[QUOTE=Pepin;32639043]Did your teacher make the going over the assumptions used in the perfect competition model? The model has been widely criticized and I suggest you look into a deeper critique of it, but the main issue is that the assumptions make the model inherently non-applicable to anything other than describing the model. In the 30's, this was used to argue against mergers and to incite breakups, but at least since the 60's the model has been known as more as thought experiment that cannot be used to argue anything about the real world.[/QUOTE]
[quote]In perfect competition, the marginal costs rise as you produce more; however, in natural monopolies, as I've said, they go downwards.[/quote]
I was actually [I]comparing[/I] it to the perfect competition model, not saying that it existed in it. We used something similar to the monopolistic competition model for it, just to take into account the falling costs of production. (Nothing about firms selling heterogenous products in the same industry or there being few barriers to entry and whatnot like the Wikipedia page says it's used for)
Basically, I wasn't using the perfect competition model, just showing it as a contrast to industries with natural monopolies.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Huzzah for having little to no skill for explaining things.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32639043]If anyone wants to try to fix prices, they can do it, they are free to. It's like if anyone wants to start up a socialist government, they are free. Can't stop them, I can tell them it won't work, but who listens.[/quote]
So you are legitimizing price fixing by saying it won't work in the long run? How is that justifiable?
[QUOTE]To the second statement, imagine you're at Disney Land which has a private policy force (they really do). You are on Disney Land's property and they have certain rules, and if you break those rules, the police can throw you out, detain you, fine you, and so on. Is Disney Land a quasi-government? Now, you live in your house, you invite a guest over and you make it clear that smoking isn't allowed, but they do it anyway. Are you acting as a quasi-government? The answer could be yes.[/quote]
The answer is yes, as you are taking a position of authority to govern over certain issues (such as Disneyland's rules)
[quote]In a libertarian state, there would only be two rules. The non aggression axiom and property rights. You wouldn't have the right to shoot anyone who just entered on your property, you'd first have to evict them.[/quote]
But you could totally pay workers next to nothing to work with no safety measures in a mine supported by balsa wood supports
[quote]I think you're missing the point of comparison, which is that central planning is bound to so many issues. Anything government is involved in gets worst. I can't think of them doing anything right. Of course you have to use private business as a point of comparison.[/quote]
See this is what I'm talking about, can you not see how stupid that is when the Government has done quite a bit to improve the lives of its people around the world?
[QUOTE]Do you want a mathematical case? Go to page 399 of this book. It is free. Should be titled "The Predatory Price Doctrine". I recommend reading it all, but specifically there is a part where it goes into discussing numbers. I was going to copy and paste the text, but it would make for a very long post, plus I'm having issues even trying to do that with my Ebook reader.
[url]http://mises.org/resources/1006[/url][/QUOTE]
I, having decided I can't be bothered to read that, concede this point.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32646844]So you are legitimizing price fixing by saying it won't work in the long run? How is that justifiable?[/quote]
The ability to set a price? Contractual agreements? Even if they did work in the long run they should be legal. There is this notion that anything that is done to make a profit is immoral.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32646844]The answer is yes, as you are taking a position of authority to govern over certain issues (such as Disneyland's rules)[/quote]
Yes, but no. Many differences. Also, we are currently in anarchy as there is no governing agency keeping the the Australia and the US in check. This is a bit off topic.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32646844]But you could totally pay workers next to nothing to work with no safety measures in a mine supported by balsa wood supports[/quote]
First, no mine owner who wants to make money would ensure that their mine would collapse. Second, the mine owner would want to ensure that their human capital is safe and willing to work. If you hear that two hundred people died from unknown causes at GM last year, are you going to want to work at GM? Are the people there going to want to keep working? People really get caught up in a fallacy here though because they presume that there are no alternative jobs, so without regulation the worker is doomed to slave labor at the expense of their health. Third, if the business owner knowingly violated the non aggression axiom, they'd be subject to charges. Lastly, if you were to give a vote to the workers, "do we make this place safer, or do you keep more or your money", what do you think they are going to pick.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32646844]See this is what I'm talking about, can you not see how stupid that is when the Government has done quite a bit to improve the lives of its people around the world?[/quote]
Government has slowed all forms of progress, killed people for senseless reasons, put many into poverty supposedly to help them and so much more. I stopped myself before that become a rant.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32647722]The ability to set a price? Contractual agreements? Even if they did work in the long run they should be legal. There is this notion that anything that is done to make a profit is immoral.[/quote]
In the case of price-fixing it unfairly burdens the consumers for a profit.
[quote]Yes, but no. Many differences. Also, we are currently in anarchy as there is no governing agency keeping the the Australia and the US in check. This is a bit off topic.[/quote]
This is plain ignorance. What about the UN?
[quote]First, no mine owner who wants to make money would ensure that their mine would collapse. Second, the mine owner would want to ensure that their human capital is safe and willing to work. If you hear that two hundred people died from unknown causes at GM last year, are you going to want to work at GM? Are the people there going to want to keep working? People really get caught up in a fallacy here though because they presume that there are no alternative jobs, so without regulation the worker is doomed to slave labor at the expense of their health. Third, if the business owner knowingly violated the non aggression axiom, they'd be subject to charges. Lastly, if you were to give a vote to the workers, "do we make this place safer, or do you keep more or your money", what do you think they are going to pick. [/quote]
Your begging the question, the competition would similarly lower the standards in order to maintain competitiveness, so it would be a losing situation for the workers when they see that they are going to get fucked over no matter what. Victorian England didn't have much in the way of safety standards around the board, regulations forcing them to improve conditions had to be made because they weren't going to do it themselves, in an unregulated market I don't see how it would be any different (also don't say the workers could collectively bargain, because no, they couldn't when a business could just as easily fire them and hire other people who accept the conditions)
[quote]Government has slowed all forms of progress, killed people for senseless reasons, put many into poverty supposedly to help them and so much more. I stopped myself before that become a rant.[/QUOTE]
A free market would just aggravate the wealth divide, I don't see how helping the few is going to help all.
