifesto is not the be all and end all of leftist politics or even of Marxism.


but I just can't subscribe to historical materialism

I think histomat is pretty intuitive once you get past preconceptions.


and I can't just ignore economic calculation

Neither could these guys:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/calculation_debate.pdf
http://www3.sympatico.ca/bernard.leask/renewal.html
http://iss.gsnu.ac.kr/upfiles/haksuo/SeongjinJeong20070525new.pdf