Capitalism without Monopolies

[rednordman]

The other day I was doing some thinking about the way world markets and economics have evolved since the 1900s. What has struck me is how the whole world is literally ruled by monopolies. These are general what we refer to as 'brands' or 'household names' and are at the fore of every single industry and or market.

The problem is as we all know, that alot of monopolies are ruthless and greedy and end up doing more damage to small buisnesses than any good. I hear alot of criticism from libertarians aswell as leftwingers against monopolies.

The question I want to pose is that of what would the world and capitalism be like without monopolies? Would people be better off or worser off? Is it even possible to have a free-market without monopolies forming?

[Havet]

Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) and monopolies cannot be separated, because if you have business and if you have an entity with centralized power (whether directly accountable to its people or not) you will observe collusion between businessmen in order to outcompete the other businessmen.

[LeftSideDown]

Why would businesses collude if its not in their best interest? Sure they could get together and form a cartel, but why should one or any of them agree to it? Sure they could charge higher prices, but if one lowered their prices just a cent they'd get that much more of the market share, and they could sell more at a lower price and raise their individual profits. Unless they are government cartels, free market ones would only last until someone realized its not in their best interest to continue this cartel (I'd figure it out pretty fast, don't know about you).

[Havet]

Why would businesses collude if its not in their best interest? Sure they could get together and form a cartel, but why should one or any of them agree to it? Sure they could charge higher prices, but if one lowered their prices just a cent they'd get that much more of the market share, and they could sell more at a lower price and raise their individual profits. Unless they are government cartels, free market ones would only last until someone realized its not in their best interest to continue this cartel (I'd figure it out pretty fast, don't know about you).

It is in the best interest of businesses to bribe governments because it is cheaper and more lasting than forming a natural oligopoly and collude to drive competitors out of business.

[Dean]

It is in the best interest of businesses to bribe governments because it is cheaper and more lasting than forming a natural oligopoly and collude to drive competitors out of business.

Or private security firms, which have the added bonus of working purely at the behest of those who have the greatest capital to invest in security.

I don't see how bribing a private firm would work any differently than bribing a gov't. If anything, it would be argued that private security will always evolve into a government system (de facto or de jure) but that doesn't help the argument for free markets and propertarianism.

[inyourhouse]

What has struck me is how the whole world is literally ruled by monopolies. These are general what we refer to as 'brands' or 'household names' and are at the fore of every single industry and or market.

Can you cite some examples? I don't think that claim is correct. Most markets are somewhere in between perfect competition and oligopoly. Very few pure monopolies actually exist (outside legally granted monopolies).


The question I want to pose is that of what would the world and capitalism be like without monopolies? Would people be better off or worser off? Is it even possible to have a free-market without monopolies forming?

Whether a particular market form is efficient generally depends on two factors: fixed costs and marginal costs. First of all, it's generally the case that the higher fixed costs are in an industry, the more efficient it is to have fewer firms in that industry, so that prices can rise above marginal cost. If prices were pushed down to marginal cost (as would happen under perfect competition) in industries with high fixed costs, it would not be possible for businesses to expand, and thus the market would be hit with a capacity constraint. That's the role of fixed costs. The other factor is the nature of firm's marginal costs in the industry. If marginal costs are increasing, then it is more efficient to have more firms. If marginal costs are constant, then it doesn't matter how many firms are in the market from the perspective of cost-minimization, but more firms would push prices down, thus reducing deadweight loss. Finally, if marginal costs are decreasing, then it's more efficient to have fewer firms.

Of course, those two factors could reinforce each other (e.g. high fixed costs and decreasing marginal costs) or work in opposite directions (e.g. high fixed costs and increasing marginal costs), in which case it would depend on which factor is more dominant if we were evaluating whether a given market form is efficient. It could also be the case that marginal costs are different over different ranges. In other words, when output is low (e.g. between 0 and 100 units), they could be increasing, but when output is high, they could be decreasing (e.g. between 500 and 1000 units). In that case, which market form is more efficient would largely depend on the future prospects of that industry (ie. is it growing or shrinking). Having said all that, things like the Bertrand model of competition suggest that duopolies (ie. two firms in an industry) can produce identical results to perfect competition (ie. price = marginal cost), meaning that any market form other than monopoly is equally efficient in such markets.