You are honestly in a Libertarian dream state, there have been no indications a free market would benefit anyone but the rich, it remains untested and frankly, it is no more of a pipe dream than communism. I could go on but unless a libertarian debate thread was made we are missing the point.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32647920]In the case of price-fixing it unfairly burdens the consumers for a profit.[/quote]
Assuming it would even work, which it won't. Fixing any price is prone to failure.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32647920]This is plain ignorance. What about the UN?[/quote]
That would be a bad example, unless you believe the UN is going to form a enforcing a common law. That is a common conspiracy theory, but it's pretty irrational.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32647920]Your begging the question, the competition would similarly lower the standards in order to maintain competitiveness, so it would be a losing situation for the workers when they see that they are going to get fucked over no matter what. Victorian England didn't have much in the way of safety standards around the board, regulations forcing them to improve conditions had to be made because they weren't going to do it themselves, in an unregulated market I don't see how it would be any different (also don't say the workers could collectively bargain, because no, they couldn't when a business could just as easily fire them and hire other people who accept the conditions)[/quote]
I addressed the scenario pretty well, I don't quite understand. It'd be one thing if what you just quoted didn't just address all that is wrong with what you just said. Though I can make a further claim and say that a person working in one of those markets wouldn't want to quit because the pay was so good, and they would be replaced so easily because everyone wanted a job in that sector.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32647920]A free market would just aggravate the wealth divide, I don't see how helping the few is going to help all.[/quote]
A common fallacy here, that there is a fixed pie. The pie can get bigger, and allowing more people to get rich will allow that pie to get bigger at a faster rate.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32647920]You are honestly in a Libertarian dream state...[/QUOTE]
Correct, this is a thread about monopoly.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32648739]Assuming it would even work, which it won't. Fixing any price is prone to failure.[/quote]
Because it is illegal, not because the market will magically swoop in.
[quote]That would be a bad example, unless you believe the UN is going to form a enforcing a common law. That is a common conspiracy theory, but it's pretty irrational.[/quote]
It has a degree of govern-ship over countries, not perfect but the statement that we are in an anarchy state was irrelevant and dumb in the first place.
[quote]I addressed the scenario pretty well, I don't quite understand. It'd be one thing if what you just quoted didn't just address all that is wrong with what you just said. Though I can make a further claim and say that a person working in one of those markets wouldn't want to quit because the pay was so good, and they would be replaced so easily because everyone wanted a job in that sector.[/quote]
Well yes, the wouldn't want to quit, therefore there is an incentive for them to stay even when their wages are docked, so they get fucked but there isn't much they can do because its a choice between living in squalor or being homeless, a lose-lose situation for them
[quote]A common fallacy here, that there is a fixed pie. The pie can get bigger, and allowing more people to get rich will allow that pie to get bigger at a faster rate.[/quote]
It is fallacious to presume that a bigger pie means a higher proportion of rich people when the labor pool continues to expand. Someone has to do the subordinate work, and as the market expands that takes more people to do so.
[quote]Correct, this is a thread about monopoly.[/QUOTE]
Indeed it is
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32649173]Because it is illegal, not because the market will magically swoop in.[/quote]
I mean it's it nice that government stops people from doing something that won't work people should be free to make mistakes, but a law against it does more harm than good as well, as the article below explains. To add, people should be allowed to make mistakes.
[url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv12n2/reg12n2-debow.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32649173]It has a degree of govern-ship over countries, not perfect but the statement that we are in an anarchy state was irrelevant and dumb in the first place.[/quote]
It was a key argument in the states right talks in the US in the 1800's, and it's a key argument behind states rights today. Realize is isn't as implicit, it isn't not to say that the state does not have the authority to make a law, but it is to argue that we can't let these people govern themselves. The article below gives a better idea of the definition of world government I'm talking about, and most agree states would lose their sovereignty. Kant uses that as a prerequisite for world government.
[quote=Stanford]‘World government’ refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority. Arguably, it has not existed so far in human history, yet proposals for a unified global political authority have existed since ancient times — in the ambition of kings, popes and emperors, and the dreams of poets and philosophers.
Proponents of world government offer distinct reasons for why it is an ideal of political organization. Some are motivated negatively and see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation. More positively, some have advocated world government as a proper reflection of the unity of the cosmos, under reason or God. Proponents have also differed historically in their views of the form that a world government should take. While medieval thinkers advocated world government under a single monarch or emperor who would possess supreme authority over all other lesser rulers, modern proponents generally do not advocate a wholesale dismantling of the sovereign states system but incremental innovations in global institutional [I]design to move humanity toward world federalism or cosmopolitan democracy[/I].
[url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/[/url][/quote]
Much of the argument is from authority. I've spent like 15 minutes trying to get the phrasing of an analogy right, but the idea is that any higher authority considers a lower authority to be in a state of lawlessness. If you don't understand this I can offer some examples.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32649173]Well yes, the wouldn't want to quit, therefore there is an incentive for them to stay even when their wages are docked, so they get fucked but there isn't much they can do because its a choice between living in squalor or being homeless, a lose-lose situation for them[/quote]
You're just making up stuff now.
[quote]Between 1760 and 1860, technological progress, education, and an increasing capital stock transformed England into the workshop of the world. The industrial revolution, as the transformation came to be known, caused a sustained rise in real income per person in England and, as its effects spread, in the rest of the Western world. Historians agree that the industrial revolution was one of the most important events in history, marking the rapid transition to the modern age, but they disagree vehemently about many aspects of the event. Of all the disagreements, the oldest one is over how the industrial revolution affected ordinary people, often called the working classes. One group, the pessimists, argues that the living standards of ordinary people fell, while another group, the optimists, believes that living standards rose.
[url]http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html[/url][/quote]
I suggest reading the article above as the quotes below will make more sense.
[quote]As noted above, the pessimistic case is widely accepted by both the general public and academia. However, it is fair to say that the majority of modern economic historians who study the industrial revolution believe that at least a slight increase in the material standard of living occurred. Since the introduction of reliable statistical evidence in Sir John Clapham’s An Economic History of Modern Britain in 1926, it has become increasingly obvious that real wages rose. The evidence is now so conclusive that one historian has confidently declared that “unless new errors are discovered, the debate over real wages in the early nineteenth century is over: the average worker was much better off in any decade from the 1830s on than any decade before 1820" (Williamson, p. 18).
