Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re:Big Corporations 'filling the
Message-ID: <1977@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 01:37:51 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1977
Posted: Wed Feb 20 01:37:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 04:29:02 EST
Lines: 47
Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-139400:inmet:7800306:000:2627
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Feb 18 21:58:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt /  7:34 am  Feb 17, 1985
>
>>Goodness me.  I believe it's been pointed out several times: monopolies
>>may exist, but they are short-lived in the free market.  I myself
>> ...
>>You'd better demonstrate that "monopoly" can be other than a short-lived
>>condition before you start asking people to worry about it, or do you
>>LIKE misrepresenting the situation?
>
>I'm not sure I buy the argument about monopolies being unstable
>in a free market.  It seems to rely on linearizations that may not
>be justified.  But that's not the point of this note.
>
>When a large company has a monopoly, that they are using to charge
>prices higher than their costs warrant, they will be unwilling to
>see their market share drop (much; some token sharing might be good PR).
>I suspect that not all their directors or middle-line managers will
>be good ethical libertarians, and some might like to do something
>about the situation such as a few tacks on the driveway of the competitor,
>a little rumour about safety, or perhaps a bomb or two.  Nothing that
>could be pinned on the company, of course: "just an unfortunate
>incident by a misguidedly enthusiastic subordinate, Mr. Nixon."
>Perhaps one or two people are hung out to spin in the wind, or whatever
>the expression was.  But the competition is somewhat reduced in its
>ability to compete.
>
>Another point that leads to the suspicion that monopolies might be
>more stable than the equations suggest: knowledge is power, and who
>has the knowledge tends to get more powerful.
>
>Whether monopolies based on fair competition and good production and
>pricing practices are good or bad is a totally different question.
>The arguments against state subsidies are that the state is a stable
>monopoly creating unfair competition.  Why shouldn't a fair monopoly
>break the competition by selling (for a while) at ruinously low prices?
>Once the competition is forced out, prices can go back up to cover it,
>can't they?  This (quite probable) behaviour leads to the suggestion
>that in a free market without Government intervention or regulation
>monopolies might well be both stable and bad.

I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a
point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not
regulated or otherwise helped by government.  I agree that your logic
with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but
my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such
monopolies.  Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking
about the dangers of monopoly.