To directly answer your question, people may be worse off without a monopoly if the market is characterized by high fixed costs and/or decreasing marginal costs (economists call markets like these "natural monopolies"). The water industry is a common example of such a market because it is expensive to lay and maintain pipes. If prices were equal to marginal cost, no firm would be able to afford to lay those pipes. Obviously, that would make consumers worse off.

[LeftSideDown]

It is in the best interest of businesses to bribe governments because it is cheaper and more lasting than forming a natural oligopoly and collude to drive competitors out of business.

But, if government does not have the power to grant these privileges then...?

[Havet]

But, if government does not have the power to grant these privileges then...?

Then why call it government?

[IcarusAngel]

x_2-Tv2GPs0

The free-market has been completely discredited. It's one of the most discredited theories in history. It's done.

The government needs to break up all the monopolies and put the workers in charge in order to prevent technology from stalling. This would be a good first tip to real freedom, and it is NOT state communism if the workers are in charge.

[Havet]

The free-market has been completely discredited. It's one of the most discredited theories in history. It's done.

Just like communism has been completely discredited.

[LeftSideDown]

Then why call it government?

So only if it can grant monopoly privileges, corporate privileges, and bailouts can we call it government?

[inyourhouse]

The free-market has been completely discredited. It's one of the most discredited theories in history. It's done.

What is discredited about it?

[LeftSideDown]

x_2-Tv2GPs0

The free-market has been completely discredited. It's one of the most discredited theories in history. It's done.

The government needs to break up all the monopolies and put the workers in charge in order to prevent technology from stalling. This would be a good first tip to real freedom, and it is NOT state communism if the workers are in charge.

Did you even watch the video? He says "Free-market fundamentalism is dead" because of this September's (I assume hes talking about the bailout) events. Yet, in the very next series of statements he says we do NOT have the free-market in the United States, but we have a sort of corporatism. "Corporate welfarism under the guise of free-market economics". He calls THIS structure flawed, and been shown not to work. I don't disagree with him. But honestly how can he draw from "Corporate welfarism doesn't work and thats what we have" that "this september proved "market fundamentalism doesn't work"". Honestly, at least watch the stuff you post.

[IcarusAngel]

Stiglitz obvious means that we have to have proper government over sight and regulations and in fact says this in the video. The free-markets creates this crony capitalism because it allows corporations to become so big that they are the only actors that can influence the state. The "free-market fundamentalism" comes from the belief that we can trust the corporations to make the best choices regarding free-trade and the resources that they own.

Even if what inyourhouse is saying is true about markets (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) markets are still flawed because there is always a "race for the bottom." There needs to be either regulation or people need to break out of the paradigm that says that either corporations or about 10% of the population should control the resources, or the government should control it and dish it out (really these opposite ends work together, such as when government hands over billions of dollars of R&D to the corporations, such as the air waves).

So I would claim that the market leads to an inefficient use of resources and it always does and we need an alternative mode of production.

[inyourhouse]

So I would claim that the market leads to an inefficient use of resources and it always does and we need an alternative mode of production.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that markets lead to an inefficient use of resources because they create organizations with the ability to exert influence on government? Also, what is your proposed alternative mode of production?

[LeftSideDown]

Stiglitz obvious means that we have to have proper government over sight and regulations and in fact says this in the video. The free-markets creates this crony capitalism because it allows corporations to become so big that they are the only actors that can influence the state. The "free-market fundamentalism" comes from the belief that we can trust the corporations to make the best choices regarding free-trade and the resources that they own.

"Stiglitz obvious means" lolol (Sorry, I couldn't help myself, you refuting Smiling Dave's points by pointing out spelling errors was too classic).

Woah woah woah, stop the presses. The only way corporations become as big as they are is through government interference: even taxes help to keep companies that are already large free from competitors that could conceivably arise. So, its not the "Free-market" that allows the corporations to get so big, its the government, which is then controlled by the large corporations they created. What is the "best" choice? I only trust them to make decisions that are in the interest of their own company. The difference between me and you is, as long as property rights are being respected, a profitable company benefits more than itself.