The evidence vindicates such confidence. Although money wages remained stable, the prices of manufactured and agricultural goods plummeted as entrepreneurs struggled to deliver consumers low-priced goods and services (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 326-27). Although the extent of the increase in real wages is hotly debated, the most recent evidence suggests that blue-collar real wages doubled between 1810 and 1850 (Williamson, p. 18), McCloskey, although emphasizing a much longer period of time, also concludes that real wages increased significantly. He argues that real wages rose from an average of £11 per capita in 1780 to £28 per capita in 1860 (McCloskey, p. 108).
As one can imagine, the increase in real wages resulted in significant improvements in the standard of living. An excellent example is the changes in diet that occurred. Per capita consumption of meat, sugar, tea, beer, and eggs all increased. An even better indication of the rising affluence was the great increase of imported foods. Per capita consumption of foreign cocoa, cheese, coffee, rice, sugar, and tobacco increased. Meanwhile, meat, vegetables, and fruits, long considered luxuries, were by 1850 eaten regularly (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 328-29). in fact, the average weekly English diet of 1850—five ounces of butter, thirty ounces of meat, fifty-six ounces of potatoes, and sixteen ounces of fruits and vegetables—is quite similar to the English diet of today (Hartwell, 1971, p. 330).
Although such improvements obviously are important, they take on added significance when considering the large population increase that took place during the industrial revolution. Because of a fall in the death rate, the population of England and Wales rose 1.25 per cent per year between 1780 and 1860, an annual expansion that translates into an unprecedented threefold increase (McCloskey, pp. 105-108). Rising real wages (and consequent increases in food consumption) coupled with a rapidly rising population was a first in European history. The Malthusian trap of geometrically increasing populations outstripping arithmetically increasing food supplies had finally been broken. Whereas more people invariably resulted in less food per person throughout earlier European history, the industrial revolution provided more food per person. Breaking the bonds of Malthus is perhaps the crowning accomplishment of capitalism in general and the industrial revolution in particular.
Read the rest of it too
[url]http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-industrial-revolution-working-class-poverty-or-prosperity/[/url][/quote]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32649173]It is fallacious to presume that a bigger pie means a higher proportion of rich people when the labor pool continues to expand. Someone has to do the subordinate work, and as the market expands that takes more people to do so.[/quote]
Did you make a presumption there and then criticize your own presumption? It could just be your phrasing.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32650029]I mean it's it nice that government stops people from doing something that won't work people should be free to make mistakes, but a law against it does more harm than good as well, as the article below explains. To add, people should be allowed to make mistakes.
[url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv12n2/reg12n2-debow.html[/url][/quote]
Your still talking about it being okay because of it's instability even without the laws, even though when it does work it presents issues for the consumer and for competition.
[quote]It was a key argument in the states right talks in the US in the 1800's, and it's a key argument behind states rights today. Realize is isn't as implicit, it isn't not to say that the state does not have the authority to make a law, but it is to argue that we can't let these people govern themselves. The article below gives a better idea of the definition of world government I'm talking about, and most agree states would lose their sovereignty. Kant uses that as a prerequisite for world government.[/quote]
Okay.
[quote]You're just making up stuff now.[/quote]
And you've been making generalisations that you know (should know) are inaccurate.
[quote]Did you make a presumption there and then criticize your own presumption? It could just be your phrasing.[/QUOTE]
Phrasing. Furthermore I don't see how a bigger pie wouldn't just fall into the hands of the already rich, who have the capital to make these investments and soak up the new wealth.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32624487]You're making more of an empirical claim more than anything, there would be other factors you'd have to consider. But what you also would have to consider is more than just you, what Germans who don't use the highway would now be able to invest in with the money they aren't spending money on the tolls. It's a bit similar to the broken window fallacy.[/quote]
The only thing Germans who don't use the highway would be able to invest in is the increased costs of products due to the increased costs of transport. The money Germans aren't spending on highway tolls can also be invested, so that argument goes both ways.
[quote]So the argument is that you'd rather not pay for the roads, you'd prefer rich people to do it.[/quote]
Well, you truly are unable to feel empathy with the misfortuned, aren't you? I'm raised in a relatively wealthy family (upper middle class), which means I don't have to struggle with financial problems. Have I somehow deserved this by being born in the "right" family? No, I haven't. Likewise, people who are born in poor familes haven't deserved that either. That's why I think we, as a society, have a social responsibility to take care of eachother according to our ability, which in practice means that rich people should pay a higher portion of their income to taxes.
[quote]I still don't understand your solution, public roads would make whatever inefficiency created worse.[/quote]Baseless assumption. Through competition isn't the only way that a company can improve. (Governmental) monopolies in a democracy relies on the mercy of the people, if people are unhappy with the monopoly it will be abolished if the company doesn't improve, a scenario they would rather avoid. And then, there's the endeavour to improve the service of the government.
[quote]I wonder why they haven't implemented electronic passes... But it seems like the issues in France are more attributable to the bold. There is a private market solution to tolling, and like I said I'm not sure why they aren't using it, I'm guessing regulation and that it would require automation, meaning a loss of jobs, but I just don't know that much about France's roads.[/quote]I don't know, but considering the fact that France has had a right-wing government for a good while I'd be surprised if regulations were the biggest obstacle.
[quote]
Which is a big reason to be in favor of private roads and property rights, to keep this from happening. If someone is making huge profits of a non so great quality product, someone is of course going to build a road right next to it that is better to divert the competition. There is a fallacy that no competition can ever arise, yet over and over, competition always arises because of the huge amount of profits people a company makes. You can offer scenarios where this becomes impossible because the monopoly owns all the land, but that scenario doesn't reflect reality.[/quote]If a company could choose to have a monopoly over one stretch or to compete with another company over another stretch, which one do you think they would choose?
