Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike
Message-ID: <1038@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 23:36:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1038
Posted: Mon Jul 29 23:36:17 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 22:54:57 EDT
References: <974@umcp-cs.UUCP> <7800361@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 53

In article <7800361@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>Perhaps so, but there seem to be two conflicting uses of the word "free"
>>here.  If you take "free market" to mean something like a classical economy,
>>then you do indeed get the benefits claimed.  But libertarians seem to me to
>>be quite consistent in equating "free market" with uncontrolled market.  THe
>>historical [record] rather plainly shows that markets tend to drift away 
>from perfect
>>competition towards monopolies and oligopolies as a result of natural
>>forces, unless there are restraining forces to oppose this.  In some
>>industries, these forces exist naturally.  This is not the case, however, in
>>most manufacturing industries.  Hence, there seems to be a contradiction
>>here; you can't have classical free markets and uncontrolled markets at the
>>same time.

>Please show us where the historical record indicates that markets tend
>to drift away from competition.  In particular, the "restraining forces"
>you seem to imply might exist as a fluke seem to me to be quite 
>ubiquitous.

Well, recall when US Steel had a monopoly in the steel industry?  When 
Standard Oil was rapidly gobbling up all the oil companies in the country?
When the railroads fought to destroy each other?  And we mustn't forget Ma
Bell.

As an example where there ARE natural restraining forces, consider retail
groceries.  There are enough advantages to smaller chains and individual 
stores that allow them to compete successfully with larger chains (e.g.
A+P, Safeway); in the Washington DC area, for instance, the market is 
dominated by a local chain.  This is not a "fluke".  But in the case of
US Steel, things like local knowledge simply are not as important; steel is
steel, in Indiana or Alabama.  It seems that my anonymous opponent has 
forgotten what he was taught about monopolies in Econ 101.

>For someone who'd never heard of Consumer Reports, you sure seem to
>claim a lot of knowledge of history!

All right, let's get down to the mat on this business of Consumer Reports.
Again, it is conveniently forgotten that CU's biggest successes have involved
getting *regulatory agencies* to do something.  CU simply doesn't have the
economic clout to go up against R.J. Reynolds without the backing of the
government.

>>I note that this passage employs the double usage of "free" I noted above.
>>As a result, it is vulnerable to criticism based on the historical record.
>>People can in fact work to distort the free market, and make it less so.

>Indeed they do!  But their tools tend to be regulation, not natural
>market functions -- or hadn't you heard what happened to OPEC?

Do I really have to remind you of how De Beers controls the diamond market--
without the use of any political power at all?

Charley Wingate