Quote :

"But Kris, looking at it either Mathematically or Historically leads to the same conclusion: labor markets in the United States are not intollerably uncompetitive."

First off, that came straight out of your ass, secondly, you'll note from the title of this thread that this conclusion doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed.

Quote :

"Since you are arguing against both mathematical, logical, and historical evidence the burden of proof is on you."

I'd imagine your asshole hurts from pulling that one out.

Quote :

"And I am asking you to defend old legislation. Or, defeat new legislation repealing the old legislation."

Oh, so I guess you don't understand the way burden of proof works either.

12/4/2006 11:57:32 AM

Quote :

"you'll note from the title of this thread that this conclusion doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed"

Ah, true enough, you drag us down this tangent on the intollerability of free labor markets. Well, since we should only talk about the threat title in this thread then fine, back on subject.

Both Lou Dobbs and Kris and others are morons because they do not understand the interaction between international trade and variable exchange rates.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/4/2006 4:45:55 PM

I understand it, but you are unwilling to understand the concept of market power beyond the "one-firm" level.

12/4/2006 4:51:09 PM

what would happen if the president went on lou dobbs?

12/4/2006 6:12:10 PM

^^ Kris, read my stuff. I perfectly understand competition in small numbers, check out my simplistic math example above, 5 equal-sized firms clearly act differently from an infinite number of equal sized firms. But 10,000 or 100 firms act more similarly to perfect competition than they do to a monopoly. That's why I keep using the words "intolerably uncompetitive", no market will ever have an infinite number of firms, but 10 equal sized firms are close enough to be tolerable.

Fuck, in my mind a free-market monopoly (just 1 firm) is tolerable because breaking it up does irrevocable harm to the social fabric by altering the incentives to be efficient (look back a month or so to another one of our three page back and forths).

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/4/2006 10:47:15 PM

Quote :

"Kris, read my stuff. I perfectly understand competition in small numbers, check out my simplistic math example above, 5 equal-sized firms clearly act differently from an infinite number of equal sized firms. But 10,000 or 100 firms act more similarly to perfect competition than they do to a monopoly. That's why I keep using the words "intolerably uncompetitive", no market will ever have an infinite number of firms, but 10 equal sized firms are close enough to be tolerable."

I read it, and there was a reason that I discounted it and asked you for a Normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.

Quote :

"Fuck, in my mind a free-market monopoly (just 1 firm) is tolerable because breaking it up does irrevocable harm to the social fabric by altering the incentives to be efficient (look back a month or so to another one of our three page back and forths)."

And in my mind no one earns the right to fuck up our economy, no matter how hard they work for it. There are enough incentives to be efficent, you know, not going bankrupt, making money, etc. You have no reason but speculation to believe that a company will base it's entry into the market on the possibility of monopoly rather than the accepted economic reasons that a firm enters a market.

12/4/2006 11:10:54 PM

And you have no reasons but speculation to believe investors do not take all aspects of a market into account. Of course, I've got evidence on my side, General Electric in the early 1950's would not be the only case where a company propped up their competitors in order to avoid potential future anti-trust litigation. Instead, the U.S. government charged them with collusion and cartelization and put the CEO in jail for awhile. Well, GE stopped price fixing, released a backlog of new products, and its competitors promptly lost market-share. Of course, this prompted accusations of predatory pricing and GE was punished through anti-trust litigation, as it had feared earlier.

It was all for naught, of course, because thanks to trade liberalization GE soon faced competitors on all fronts from overseas.

Prompting me to say: it appears not once in history has a free-market monopoly "fucked up the economy." The only actual historical example of a free-market monopoly anyone has is Alcoa, which competed fiercely to make Aluminum as cheap and plentiful as it could, since Aluminum as a material was in competition with other materials if not in direct competition with other producers of Aluminum.