Even if what inyourhouse is saying is true about markets (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) markets are still flawed because there is always a "race for the bottom." There needs to be either regulation or people need to break out of the paradigm that says that either corporations or about 10% of the population should control the resources, or the government should control it and dish it out (really these opposite ends work together, such as when government hands over billions of dollars of R&D to the corporations, such as the air waves).

What is a "race for the bottom"? Oh, I see a race to lower prices. I don't know why you're against this, seems to me I would benefit from lower prices, wouldn't you? But I digress. Do you need regulations on your behavior? Do you need someone telling you not to drive your car off a cliff? It is not like capitalists aren't people, although your constant demonization of them may make you think otherwise.


So I would claim that the market leads to an inefficient use of resources and it always does and we need an alternative mode of production.

Your claim is:
1) Unsubstantiated
2) Refuted by the 20th Century.

[IcarusAngel]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that markets lead to an inefficient use of resources because they create organizations with the ability to exert influence on government? Also, what is your proposed alternative mode of production?

It's a straight forward social science analysis similar (though not exactly) to what Marx said in the communist manifesto. And of course it's been pointed out by political scientists all the time - even liberal capitalists ones - that land owners create many problems, influence the government and the economy as much as the other way around, make difficult to "reform" because they have power to threaten the state, etc.

I don't have a solution, but the first step to finding a solution is admitting that there is a problem. And everybody admits there is a problem. Once we all agree market fundamentalism is the problem we can all come to the table and work out a solution.

I wouldn't purpose a solution as I'm not a political scientist or economist. I think we need to figure out the current exigencies before we can implement real change.

Permit me to quote mathematician Bertrand Russell:


The civilized world has need of fundamental change if it is to be saved from decay - change both in its economic structure and in its philosophy of life.... As soon as it has become clear what kind of change is required, it will be possible to work out its parts in more detail. But until the war is ended there is little use in detail, since we do not know what kind of world the war will leave.

We don't know what kind of world the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will leave either, but I agree with his assumptions on what needs to be changed.

What would you do to fix it? Privatize things, the exact thing many experts seem to be warning against?

[LeftSideDown]

What would you do to fix it? Privatize things, the exact thing many experts seem to be warning against?

There were "experts" about astronomy before Galileo said the Earth circled the sun... Would you trust them?

[IcarusAngel]

"Stiglitz obvious means" lolol (Sorry, I couldn't help myself, you refuting Smiling Dave's points by pointing out spelling errors was too classic).

Given that "Smiling Dave" claimed that Godel's incomplete theorem applies only to systems that incorporate the "laws of arithmetic" he refutes himself. (In reality it applies to system in which some arithmetic can be carried out.)

""The incompleteness theorem applies to many other kinds of formal systems than first-order theories, but will will assume that the language of a formal system at least includes a negation operator, so that every sentence A in the language has a negation not-A. (A sentence is here a full sentence, expressing a statement which it makes sense to speak of as proved or disproved.) This allows us to define what it means for S to be consistent (there is no A such that both A and not-A are theorems) and for a sentence A to be undecidable in S (neither A nor not-A is a theorem of S). A system is complete (sometimes called "negation complete") if no sentence in the language of S is undecidable in S, and otherwise is incomplete." --Godel's theorem, a complete guide to its use and abuse, by Torkel Franzén

Besides, the Misean said he had knowledge of "Goel's theorem," which must be different theorem.


Woah woah woah, stop the presses. The only way corporations become as big as they are is through government...

This is just false because the three largest times of corporate influence in America were during the three deregulation periods of 1890, 1920, and 1980, when there were tax cuts on the rich and so on. (The politics of rich and poor.)

This leads to a transfer of wealth from the lower classes into the hands of the upper classes (ibid).

In fact, the author of the book notes that the real transfers of wealth that were direct were things like the Civil War and so on, which transferred power from the South to the North, otherwise the government privatizes in order to get more power to the corporations.

Libertarians do not think this is enough, so they're not republicans. They want the government to engage in a "civil war" type policy where the government ACTIVELY transfers all power into the hands of corporations.

