(07-21-2009 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-21-2009 09:04 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(07-20-2009 09:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two questions:

1. If the problem is concentration of too much economic power in the hands of an oligopolistic few private enterprises, how is the solution even greater concentration in a government monopoly?

I don't contend that's the solution. I don't advocate the swing of the pendulum in the other direction as the solution.

Quote:2. If the problem is too much influence for lobbyists, how is the solution more regulation?

What few people realize is that for all the attention focused upon lobbyists and their influence upon the legislative branch, it is regulatory agencies and their rule-settings where lobbyists exercise the most influence, totally beyond sight of the public, How do I know? Thirty years in the business.

What monopolies and oligopolies need to survive are barriers to prevent entry by new competitors who will blow up their manipulative schemes. What is the most effective barrier to entry? An entrenched regulatory scheme that sets thresholds for market entry beyond the reach of new competitors.

I disagree with you and Fo here fervently. The largest barrier to entry is leveraging capital and market share.

I'm not sure there is any one right answer to this. It largely depends on the size of the endeavor your propose. Not many people go after Microsoft or WalMart from the get go.
However, have you ever started your own business? Especially one that is goods not service based? My experience is regulatory compliance is a pretty big drain on resources.

Maybe I have not explained myself clearly....I have NO problem with a company having a market monopoly. It indicates that they have market share by supplying the consumer with the best service,quality and product in the marketplace. Certainly there may be underlying shady business practices that could contribute to that success. I just do not care. If theft,fraud or violence is used...then we have a judicial system to handle that. I know that eventually that market will either change(new technology..ect) or a new player will enter and compete.

I oppose any coercive monopoly(state sponsored). It is the coercive monopoly that NO competitor can compete with and since it has the sanction of the government will last for an indefinite time period.

The only bad monopoly is a coercive one. Market monopolies occur all the time and are of general short duration.

Torch is correct. The government regulatory environment itself is a barrier to competition because of the "wasted" capital necessary to "jump through all the hoops" necessary to go into business.

(07-21-2009 04:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Maybe I have not explained myself clearly....I have NO problem with a company having a market monopoly. It indicates that they have market share by supplying the consumer with the best service,quality and product in the marketplace. Certainly there may be underlying shady business practices that could contribute to that success. I just do not care. If theft,fraud or violence is used...then we have a judicial system to handle that. I know that eventually that market will either change(new technology..ect) or a new player will enter and compete.

Interesting related article

http://www.time.com/time/business/articl...32,00.html