[quote]There is far too much literature about free-market roads, and it goes into every bit of detail you could think of.[/QUOTE]Okay
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32668338]The only thing Germans who don't use the highway would be able to invest in is the increased costs of products due to the increased costs of transport. The money Germans aren't spending on highway tolls can also be invested, so that argument goes both ways.[/quote]
This is largely an empirical matter, but regardless, the more taxes non Germans pay for the highways, the more money Germans have to spend.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32668338]Well, you truly are unable to feel empathy with the misfortuned, aren't you? I'm raised in a relatively wealthy family (upper middle class), which means I don't have to struggle with financial problems. Have I somehow deserved this by being born in the "right" family? No, I haven't. Likewise, people who are born in poor familes haven't deserved that either. That's why I think we, as a society, have a social responsibility to take care of eachother according to our ability, which in practice means that rich people should pay a higher portion of their income to taxes.[/quote]
A bit similar to the social contract. I refuted that in [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1126455?p=32658401&viewfull=1#post32658401]another thread[/url]. I'm all for voluntary exchanges, but forcing others to help others is completely unethical as it is completely against the non aggression axiom.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32668338]Baseless assumption. Through competition isn't the only way that a company can improve. (Governmental) monopolies in a democracy relies on the mercy of the people, if people are unhappy with the monopoly it will be abolished if the company doesn't improve, a scenario they would rather avoid. And then, there's the endeavour to improve the service of the government.[/quote]
FEMA kills 2000 people in New Orleans, they get a budget increase. Education is failing, budget increase. Roads crumbling, budget increase. At least in America, there are few examples of where a budget increase isn't proposed when a government monopoly fails. Europe could be more sensible, but I really don't know, and it probably wouldn't even make sense to generalize Europe.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32668338]If a company could choose to have a monopoly over one stretch or to compete with another company over another stretch, which one do you think they would choose?[/quote]
A monopoly, there really isn't a question about that, but what there is a question about is their ability to achieve what they want.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32669934]This is largely an empirical matter, but regardless, the more taxes non Germans pay for the highways, the more money Germans have to spend.[/quote]I'm not sure what you mean here. Non-Germans don't pay taxes to fund the German highways (well, they pay VAT, but that's probably not what you're referring to). And, if they did, why would Germans have to spend more?
[quote]A bit similar to the social contract. I refuted that in [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1126455?p=32658401&viewfull=1#post32658401]another thread[/url]. I'm all for voluntary exchanges, but forcing others to help others is completely unethical as it is completely against the non aggression axiom.[/quote]Forcing the rich to help the disadvantaged is less unethical than letting them exploit the disadvantaged.
[quote]
FEMA kills 2000 people in New Orleans, they get a budget increase. Education is failing, budget increase. Roads crumbling, budget increase. At least in America, there are few examples of where a budget increase isn't proposed when a government monopoly fails. Europe could be more sensible, but I really don't know, and it probably wouldn't even make sense to generalize Europe.[/quote]
If the education is failing, the roads are crumbling and the FEMA is dysfunctional, then giving those budget increases is a sensible solution. Did they raise the taxes or simply made a different prioritation on the budget? If they raised the taxes the budget increases should be complemented by a plan on how to improve, otherwise the increased taxes aren't justified.
[quote]A monopoly, there really isn't a question about that, but what there is a question about is their ability to achieve what they want.[/QUOTE]Again, I'm not sure what you mean.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32634921]I'm genuinely confused to as whether we have been arguing (You, Pepin and I) about government monopolies or whether monopolies are ever beneficial. I think we have lost the point a bit, but, I digress.
I'd like an explanation as to why in the economic sense government monopolies would be, by definition, inefficient. Personally I can't see how a government monopoly would be any less efficient than a private one, even when profit isn't the motive[/QUOTE]
Can I get this answered by one of you Libertarians?
[QUOTE=Beaverlake;32587301]If it is a company owned by the state it can be, for example Swedens Systembolaget.
Government Monopolies = Good (If used correctly)
Private Monopolies = Bad (Usually)[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong, government monopolies are the reason the economy is dying.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32671288]I'm not sure what you mean here. Non-Germans don't pay taxes to fund the German highways (well, they pay VAT, but that's probably not what you're referring to). And, if they did, why would Germans have to spend more?[/quote]
I'm kind lost as to this part of the discussion. I kind of know what was going on when we were talking about tulips, but I think there are some miscommunications issues going on here so it may be best to drop the issue.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32671288]Forcing the rich to help the disadvantaged is less unethical than letting them exploit the disadvantaged.[/quote]
All and any force is unethical and immoral unless. The only time force is justified is when it is used against use. Let's not get into animal rights or something similar because this is about monopolies. The whole idea of exploitation is more a game of semantics and there is a lot more to it than people think. I'll make a longer post on it, maybe a thread just going over a "just price".
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32671288]If the education is failing, the roads are crumbling and the FEMA is dysfunctional, then giving those budget increases is a sensible solution.[/quote]
I'm lost, mainly because what you said in what I quoted seemed to contradict this. Nobody is happy with any of these government services, and how is throwing money at an issue a solution? As far as education goes, the more money we spend, the same the students learn.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32671288]Again, I'm not sure what you mean.[/QUOTE]
If you were to ask one hundred people trying to get rich if they'd like to become millionaires, most would say yes. Does their preferred state reflect their current state? You could answer yes, these people likely are using means to try to get rich. Twenty years go by, you survey these people, how many of them are millionaires? Ten years another survey, how many are millionaires?
[quote=Lonestriper]I'm genuinely confused to as whether we have been arguing (You, Pepin and I) about government monopolies or whether monopolies are ever beneficial. I think we have lost the point a bit, but, I digress.