This is tyranny, and it's conceded it's tyranny.

[IcarusAngel]

There were "experts" about astronomy before Galileo said the Earth circled the sun... Would you trust them?

False analogy. Those experts were the "misean economists" of the time. They rejected the scientific method (didn't know what it is) for a deductive system where they attempted to present their preconceived notions of the world TO their theories, rather than attempting to make generalizations about the world FROM the facts.

This was discredited with the rise of empiricism, Kant's book on the faults of a priorism (although he dabbled in his own a priorism I'm aware of that, see the Godel thread, where it's now known Kant was wrong), inductive systems, etc. etc.

When the enlightenment came about, there were still "Miseans" (religious people) who do what you do and rejected the empirical evidence.

This is why Miseans hate Godel's theorem, because it shows it's not even possible to use such a system within mathematics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) and monopolies cannot be separated, because if you have business and if you have an entity with centralized power (whether directly accountable to its people or not) you will observe collusion between businessmen in order to outcompete the other businessmen.

Don't forget modern-day guilds.

[Skooma Addict]

False analogy. Those experts were the "misean economists" of the time. They rejected the scientific method (didn't know what it is) for a deductive system where they attempted to present their preconceived notions of the world TO their theories, rather than attempting to make generalizations about the world FROM the facts.

And the brand of empiricism that became dominant during that time has also been discredited.


When the enlightenment came about, there were still "Miseans" (religious people) who do what you do and rejected the empirical evidence.

You define Misean as "One who holds an incorrect position." The fact that you claim that there were Miseans during the enlightenment is just insane.

[LeftSideDown]

Given that "Smiling Dave" claimed that Godel's incomplete theorem applies only to systems that incorporate the "laws of arithmetic" he refutes himself. (In reality it applies to system in which some arithmetic can be carried out.)

""The incompleteness theorem applies to many other kinds of formal systems than first-order theories, but will will assume that the language of a formal system at least includes a negation operator, so that every sentence A in the language has a negation not-A. (A sentence is here a full sentence, expressing a statement which it makes sense to speak of as proved or disproved.) This allows us to define what it means for S to be consistent (there is no A such that both A and not-A are theorems) and for a sentence A to be undecidable in S (neither A nor not-A is a theorem of S). A system is complete (sometimes called "negation complete") if no sentence in the language of S is undecidable in S, and otherwise is incomplete." --Godel's theorem, a complete guide to its use and abuse, by Torkel Franzén

Besides, the Misean said he had knowledge of "Goel's theorem," which must be different theorem.

Says right there "incomplete" not that its wrong. Again read/view what you post.


This is just false because the three largest times of corporate influence in America were during the three deregulation periods of 1890, 1920, and 1980, when there were tax cuts on the rich and so on. (The politics of rich and poor.)

This leads to a transfer of wealth from the lower classes into the hands of the upper classes (ibid).

In fact, the author of the book notes that the real transfers of wealth that were direct were things like the Civil War and so on, which transferred power from the South to the North, otherwise the government privatizes in order to get more power to the corporations.

Libertarians do not think this is enough, so they're not republicans. They want the government to engage in a "civil war" type policy where the government ACTIVELY transfers all power into the hands of corporations.

This is tyranny, and it's conceded it's tyranny.

They weren't deregulation periods, they were periods where the state was granting monopolies left and right. Do you even know what a libertarian is? Honestly, we don't want the government to actively do anything really, enforce laws that protect property rights and defend the nation... thats about it.

[Wolf Larson]

But, if government does not have the power to grant these privileges then...?
Then as has happened throughout history capitalists will collude with one another in so forming monopolies. The only thing that could stop it? State regulation LOL

Give it up man. Your free markets or capitalism have never and cannot exist without a state. Try reading this book if you can't bring yourself to understand the Marxist [materialist] critique of history:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29

[LeftSideDown]

Then as has happened throughout history capitalists will collude with one another in so forming monopolies. The only thing that could stop it? State regulation LOL

Give it up man. Your free markets or capitalism have never and cannot exist without a state. Try reading this book if you can't bring yourself to understand the Marxist [materialist] critique of history:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29

State regulation breeds monopoly as larger businesses are better able to deal with the copious amounts of paperwork associated with such regulations. Just think about it: which is going to be hurt more for having to hire 3 regulation-handling-lawyers...
1) A company that hires 1000 workers
2) A company that hires 50 workers
?