Meanwhile, not once has anti-trust legislation helped the situation. Every time it has been used it was used against a company with already crumbling market share (Standard Oil lost half its market share in the 20 years before its first anti-trust lawsuit). Prompting a plausible accusation: antitrust laws are a weapon yielded against companies either unwilling or unable to pay protection money to Washington politicians. That's what I think happened to Standard Oil: their check bounced. Take Microsoft: in the 90s Bill Gates gave no money to anyone, and he got sued and almost lost. Well, nowadays Bill Gates gives large sums of money to nearly every foundation in Washington, no more calls from congress for antitrust hearings against Microsoft.

Even if you are right that antitrust laws are necessary, do you really trust George Bush to use that power when it is necessary and not use it when it is destructive? Politicians love real monopolies, they depend on them for contributions and historically set up most of them (the Southern Pacific Railroad, the single most destructive Monopoly in U.S. history, was a government protected monopoly). What they hate are companies that don't donate to their favorite causes. Does a law really increase efficiency when its chief use is to funnel money into Political Action Committees? I think not.

12/5/2006 12:07:43 AM

Quote :

"And you have no reasons but speculation"

No, I have accepted economic principles.

Quote :

"I've got evidence on my side, General Electric in the early 1950's would not be the only case where a company propped up their competitors in order to avoid potential future anti-trust litigation."

That doesn't prove your point at all.

Quote :

"Prompting me to say: it appears not once in history has a free-market monopoly "fucked up the economy.""

Haha, the very existence of monopoly is fucking up the economy. I honestly can't believe that you either don't understand the accepted flaws in capitalism, or so strongly don't want to believe that they exist that you will deny reality.

Quote :

"The only actual historical example of a free-market monopoly anyone has is Alcoa"

We've got diamond monopolies to this day, russia had a fiercely guarded monopoly on sable furs for many years.
You're a moron if you think that was the only monopoly that ever existed.

Quote :

"Even if you are right that antitrust laws are necessary, do you really trust George Bush to use that power when it is necessary and not use it when it is destructive? Politicians love real monopolies, they depend on them for contributions and historically set up most of them (the Southern Pacific Railroad, the single most destructive Monopoly in U.S. history, was a government protected monopoly)."

I believe in my government because I believe in democracy. This comes down to what you libertarians really have a problem with, democracy. Companies only have to answer to their shareholders, the government has to answer to us. If it does something wrong, we can change it by voting and voicing our opinion. You can shout boogeyman all day by shouting corruption and beauracracy, but the fact is that the government has always had spouts of corrupt politicians and misuse, but it has still worked very well. They aren't all theives, if they were they'd be turning each other in.

12/5/2006 1:23:33 AM

Quote :

"Haha, the very existence of monopoly is fucking up the economy."

I'm sure it could, but the only monopoly examples you have given were state sponsored. You said "russia had a fiercely guarded monopoly," fiercely guarded by whom? Could it have been the Government? You have more truth in the diamond argument, but that is more a freak of nature in how ungodly rare they are.

While I admit free-market monopolies are technically possible, and it is technically possible for them to fuck up the economy, it has never happened. If it was as likely as you pretend, should we not be brimming with examples? Nope, all we have are thousands of examples where Government (democratic and otherwise) secured monopolies either on ideological basis (socialism) or corrupt basis (rob resources from customers). The third world today is filled with these monopolies, they are inescapable, yet the locals have yet to "change it by voting and voicing our opinion." Mexico alone has government protected monopolies and duopolies most notably in telecommunications, broadcasting, energy, and brewing. You say monopolies wreck the economy, fine, there you go: former socialist states have lots of monopolies and are wrecked. Former free-market states have no monopolies and are not wrecked. If Democracy "works pretty well" as you say then why are most Democracies on this planet saddled with monopolies when it is obvious, even to you, that monopolies are "fucking up the economy"?

12/5/2006 9:58:28 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure it could"

Not, "it could", IT DOES. Monopolies result non-society optimal price point for a good, this is wrong. This is market failure.

Quote :

"but the only monopoly examples you have given were state sponsored"

The diamond monopoly is not state sponsored. They do pay of those country's corrupt goverment officials, but any firm with that amount of money in a government that they could take adavantage of would.