I'd like an explanation as to why in the economic sense government monopolies would be, by definition, inefficient. Personally I can't see how a government monopoly would be any less efficient than a private one, even when profit isn't the motive[/quote]
The are many issues, the main being that they don't run under a profit and loss system. The government monopoly doesn't quite have to worry about going broke, they just have to be worried about politicians. Without the profit motive, they don't really have a reason to do exceptionally well and cut waste, so waste occurs. To make my point clear:
[quote]FEMA refuses hundreds of personnel, dozens of vehicles - Chicago Tribune, 9/2/05
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050902daley,1,2011979.story[/url]
FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/3/05
[url]http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05246/565143.stm[/url]
FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board - Chicago Tribune, 9/4/05
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509040369sep04,1,4144825.story[/url]
FEMA turns away state-of-the-art mobile hospital from Univ. of North Carolina - CNN, 9/5/05
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/09/04/katrina.sick.redtape.ap/[/url]
FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations - Financial Times, 9/5/05
[url]http://news.ft.com/cms/s/84aa35cc-1da8-11da-b40b-00000e[/url]
FEMA rejects skills of firefighters, instructs them to hand out fliers - Salt Lake Tribune, 9/6/05
[url]http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_3004197[/url]
FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks - New York Times, 9/6/05
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05blame.html[/url]
FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel - New York Times, 9/6/05
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05blame.html[/url]
FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid - News Sentinel, 9/8/05
[url]http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/12595873.htm[/url]
FEMA asks media not to take pictures of dead - Washington Post, 9/8/05
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702126.html[/url]
FEMA turns back German government plane loaded with 15 tons of food - Spiegel, 9/12/05
[url]http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,374268,00.html[/url]
FEMA prevents MDs from treating dying people around them because not "federalized" - NY Times, 9/17/05
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/opinion/17tierney.html[/url]
FEMA veteran states bosses ignored his critical warnings in days prior to hurricane - CNN, 9/18/05
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/17/katrina.response/index.html[/url]
FEMA diverts money for hurricane disaster study to future bridge options - CNN, 9/18/05
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/17/katrina.evacuation.ap[/url]
FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond" Unless Dispatched - FEMA's own website
[url]http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18470[/url][/quote]
If any private company had a record like that, they'd be out of business. After New Orleans, who'd want business from FEMA?
I remember reading somewhere that a lot if internet giants (i.e. Valve, Google) are considered "benevolent" monopolies, as their success is almost completely derived from customer satisfaction. A traditional monopoly can enforce a physical stranglehold on market, stunting competitors by preventing anyone from accessing whatever materials are needed for growth, such as oil or real estate.
However, it is comparatively easy to create a competing internet business that offers better services. A consumer is not physically prevented from doing business with multiple companies. Just look at the mind-boggling number of digital distribution sites or image hosts. Google can't prevent me from moving to Bing or Yahoo. Valve can't stop me from buying all of my games from Direct2Drive or Origin. There is literally nothing stopping me. Why then, would I (or anyone else, for that matter) prefer Steam or Google to anything else? Better services, trust, et cetera.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32674480]The are many issues, the main being that they don't run under a profit and loss system. The government monopoly doesn't quite have to worry about going broke, they just have to be worried about politicians. Without the profit motive, they don't really have a reason to do exceptionally well and cut waste, so waste occurs. To make my point clear:
If any private company had a record like that, they'd be out of business. After New Orleans, who'd want business from FEMA?[/QUOTE]
Most of those are not the failings on government efficiency, rather FEMA ignoring outside help. Further, assuming since government departments don't have a profit motive they automatically are wasteful is just assuming the government, since it doesn't have to provide profits to investors, automatically takes a 'laid-back' style to it's obligations, which is plainly untrue.
In the case of FEMA, their failings are just an indication of the need for improvement, if private companies where in the same situation, with a profit motive, WITHOUT the government to provide money for the work they do (which is a Libertarian goal, small government, no interference in the market) they certainly would be running at a loss if they helped people without a fee (an immoral thing to impose a fee, seeing as it was a natural disaster beyond human interference) and would thus be unprofitable. I don't see the market getting involved in disaster relief when there is not money to be made, so your criticisms of FEMA as inefficient are pointless when the market wouldn't bother with it anyway.
This all draws back to the occurrence of competition in all fields of the market, it is difficult to assume competition could arise when say a monopoly controls all the infrastructure for say, internet, when the implementation of infrastructure is costly and makes the venture to create competition unprofitable (when faced with the prices set by the monopoly which controls the infrastructure). The magical pixie dust of the free market won't make the venture profitable nor will competition arise, so why are we to assume that the monopoly can not survive and gouge it's customers?
[quote=Pepin]
I'm lost, mainly because what you said in what I quoted seemed to contradict this. Nobody is happy with any of these government services, and how is throwing money at an issue a solution? As far as education goes, the more money we spend, the same the students learn.[/quote]I wouldn't call it "throwing money at the issue" if it's complemented by an improvement plan.
[quote]
If you were to ask one hundred people trying to get rich if they'd like to become millionaires, most would say yes. Does their preferred state reflect their current state? You could answer yes, these people likely are using means to try to get rich. Twenty years go by, you survey these people, how many of them are millionaires? Ten years another survey, how many are millionaires?
[/QUOTE]Granted, you need money in order to invest in the first place, not just anybody can build a new highway, because it's very expensive. Consequently, the ones who are building the highways won't place them next to their competitors', because they would rather have a monopoly than having to compete.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32679275]Most of those are not the failings on government efficiency, rather FEMA ignoring outside help. Further, assuming since government departments don't have a profit motive they automatically are wasteful is just assuming the government, since it doesn't have to provide profits to investors, automatically takes a 'laid-back' style to it's obligations, which is plainly untrue.[/quote]
Please give me some examples so I can refute them. These are not only failings of FEMA ignoring outside help, but them killing about 1,600 people through doing it. New Orleans was a complete disaster and FEMA somehow made it worse. Everyone in the media realized that they were not capable of doing the job.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32679275]In the case of FEMA, their failings are just an indication of the need for improvement, if private companies where in the same situation, with a profit motive, WITHOUT the government to provide money for the work they do (which is a Libertarian goal, small government, no interference in the market) they certainly would be running at a loss if they helped people without a fee (an immoral thing to impose a fee, seeing as it was a natural disaster beyond human interference) and would thus be unprofitable. I don't see the market getting involved in disaster relief when there is not money to be made, so your criticisms of FEMA as inefficient are pointless when the market wouldn't bother with it anyway.[/quote]
The solution to failure is more money? Sounds like what happens during the bank bailouts. Isn't it a moral hazard, rewarding failure with money?
The claim is obviously unfounded because in that there are numerous amount of private nonprofits that were trying to help that were turned around. Yes, these non profits run on a profit and loss system, it is in their full interest to do a good job to get donations. They run off of donations. If they don't do a good job and they screw up badly, they are likely to go out of business. If they are wasteful with donation money, nobody will trust giving their money to them.