But why would someone collude with others if it hurts them? Collusion creates very real opportunity costs, and if I know that I can make twice the profit I'm making in a cartel by undercutting the cartel why wouldn't I do it? Loyalty? Hahhaha, besides if I don't act first, someone else could act and I'd have to undercut him and it'd be a "race to the bottom" (or lowest price) and then we'd be back at a competitive market.

[Havet]

So only if it can grant monopoly privileges, corporate privileges, and bailouts can we call it government?

No. We call it government because it is an agency of legitimized coercion, by representatives elected by the people. But that fact implies monopoly privileges, corporate privileges and bailouts, as any history book will show.

[LeftSideDown]

No. We call it government because it is an agency of legitimized coercion, by representatives elected by the people. But that fact implies monopoly privileges, corporate privileges and bailouts, as any history book will show.

So government can exist without it if it is sufficiently limited, it just hasn't been so yet? Before capitalism all that existed (for major industries) was state mandated monopolies, so we're at least improving, right? Well maybe not, but we were for a while :D.

[Havet]

So government can exist without it if it is sufficiently limited, it just hasn't been so yet? Before capitalism all that existed (for major industries) was state mandated monopolies, so we're at least improving, right? Well maybe not, but we were for a while :D.

You don't understand. As long as there is an agency with centralized power and it is a monopoly by itself, we will see its natural growth (what you would call regulation, subsidies, privileges, laws, etc) to serve primarily the interests of the ruling class, a class where the initial "centralizers" are included, as well as all the lobbies which compete to retain their artificial privileges.

There is no way to have Minarchism (aka Limited Government), at least for an extended amount of time.

[LeftSideDown]

There is no way to have Minarchism (aka Limited Government), at least for an extended amount of time.

Solution???:crying::crying::crying:

[inyourhouse]

I don't have a solution, but the first step to finding a solution is admitting that there is a problem. And everybody admits there is a problem. Once we all agree market fundamentalism is the problem we can all come to the table and work out a solution.

I just don't see the link between the two. An unregulated free market with a highly regulated government could very well result in much less corporate influence than a highly regulated free market with an unregulated government. Perhaps you could suggest some studies on this issue?


What would you do to fix it? Privatize things, the exact thing many experts seem to be warning against?

I would impose greater regulations on governments. For example, banning any organization that receives government money from donating to a politician or political party. I don't understand why you think I would suggest privatizing things. While privatization has many benefits, I don't think I have ever suggested that it's a way to reduce corporate influence over government. It would in all likelihood neither increase nor decrease corporate influence.

[Havet]

Solution???:crying::crying::crying:

Well, on that matter, either you side with the ancaps and believe that for profit PDAs + common law/tort law will handle it, or you go for more direct democratic means by the voluntary consent of each community that chooses to organize themselves like that (ie: cooperatives, communes, etC)

[IcarusAngel]

I just don't see the link between the two. An unregulated free market with a highly regulated government could very well result in much less corporate influence than a highly regulated free market with an unregulated government. Perhaps you could suggest some studies on this issue?

I agree. Abstract market theorists such as yourself generally ignore the fact that when Democrats (big D, as in the party) have purposed across the board regulations (fair for all business) and reducing the military budget and so on, that they're generally seen as socialists.

Clinton reduced some aspects that were SUPPOSED to be reduced, and he was accused of being a socialist, even though he increased other aspects of the military. So that may not be the most 'practical' solution given the framework.

All purposed solutions will have faults in them.

However, public works are better than "privatized" programs. Look at the current war, which is very bad, versus other wars where at least they led to many public works programs. This is because the difference is the "free-market fundamentalism" factor. The US trusted companies like Blackwater (whose changed its name to distance itself from its crimes) and other corporations who were given exclusive contracts.