Quote :

"Could it have been the Government?"

Sure it could, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Quote :

"but that is more a freak of nature in how ungodly rare they are"

No they just slipped through the cracks because the resource these companies use to monopolize upon exists within a government that either, can't, or won't take legislative anti-trust measures agianst them. Monopolies are rare because few resources exist in such few places, and even fewer do not exist under some modern goverment that will enact anti-trust laws to stop them.

Quote :

"it has never happened"

You're making yourself look like a fool. It has happened, and it will happen agian if not for anti-trust laws.

Quote :

"If it was as likely as you pretend, should we not be brimming with examples?"

First off, lack of evidence for something is not evidence agianst it, that's a logical fallacy. Secondly, the only reason we don't have many examples are because modern governments aren't stupid enough to allow them form. The ones that did begin to come up in america in steel and oil, were crushed by anti-trust legislation. Secondly resources are difficult to control, especially with worldwide trade being so easy, makes it hard to monopolize on one resource.

Quote :

"The third world today is filled with these monopolies, they are inescapable, yet the locals have yet to "change it by voting and voicing our opinion.""

How many of these have democracy?

Quote :

"Mexico alone has government protected monopolies and duopolies most notably in telecommunications, broadcasting, energy"

Those are natural monopolies, not really the same thing.

Quote :

"If Democracy "works pretty well" as you say then why are most Democracies on this planet saddled with monopolies when it is obvious, even to you, that monopolies are "fucking up the economy"?"

You'll need to prove this outside going into your little crying fit.

12/5/2006 12:21:15 PM

Quote :

"Those are natural monopolies, not really the same thing."

You know you don't have to prop up or create TRUE natural monopolies, right?

The reason for gov't monopolies in railroads and energy are more from an aethestic standpoint than from the actual economies of scale involved. If the economies of scale were significantly large to merit a natural monopoly, you wouldn't need the government to create it for you.

12/5/2006 12:41:13 PM

bgmims is absolutely wiping the floor with you guys


It makes my head bleed to see how stupid you guys are on this subject.

12/5/2006 12:56:56 PM

Quote :

"How many of these have democracy?"

Nearly all of them. Democracy has become the norm across South America, yet government secured monopolies continue to wreck the economy.

Quote :

"It has happened, and it will happen agian if not for anti-trust laws."

Examples, Kris, from History. Best my research digs up is, in the U.S. at least, anti-trust has been used exclusively against companies that were already losing in the marketplace, with one exception: AT&T, which was set up by the government in the first place. So, if you have examples to the contrary please bring them out, otherwise you are just talking.

Quote :

"First off, lack of evidence for something is not evidence agianst it"

What? Yes it is. If we use this standard then nothing can ever be discounted. A flying Spaghetti Monster comes to mind.

Quote :

"The ones that did begin to come up in america in steel and oil, were crushed by anti-trust legislation"

And, as I said before, the were being crushed by the market before the antitrust lawyers discovered them. Remember, Standard Oil had a 88% market share in 1890, it was not charged as a monopoly until 1909 after its rivals had already eaten it down to a 64% share. So, who did the crushing? And was it a monopoly? Russian oil producers, Standard Oil's chief competitors, would beg to say they were not.

Quote :

"Those are natural monopolies, not really the same thing."

Really? Gasoline, internet service, cell phone service, television, radio, and beer are all natural monopolies?

Quote :

"If Democracy "works pretty well" as you say then why are most Democracies on this planet saddled with monopolies when it is obvious, even to you, that monopolies are "fucking up the economy"?"

Kris, are you saying this is not true? I have not done a case study of every third world democracy, just a few South American and African countries, but the association seems to hold. However they got started, these countries have a real problem dispensing with un-natural monopolies of all sorts and they just happen to be fairly poor countries. The most destructive monopolies, however, are the regional ones generated thanks to governmental licensing requirements (you pay a bribe and you become the only legal plumber for a housing area). I am relying upon your statement that "monopolies wreck the economy" to draw causation here. Meanwhile, I am relying upon the U.N. to identify which countries are clasified as "democracies", and all of them are.