Assume that mostly for profit companies where doing the work, where if you wanted service you had to pay a fee. That would still be better than FEMA because you at least have a choice in paying. With FEMA, there is a gun held to your head and if you don't pay you go to jail for tax evasion. There is still a fee.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32679275]This all draws back to the occurrence of competition in all fields of the market, it is difficult to assume competition could arise when say a monopoly controls all the infrastructure for say, internet, when the implementation of infrastructure is costly and makes the venture to create competition unprofitable (when faced with the prices set by the monopoly which controls the infrastructure). The magical pixie dust of the free market won't make the venture profitable nor will competition arise, so why are we to assume that the monopoly can not survive and gouge it's customers?[/QUOTE]
The question isn't very clear. If the question is related to intellectual property, that's a government given monopoly. But again, I'm not at sure what you're trying to say here.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32679484]I wouldn't call it "throwing money at the issue" if it's complemented by an improvement plan.[/quote]
The issue is that central planning is prone not to succeed as it limits the amount of experimentation that can go on. Any improvement plan will have to include central planning and limitations, and this will have quite a negative effect. This is quite easy to see in education, where teachers are forced to teach in a particular was as mandated by Federal law, when they would be far better teaching their own way. Many issues involved in this and I addressed some up above.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32679484]Granted, you need money in order to invest in the first place, not just anybody can build a new highway, because it's very expensive. Consequently, the ones who are building the highways won't place them next to their competitors', because they would rather have a monopoly than having to compete.[/QUOTE]
It's not as though you have to be literally right next to something to compete or to negate monopoly. For example, there might be two Chinese restaurants that are on the opposite sides of the town, yet they are still in competition with each other. These restaurants would also be in competition with all other restaurants, and also to some extent grocery stores.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32683126]Please give me some examples so I can refute them. These are not only failings of FEMA ignoring outside help, but them killing about 1,600 people through doing it. New Orleans was a complete disaster and FEMA somehow made it worse. Everyone in the media realized that they were not capable of doing the job.[/quote]
the systembolaget (Alcohol monopoly of the Swedish government) works pretty damn fine. In fact, most of Sweden and Norway seem to work better than any other country in the world even when they are a social democracy (under a constitutional monarchy)
[quote]The solution to failure is more money? Sounds like what happens during the bank bailouts. Isn't it a moral hazard, rewarding failure with money?[/quote]
Failure in governmental agencies does not mean they need more money, you are making things up.
[quote]The claim is obviously unfounded because in that there are numerous amount of private nonprofits that were trying to help that were turned around. Yes, these non profits run on a profit and loss system, it is in their full interest to do a good job to get donations. They run off of donations. If they don't do a good job and they screw up badly, they are likely to go out of business. If they are wasteful with donation money, nobody will trust giving their money to them.[/quote]
Yet they don't have the capital to complete disaster relief on a FEMA-esque scale. Running off donations only gets them so far. If it were many of these organizations working together, maybe, but even then if could possibly not be enough. With a government backed organization like FEMA, the issue of 'not enough' (unless their budget was cut significantly) is a non-issue. The only issue for FEMA would be how they complete their task, and in the example of new Orleans they showed incompetence which is not a call for reducing its budget nor increasing it, rather improvements in structure, policy and procedures.
[quote]Assume that mostly for profit companies where doing the work, where if you wanted service you had to pay a fee. That would still be better than FEMA because you at least have a choice in paying. With FEMA, there is a gun held to your head and if you don't pay you go to jail for tax evasion. There is still a fee.[/quote]
While you may correlate taxes with force, I correlate them as a system by which people's vested interests into maintaining society (the one they gained money in in the first place) are supported by the upkeep of said society.
[quote]The question isn't very clear. If the question is related to intellectual property, that's a government given monopoly. But again, I'm not at sure what you're trying to say here.[/QUOTE]
If company A controls all the infrastructure for electricity in the town of Libertopia, gaining a monopoly, how can we presume competition such as Company B could arise when the costs of buying the infrastructure or implementing their own would be unprofitable.
[quote]
It's not as though you have to be literally right next to something to compete or to negate monopoly. For example, there might be two Chinese restaurants that are on the opposite sides of the town, yet they are still in competition with each other. These restaurants would also be in competition with all other restaurants, and also to some extent grocery stores.[/QUOTE]
But if you want to go from point A to point B, how will the road in point C, which is not in between points A and B, help you at all?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32689609]Failure in governmental agencies does not mean they need more money, you are making things up.[/quote]
The post office fails, the answer is bailout and maybe fund them with tax payer dollars.
[quote=Post Office]You might have heard that the United States Postal Service is in trouble: that it's losing billions, that it will have to end Saturday service and close branches — and most inflammatory, that it might need a government bailout. Perhaps you heard that the Postal Service couldn't pay $5.5 billion bill that came due Sept. 30 and that only an emergency postponement saved it from the government's equivalent of default.[/quote]
[url]http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes[/url]
And almost every says education needs more funding, but what good does that do?
[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/o0vthw.jpg[/IMG]
I can go on with examples but it'd be impractical to address every sector. It'd be much easier for you to give me instances of where a government agency failed and didn't get more funding or didn't get a name change. The regulator over BP for example just changed their name when their manual didn't have anything on deep sea drilling. Another fix is often combing departments.
Like with the discussion on highways, it is possible for government to be successful with goods that have a high demand. If they had a monopoly on water, they would be successful. Same is true if they had a monopoly on marijuana, coke, or heroin. The question is, would private business do it better and for less cost? The conclusion I'm making is yes.