Of course it would be better to have no wars while maintaining publicly funded technology - the military is used as an excuse to fund high technology for corporations.


I would impose greater regulations on governments. For example, banning any organization that receives government money from donating to a politician or political party. I don't understand why you think I would suggest privatizing things. While privatization has many benefits, I don't think I have ever suggested that it's a way to reduce corporate influence over government. It would in all likelihood neither increase nor decrease corporate influence.

Governments today are international actors in the world political economy and in international relations. Regulating them requires regulating warfare, limiting their ability to dictate trade negotiations, and so on. Probably it would mean strengthening IGOs, which Libertarians refer to as the "New World Order," which sounds fine to me as it would reduce international conflicts while encouraging fairer trade.

Any "source" on the subject is any book on the subject, such as "Understanding International Conflicts." This is all conceded in the social sciences and the humanities.

These solutions will probably be implemented anyway over the next couple decades but the public is often opposed to them.

Anyway, the nice thing about "leftist" theories such as anarchy and participatory economics, is that if people make mistakes, they are theirs to make, and it wouldn't force everybody into starvation, as everybody has at least some land. Thus you wouldn't feel guilty living in the Western world when 4 billion other people in the world are dying - because you would KNOW that you are not stealing their resources.

Robin Hahnel has written extensively on how people in the West are essentially murdering third-worlders through trade agreements and stealing their wealth:

"What I called 'The Great Global Asset Swindle', when writing about it in Z Magazine in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, works like this: international investors lose confidence in a third world economy -- dumping its currency, bonds and stocks. At the insistence of the IMF, the central bank in the third world country tightens the money supply to boost interest rates to prevent further capital outflows in an unsuccessful attempt to protect the currency. Even healthy domestic companies can no longer afford or maintain loans so they join the ranks of bankrupted domestic businesses available for purchase. As a precondition for receiving the IMF bailout the government abolishes any remaining restrictions on foreign ownership of corporations, banks and land. With a depreciated local currency, and a long list of bankrupt local businesses, the economy is ready for the acquisition experts from Western multinational corporations and banks who come to the fire sale with a thick wad of almighty dollars in their pockets." (ABC's of Political Economy, 195)

(Hahnel, like Stiglitz, has a Ph.D in economics.)

Capitalism is based on protecting people's property rights so you prevent other systems from forming, which necessitates this brutality in order to keep the society functioning.

[RGacky3]

Heres why a free market (in the sense that libertarians talk about) is impossible, its never existed and never will exist.

For a Market to exist you need extensive property rights to be enforced by a state, meaning property rights beyond actual personal possesions (which you don't really need a state to enforce), without that sort of capitalist property rights a free market is impossible, what you also need is some sort of institution that sells natural resources (a state), because without that there is no way of applying natural resources to a market situation, you also need a way to deal with externalities, the market has never been able to deal with that due to the short term profit driving factor and competition, as well as the fact that many externalities are not directly related to their consumers (for example the majority of people that use oil are not the native tribes that live off the land in areas that oil companies destroy, the same way most people that use furnature are not anywhere near the amazon rain forests that get destroyed.)

All of this shows that for a Market to work you need a State, and if you have a state you are going to need taxes, you are going to need enforcement agencies, and thus your going to need an entity that is for the defense of and will be used and abused by market powers, i.e. large buisiness.

The Market is a State institution, and the State is a Capitalist institution, its like the feudal relationship between the king and the landed nobility, infact its exactly the same.

Hayenmills concept of a non-state market, or a non-capitalist free market (whatever that is) compleatly disregards the actual nature of the market.

[rednordman]

I'd just like to say sorry for not attribuiting more to this tread. I'v been really busy. I expected this to get a couple of response but its exploded instead. Thank you all very much.:)

[inyourhouse]

I agree. Abstract market theorists such as yourself generally ignore the fact that when Democrats (big D, as in the party) have purposed across the board regulations (fair for all business) and reducing the military budget and so on, that they're generally seen as socialists.