12/5/2006 1:03:08 PM

to support what Lonesnark is saying

Quote :

" Protection of competition us what most people would argue to be the proper goal of antitrust. Yet cases most often come before the court as a result of the complaint of some competitor. As a consequence, harms to competitors often take center stage in the court's consideration "

Being good at what you do is not a crime and does not destroy market efficiency.


People cry that Wal-Mart is becoming a monopoly... but if that were the case wouldn't they be famous for something besides LOW PRICES?

12/5/2006 1:11:14 PM

Quote :

"You know you don't have to prop up or create TRUE natural monopolies"

But they have to control them, so they might as well be created by the government.

Quote :

"Democracy has become the norm across South America, yet government secured monopolies continue to wreck the economy."

Either the people are happy with the way it is, their democracy is not being allowed work, or most likely, you're wrong.

Quote :

"Examples, Kris, from History."

I've given you several examples already, I've even explained why there aren't that many examples.

Quote :

"What? Yes it is."

Nope, wrong agian, that is a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The way you disprove something is to actually disprove it, not say "well I can't prove this wrong, obviously it's right". I guess you don't know economics or logic, just friedman and the occasional history book.

Quote :

"And, as I said before, the were being crushed by the market before the antitrust lawyers discovered them. Remember, Standard Oil had a 88% market share in 1890, it was not charged as a monopoly until 1909 after its rivals had already eaten it down to a 64% share. So, who did the crushing? And was it a monopoly? Russian oil producers, Standard Oil's chief competitors, would beg to say they were not."

You seem to think that just because something doesn't exist as a monopoly forever, that it's alright, and that it wasn't a monopoly in the first place. Even assuming a monopoly will always work itself out (which isn't a valid economic assumption), the monopolies existence during that time still makes the market inefficent and a failure.

Quote :

"Really? Gasoline, internet service, cell phone service, television, radio, and beer are all natural monopolies?"

Read the ones I quoted, don't make up a strawman.

Quote :

"Kris, are you saying this is not true?"

Yes. Democracy works. Either you're wrong in your interpretation or democracy isn't being allowed to take place.

12/5/2006 1:17:30 PM

Basically Kris is advocating bigger government.

Thats the only way to stop all this free trade and protect our shitty jobs.


Good going you rent-seeker

12/5/2006 1:19:28 PM

I'm sorry, are you talking? Or just vomiting on your keyboard and hitting enter?

12/5/2006 1:22:21 PM

Quote :

"the monopolies existence during that time still makes the market inefficent and a failure."

Yes, well you should probably go about proving that the amount of time they spend as inefficient monopolies is economically damaging enough to waste all that time and effort (and lose out on efficiency) in order to stop them from ever existing in the first place.

My contention is that they work themselves out rather quickly, which is why citing historical examples is difficult.

Besides, ensuring firms don't create illegal barriers to entry really the only thing we should be concerned about.

12/5/2006 1:36:05 PM

Quote :

"The way you disprove something is to actually disprove it, not say "well I can't prove this wrong, obviously it's right""

Lets turn that around: You want us to believe that free-market monopolies are a cronic problem with capitalism, and for evidence you offer nothing. Well, I have lots of examples where monopolies collapsed by themselves. You have no evidence that monopolies without government protections stick around and wreck the economy. It seems to me, logical falacies asside, that the preponderance of evidence is on my side. Meanwhile, the evidence that antitrust laws do real harm to the incentives to compete is somewhat extensive.

Too sum up: I have 300 years of history to show free-market monopolies arrise very rarely and usually in unique circumstances. When they do arrise there is no evidence of ill effects: both Standard Oil and Alcoa failed to charge monopoly rates due to a combination of phantom competition (fear of spawning competitors) and indirect competition (competition from substitutes). When coupled with the evidence of antitrust law abuse and the introduction of incentives not to compete, it strikes me they have done more harm than good.