You brought up alcohol for which there is a high demand. It's a bit similar to highways. There were state controlled monopolies of alcohol in the states for a while, and this had quite an ill effect on the price and the taste. It is where the stereotype of American beer tasting bad came from. When the monopoly was released, alcohol prices went way down, and the beer started tasting good. Some might consider this bad if you're against the use of alcohol, but from an economic point of view it is positive.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32689609]Yet they don't have the capital to complete disaster relief on a FEMA-esque scale. Running off donations only gets them so far. If it were many of these organizations working together, maybe, but even then if could possibly not be enough. With a government backed organization like FEMA, the issue of 'not enough' (unless their budget was cut significantly) is a non-issue. The only issue for FEMA would be how they complete their task, and in the example of new Orleans they showed incompetence which is not a call for reducing its budget nor increasing it, rather improvements in structure, policy and procedures.[/quote]
Have you heard of the crowding out effect? If not look into it and apply it here. Also, would you prefer
1. A private entity who's survival depends on the amount of lives it saves
2. A public entity who's survival depends on a congress that can't decide on anything
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32689609]While you may correlate taxes with force, I correlate them as a system by which people's vested interests into maintaining society (the one they gained money in in the first place) are supported by the upkeep of said society.[/quote]
I already make a rebuttal to this societal contract argument. The logical of the argument dictates that the people who pay less taxes should receive less government services, while the people who pay more should receive more. That should be up above somewhere, or maybe in another thread. I kind of lose track of where I'm debating.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32689609]If company A controls all the infrastructure for electricity in the town of Libertopia, gaining a monopoly, how can we presume competition such as Company B could arise when the costs of buying the infrastructure or implementing their own would be unprofitable.[/QUOTE]
The question you're asking is what what would happen if someone owned all the property somewhere and they owned the power plant and they did not allow competition. The owner of the land wouldn't have to lease or sell the land out to anyone they did not want granted they were actively homesteading the land. This is where people get tripped up, and it's that in a libertarian society you couldn't just buy land and not use it. Buying 5,000 acres and doing nothing with it just to shut out your competition wouldn't make much sense as land can't be own, it can only be homesteaded. This is a bit difficult for some to understand at first as it gets into homesteading theory, which states that land cannot be bought, it can only be cared for. The same kind of theory applies to animals and children, you do not own them, rather you own the right to care for them. But moving on, in a libertarian society this would be entirely just provided the land was being homesteaded and there was no force involved. If the people did not like it, they could move to a place where they could get lower prices for their electricity.
I find this whole example a bit similar to saying that it's unfair to Dunkin Donuts that Star Bucks uses their monopoly over their property to keep competition out.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;32696211]But if you want to go from point A to point B, how will the road in point C, which is not in between points A and B, help you at all?[/QUOTE]
Are you assuming that someone will always travel the shortest distance? There is more to a decision than that. If that's not it, make yourself more clear.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32703640]The post office fails, the answer is bailout and maybe fund them with tax payer dollars.[/quote]
Bailout, restructure, then extra funding is optional
[quote][url]http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes[/url]
And almost every says education needs more funding, but what good does that do?
[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/o0vthw.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
In the case of the education department, money is essentially the thing they need to give it. Policy introduced which balanced funding with academic achievement was a gigantic kick in the balls to schools in low-income areas, which can barely provide an education to its students.
[quote]I can go on with examples but it'd be impractical to address every sector. It'd be much easier for you to give me instances of where a government agency failed and didn't get more funding or didn't get a name change. The regulator over BP for example just changed their name when their manual didn't have anything on deep sea drilling. Another fix is often combing departments.[/quote]
I don't know enough about American politics to give you an example. Nor do I think I can give you an Australian example
[quote]Like with the discussion on highways, it is possible for government to be successful with goods that have a high demand. If they had a monopoly on water, they would be successful. Same is true if they had a monopoly on marijuana, coke, or heroin. The question is, would private business do it better and for less cost? The conclusion I'm making is yes.[/quote]
Less cost? possibly. Better? I don't think so due to profit motive
[quote]You brought up alcohol for which there is a high demand. It's a bit similar to highways. There were state controlled monopolies of alcohol in the states for a while, and this had quite an ill effect on the price and the taste. It is where the stereotype of American beer tasting bad came from. When the monopoly was released, alcohol prices went way down, and the beer started tasting good. Some might consider this bad if you're against the use of alcohol, but from an economic point of view it is positive.[/quote]
Why are you correlating state alcohol monopolies to how watered down American beer tastes (the US beers they import here like Budweiser taste like water and are $10 more than a perfectly fine Australian beer [yes alcohol is expensive here, $40 for a case of beer]) I digress though.
Still, a monopoly on alcohol selling would not affect the taste of beer (a monopoly on [b]production[/b] would)
[quote]Have you heard of the crowding out effect? If not look into it and apply it here. Also, would you prefer
1. A private entity who's survival depends on the amount of lives it saves
2. A public entity who's survival depends on a congress that can't decide on anything[/quote]
2. because then they wont be able to cut it since they can't agree on anything
However, the failings of congress is congresses issue, I do sincerely feel for the people of America for having a pretty terrible system going.
[quote]I already make a rebuttal to this societal contract argument. The logical of the argument dictates that the people who pay less taxes should receive less government services, while the people who pay more should receive more. That should be up above somewhere, or maybe in another thread. I kind of lose track of where I'm debating.[/quote]
The maintaining of society means those at the bottom need most assistance while those at the top need less. On the reverse, the people at the top have benefited from society the most and therefore have the most to give. You have to associate the distribution of wealth in society with who needs assistance the most.
[quote]The question you're asking is what what would happen if someone owned all the property somewhere and they owned the power plant and they did not allow competition. The owner of the land wouldn't have to lease or sell the land out to anyone they did not want granted they were actively homesteading the land. This is where people get tripped up, and it's that in a libertarian society you couldn't just buy land and not use it. Buying 5,000 acres and doing nothing with it just to shut out your competition wouldn't make much sense as land can't be own, it can only be homesteaded. This is a bit difficult for some to understand at first as it gets into homesteading theory, which states that land cannot be bought, it can only be cared for. The same kind of theory applies to animals and children, you do not own them, rather you own the right to care for them. But moving on, in a libertarian society this would be entirely just provided the land was being homesteaded and there was no force involved. If the people did not like it, they could move to a place where they could get lower prices for their electricity.
I find this whole example a bit similar to saying that it's unfair to Dunkin Donuts that Star Bucks uses their monopoly over their property to keep competition out.[/quote]
This is not what I intended at all, either you misinterpreted or I was not clear enough.
I am saying that a company with all the infrastructure is free to provide its services to the people knowing full well in order for competition to arise they would need vast amounts of capital in order to create or buy their own infrastructure. Essentially the company would be free to do what the fuck it wants.
I'd argue for a governmental monopoly on healthcare, mainly because a government is the only thing that'd benefit from providing a decent healthcare system.
I'd also like it if the government provided a set, low cost tariff for things like gas, water and electricty, so that companies would be forced to either compete with the tariff and offer competetive pricing, or offer expensive pricing with added benefits.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32705682]Bailout, restructure, then extra funding is optional
In the case of the education department, money is essentially the thing they need to give it. Policy introduced which balanced funding with academic achievement was a gigantic kick in the balls to schools in low-income areas, which can barely provide an education to its students.