Yes, they saw those proposals (rightly or wrongly) as socialism and as socialism is (rightly or wrongly) seen as negative by most of the public, they viewed those proposals negatively by extension. I can understand this reasoning itself as being a problem (ie. dismissing something out of hand because it's socialist, rather than taking a position based on logic/evidence), and if this is what you define as "market fundamentalism" then I agree that it's a problem. However, I don't think it follows that because it's fallacious to dismiss perceived socialist policies (again, they may not in fact be socialist policies) with no basis, a free market therefore "leads to an inefficient use of resources and it always does".


Governments today are international actors in the world political economy and in international relations. Regulating them requires regulating warfare, limiting their ability to dictate trade negotiations, and so on. Probably it would mean strengthening IGOs

I agree. I'm not opposed to any of that, as long as the regulations on government are themselves democratically controlled. The problem with IGOs is that they are very undemocratic, unfortunately. In any case, with such regulations in place, corporate influence of government would be reduced.


Robin Hahnel has written extensively on how people in the West are essentially murdering third-worlders through trade agreements and stealing their wealth:

Trade agreements are not the same as IMF bailouts. A proper free trade agreement (ie. one in which effective tariffs are reduced in real terms) benefits developing countries.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Monopolies come about due to government intervention in the economy, usually via protectionist policies. So you do away with the government and install a free market where competition is king and monopolies wouldn't be able to form b/c there would be constant competition arising. So obviously life would be better.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Monopolies come about due to government intervention in the economy, usually via protectionist policies. So you do away with the government and install a free market where competition is king and monopolies wouldn't be able to form b/c there would be constant competition arising. So obviously life would be better.

Why? Have you ever considered that monopolies may come about because of free market competition itself? If you want unrestrained competition what do you propose to stop one enterprise or a collection of enterprises from growing large enough to become monopolies?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Monopolies come about due to government intervention in the economy, usually via protectionist policies. So you do away with the government and install a free market where competition is king and monopolies wouldn't be able to form b/c there would be constant competition arising. So obviously life would be better.

Basic question: who would enforce contracts in a free market environment without government regulation? The Sex Money Murder gang in Trenton can't pursue their grievances through legal channels, so they usually have to murder or terrorize others in order to collect debts.

Besides, there would be a ton of resistance to getting rid of government. So much as to render it impossible. We don't want to get rid of government because of its importance in the transition. The businesspeople, for the most part, don't want to get rid of government; they want a government that does not interfere in their pursuit of profit; they also want a government that will provide favorable legislation, control of the working class, sanctity of property and monopoly opportunities.

Getting rid of government in unrealistic. In its absence, competing power centers will invariably crop up, in order to defend small-scale common interests. And with no central arbiter, violence will become the common denominator.

[LeftSideDown]

Why? Have you ever considered that monopolies may come about because of free market competition itself? If you want unrestrained competition what do you propose to stop one enterprise or a collection of enterprises from growing large enough to become monopolies?

Why, thats a simple one, my friend, competition. There is this common presumption that big business loathes regulation. It loves it. Its the easiest way to outcompete newer/smaller businesses.
A) A company that hires a 1000 workers can easily afford to hire 3 lawyers/regulation specialists to work to make sure the company is "in compliance".
B) A company that hires 50 workers cannot easily afford to hire the 3 specialists. Its profit, which would be used to grow the company, is now (considerably) less than it would've been otherwise.

Anyway, there is such a thing as diseconomies of scale and decreasing returns to scale. This would limit overly large business (although its sad that it also doesn't limit overly large government :crying:)

[LeftSideDown]

Basic question: who would enforce contracts in a free market environment without government regulation? The Sex Money Murder gang in Trenton can't pursue their grievances through legal channels, so they usually have to murder or terrorize others in order to collect debts.

Well, anarcho-capitalists usually say there will be PDA (Personal Defense Agencies I think?) and that these would arbitrate disputes. I think I lean more towards minarchy myself, but I'm still kind of juggling the issues.


Getting rid of government in unrealistic. In its absence, competing power centers will invariably crop up, in order to defend small-scale common interests. And with no central arbiter, violence will become the common denominator.

It kind of is, but you must see that setting up communism is kind of unrealistic as well. The common defense of anarchy is that nations live in a state of anarchy with each other and they find ways of not always fighting.