12/5/2006 2:21:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes, well you should probably go about proving that the amount of time they spend as inefficient monopolies is economically damaging enough to waste all that time and effort (and lose out on efficiency) in order to stop them from ever existing in the first place."

It's still a market failure, regardless of what it takes to stop it.

Quote :

"You want us to believe that free-market monopolies are a cronic problem with capitalism, and for evidence you offer nothing."

I have economic theory that proves they exist, and that they will continue to exist.

Quote :

"Well, I have lots of examples where monopolies collapsed by themselves."

Obviously nothing lasts forever. Yes, monopolies will end on a long enough time scale, but during that time scale you have economic inefficiency. Secondly, this happened in the real world, you only have your interpretation of what happened. That is anecdotal evidence, not real evidence.

Quote :

"You have no evidence that monopolies without government protections stick around and wreck the economy."

Once again, you cannot prove that a monopoly will ever end using economic theory.

Quote :

"It seems to me, logical falacies asside, that the preponderance of evidence is on my side."

Yes, you'd have a pretty strong argument if it wasn't for logic. But then again, if we didn't have logic I'd just call you wrong an stick my fingers in my ears, giving me the edge. Luckily we do have logic, and it renders both your argument and your supposed evidence worthless.

Quote :

"I have 300 years of history to show free-market monopolies arrise very rarely and usually in unique circumstances."

You have your own interpretation of some anecdotes.

12/5/2006 2:32:41 PM

Quote :

"It's still a market failure, regardless of what it takes to stop it"

Yes, it is a market failure. But if it exists in short periods of time and doesn't do much damage to society, then wasting resources trying to combat it and "impose competition" is MORE inefficient than allowing it to exist in the first place.

Unless you have some other agenda rather than efficiency that you're worried about...

12/5/2006 3:05:14 PM

Quote :

"But if it exists in short periods of time and doesn't do much damage to society, then wasting resources trying to combat it and "impose competition" is MORE inefficient than allowing it to exist in the first place."

Not neccesarily true. First you assume that the resources used to stop it are more than it costs, which is tough to tell either way. Secondly, you're only looking at the short term. It is possible the cost of managing anti-trust will decrease, and it's also possible that the damages from allowing monopoly to exist will increase.

12/5/2006 3:16:03 PM

And the vice-versa is equally (I'd say more) possible.

So what is your point?

12/5/2006 4:02:15 PM

You really think it's likely for the costs of managing anti-trust to go up over time?

12/5/2006 9:49:12 PM

Oh that narrow question, yes.

Lawyers are not cheap and their wages have historically gone up faster than average. So, all else equal, I would expect antitrust management to go up over time.

Also, the benefits (if there ever were any) are likely to continue to go down as markets continue to follow globalization.

12/5/2006 9:54:33 PM

Kris, as companies find ways to get around the laws, it gets tougher. Do drug enforcement costs go down over time?

12/5/2006 10:05:21 PM

I'm still doubting that as technology progresses, costs are going to go up.

12/6/2006 12:06:51 AM

Doubt != Certainty

The costs of litigation alone will continue to increase the costs of fighting anti-trust cases. You do know they take those to court, right?

12/6/2006 9:36:02 AM

Don't pretend as if you have certainty on your side either, we're both speculating.

12/6/2006 3:11:32 PM

Right, but I should think in order to waste societal resources to try to stop it, it should be a burden on you to prove that it is a problem.

12/6/2006 3:17:50 PM

Since labor laws are already in place, the burden of proof is on you if you wish to change them

12/6/2006 3:22:09 PM

lol, nice, so without regard to the problems you rush in and stick up laws and then expect me to prove that the problem never actually existed.

Here we go: We don't see these problems and it is impossible to tell whether that is because the laws are useful or useless. The only way to tell is to remove the laws and see the outcome.

Done.

12/6/2006 3:30:22 PM