Still, a monopoly on alcohol selling would not affect the taste of beer (a monopoly on [b]production[/b] would)[/quote]
The restructuring does nothing, and neither does more funding. Education is a large topic and this is a lot to cover with what is wrong with it, but what would help most is a voucher system.
Also, you're not aware of this, but different states had different laws on alcohol after prohibition. So it was a mixed bag, I believe some produced it all, and some were just very selective distributors. The very selective part is key, because there weren't many brands. After most states stopped this, there was a brand explosion with a lot better tasting beer.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32705682]2. because then they wont be able to cut it since they can't agree on anything[/quote]
That's the problem. If there was a law that literally killed thousands of people and no negative to cutting the law, there would still be a big argument against it. I can give plenty of American examples.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32705682]I am saying that a company with all the infrastructure is free to provide its services to the people knowing full well in order for competition to arise they would need vast amounts of capital in order to create or buy their own infrastructure. Essentially the company would be free to do what the fuck it wants.[/QUOTE]
I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying, but the last statement could sum it up provided they follow the non aggression axiom and adhere to private property rights.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32722182][B]The restructuring does nothing, and neither does more funding[/B]. Education is a large topic and this is a lot to cover with what is wrong with it, but what would help most is a voucher system.[/quote]
You are assuming neither does anything
[quote]Also, you're not aware of this, but different states had different laws on alcohol after prohibition. So it was a mixed bag, I believe some produced it all, and some were just very selective distributors. The very selective part is key, because there weren't many brands. After most states stopped this, there was a brand explosion with a lot better tasting beer.[/quote]
See this is a problem with the way the monopoly conducted its business, rather than allowing lots of variation they stuck with the popular mass produced ones.
[quote]That's the problem. If there was a law that literally killed thousands of people and no negative to cutting the law, there would still be a big argument against it. I can give plenty of American examples.[/quote]
This is an issue of the two party system, not government monopolies
[quote]I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying, but the last statement could sum it up provided they follow the non aggression axiom and adhere to private property rights.[/QUOTE]
Not what I intended but if I can't articulate it or you don't understand the second time around we can leave it
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32725952]You are assuming neither does anything[/quote]
Most goods should be private sector as the private market does the best job. There is theory on what should be placed in the public sector, and a lot has to do with monopoly, public enjoyment, and so on . Below is a basic chart of how someone might lay some stuff out.
[IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/24bizpu.jpg[/IMG]
I can assume you're somewhat familiar with it, but it's good to be aware of the reasoning involved and why something should be a public good. I'm saying this because my argument is that X, Y, and Z shouldn't be considered a public good because it doesn't fall to these conditions, but you're really throwing me off because I feel you're like you're claiming everything is a public good or that the private market is just as efficient as the public. I doubt you're claiming either, so I'm just making sure we are on the same page, and that you're just saying that things like disaster relief and education should be public goods.
I'm against education in the public sector because I believe it could be provided far better by the private sector. There is plenty of profitability in that market, and the only way to attract parents would be through good results. There is far more to this case of course, but the general claim is that it shouldn't be a public good.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32725952]See this is a problem with the way the monopoly conducted its business, rather than allowing lots of variation they stuck with the popular mass produced ones.[/quote]
In the free market they would have been wide open to competition, but when the monopoly is the government, they of course ban competition. Though I suppose a monopoly mass producing really good alcohol is a different story, but wouldn't be probable.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32725952]This is an issue of the two party system, not government monopolies[/quote]
I would disagree but discussing this would be going quite off topic.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32751128]I can assume you're somewhat familiar with it, but it's good to be aware of the reasoning involved and why something should be a public good. I'm saying this because my argument is that X, Y, and Z shouldn't be considered a public good because it doesn't fall to these conditions, but you're really throwing me off because I feel you're like you're claiming everything is a public good or that the private market is just as efficient as the public. I doubt you're claiming either, so I'm just making sure we are on the same page, and that you're just saying that things like disaster relief and education should be public goods.[/quote]
You are correct.
[quote]I'm against education in the public sector because I believe it could be provided far better by the private sector. There is plenty of profitability in that market, and the only way to attract parents would be through good results. There is far more to this case of course, but the general claim is that it shouldn't be a public good.[/quote]
In Australia we have government assisted private education facilities which provide a high level of education but at a large cost, one which is unaffordable to those not in the upper echelons of society. My problem is that those in the lower income brackets in society will not be able to gain an equal education than to those of the better off in a private education system. It is the lesser of two evils to make it public institution and create equality at the cost of the public than exacerbate the divide between rich and poor by introducing a system where only top dollar would attract top education.
[quote]In the free market they would have been wide open to competition, but when the monopoly is the government, they of course ban competition. Though I suppose a monopoly mass producing really good alcohol is a different story, but wouldn't be probable.[/QUOTE]
We're talking about a monopoly on distribution though, not the production. The production of a non-essential leisure item such as alcoholic beverages is best left to the private sector, the distribution of said alcoholic beverages however doesn't necessarily have to been in the hands of the private sector, as government distribution, in the example of the Systembolaget, performs as well as you'd expect a private business to.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32751891]We're talking about a monopoly on distribution though, not the production. The production of a non-essential leisure item such as alcoholic beverages is best left to the private sector, the distribution of said alcoholic beverages however doesn't necessarily have to been in the hands of the private sector, as government distribution, in the example of the Systembolaget, performs as well as you'd expect a private business to.[/QUOTE]We have a similar system in Quebec called the SAQ. It has its own chain of stores and operates at a profit. The only real difference is Quebec also allows convenience stores to sell alcohol.
The system works and NOBODY complains about it.
I hate it when I have to be the Shoe,The car is way cooler.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32754052]We have a similar system in Quebec called the SAQ. It has its own chain of stores and operates at a profit. The only real difference is Quebec also allows convenience stores to sell alcohol.
The system works and NOBODY complains about it.[/QUOTE]Convenience stores can sell alcohol in Sweden too, Systembolaget only has monopoly on distribution of beverages with an alcohol volume of 3.5% or more.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
