The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

'The Freer The Market, The Freer The People'

Scroll to see replies

Bismarck
Firstly, most of the major monopolies in the world have been created by governments. And secondly, even your scenario would allow people a choice of firms to buy from and a choice of firms to work for. How is that not more free than having the government tell you which industry you can work for, how much you're allowed to pay for products, and which products you're allowed to buy? How is a person or group going to find funding to promote anti-government policies in an economy controlled by the government?

Oh wait, you're right, the dichotomy is between a predatory free market and 100% state owned socialism, with nothing inbetween.:s-smilie:
Reply 21
Avatar for Veni_vidi
Veni_vidi
9
Apagg
But who ever means material quality of life when they say freedom?


oh right, forget about my previous post, your right,
The Solitary Reaper
I can't see how a big business oligarchy would be any freer than a mixed economy at all. In fact, a huge portion, if not all, of the economy would be completely sectioned off by multinationals and big business.

I suppose one would be free to get a job in a variety of ASDAs however. Sounds great!


Well, from an idealistic point of view, the free-est market implies perfect efficiency and hence perfect competition. "Big business oligarchy" and "monopolising/oligopolising" sections of the economy do not exactly entail freer markets than a mixed economy. What you said does not counter the statement, "the freer the market, the more economic freedom people will have." What I will say is that there's always a limit to how free markets can be in reality because markets always naturally fail in some instances.
Bismarck
Who said anything about a dichotomy? We're talking about a continuum. And FYI, in out mixed economies, a vast majority of the biggest monopolies were created or sanctioned by the government.


Really? I was under the impression that anti-monopoly laws and competition regulation meant the government was actively preventing monopolies....
Captain Crash
Really? I was under the impression that anti-monopoly laws and competition regulation meant the government was actively preventing monopolies....


Yes, preventing monopolies in otherwise efficient markets. However, the free market fails in many instances, e.g. public goods or natural monopolies, and sometimes the best solution to correct this is by creating regulated monopolies.
Bismarck
Really? Do you have a choice about who provides you water, electricity, gas, or your phone service?


Yes I do actually - I think of at least three possible providers for each of those.
Bismarck
Really? Do you have a choice about who provides you water, electricity, gas, or your phone service?

Yes, several. Point being?
Captain Crash
Yes I do actually - I think of at least three possible providers for each of those.


You miss the point; refer to my post.

Better examples would be, who provides the national grid? Who provides the rail network? Who provides the main telecommunications fixed line network? They are all government-sanctioned monopolies in the UK.
DeuceSevenOff
You miss the point; refer to my post.

Better examples would be, who provides the national grid? Who provides the rail network? Who provides the main telecommunications fixed line network? They are all government-sanctioned monopolies in the UK.


Well the national grid is certainly public owned, just like roads. But ultimately it's who owns the electricity that counts.

The same applies for rail - which is a good thing considering the massive ranges in rail gauges when it was totally privatised.

Telecommunications are actually owned by various companies - BT, NTL, Virgin.

I get what you said though - some monopolies are necessary. It's like when telephones were first invented - each person had their own line carrying their calls, until someone figured it would be far more sensible to have a centrally controlled line and accompanying switchboard.
Captain Crash
Well the national grid is certainly public owned, just like roads. But ultimately it's who owns the electricity that counts.

The same applies for rail - which is a good thing considering the massive ranges in rail gauges when it was totally privatised.

Telecommunications are actually owned by various companies - BT, NTL, Virgin.

I get what you said though - some monopolies are necessary. It's like when telephones were first invented - each person had their own line carrying their calls, until someone figured it would be far more sensible to have a centrally controlled line and accompanying switchboard.


No, National Grid is privatised, and is a public-traded company. (Ticker name NG:LSE)

I said the main telecommunications fixed line network in the UK, which is monopolised by BT.
Bismarck
Are they really necessary to the point that the government doesn't allow other companies to compete with these monopolies? As for your other point, the phone, electricity, cable, and water grids in the US at least are controlled by one company in a given area. In New York City, even the transportation system is state-sanctioned. You'll be hard-pressed to find private monopolies of the same scale.


Well if you had a single electricity distribution network (for example) for each provider than would be insane. It might provide an incentive to provide infrastructure but they'd be thousands of extra cable and roadworks everywhere.

Microsoft is pretty much a private monopoly of greater scale. The fact that there aren't more is credit to anti-monopoly laws.

DeuceSevenOff

I said the main telecommunications fixed line network in the UK, which is monopolised by BT.


I must have dreamt the NTL men putting down cables in my road then :wink:
Captain Crash
Microsoft is pretty much a private monopoly of greater scale. The fact that there aren't more is credit to anti-monopoly laws.


Software is an example of a network monopoly, similar to a natural monopoly. The value of such a good increases as consumption increases, e.g. the more people that use MS Windows, the more utility each extra unit of the good yields. So, it is like a natural monopoly.

Monopolies are only allowed to exist for a reason, and that reason is when the free market fails and monopoly fares better in creating welfare.
Captain Crash
I must have dreamt the NTL men putting down cables in my road then :wink:


Listen to me very carefully: BT has dominant control of the country's fixed line telecommunications and broadband network, which classes it as a monopoly.

If NTL keep competing, maybe that will change in the future.

This is irrelevant though; I already gave you two incontrovertible examples of NatGrid and Network Rail.
Bismarck
And why would that be a bad thing? Eventually, the non-efficient operators would be forced out of business.

.....which would result in a monopoly and the same situation we're in now only not regulated.
Bismarck
And only now are governments starting to force state-sanctioned monopolies to allow access to their grids to other companies.

Provided the grid works, I don't see what the problem is. If a grid is reaching all places adequately and to their demands, I don't
Bismarck

I guess Apple doesn't exist, right?

Not in the business sector. In the home section it's share is only in single digits. The business was saved by the iPod.

DeuceSevenOff
Listen to me very carefully: BT has dominant control of the country's fixed line telecommunications and broadband network, which classes it as a monopoly.

If NTL keep competing, maybe that will change in the future.

This is irrelevant though; I already gave you two incontrovertible examples of NatGrid and Network Rail.

I see what you're saying but I don't see where this argument is going - I'm broadly agreeing with you.
Bismarck
Since when has the government been any good at determining that?


Markets where it is self-evident that a regulated monopoly succeeds where the free market fails: natural and network monopolies.
'The Freer The Market, The Freer The People' is tautologous. People only disagree with this statement when they:

1. Don't think free markets are beneficial to people (which is different to freedom)

and

2. Don't like to view themselves as paternalistic authoritarians.
I completely agree with this statement. When people are financially and economically free to dispose of their resources as they wish, then they are no longer beholden to any power that controls their assets, and can act freely. An example? If I work up and save as much of my money as I wish to I can retire when I please. Unfortunately here in the US, government control of retirement savings means that they can effectively dictate when you retire. I believe that one has to be 62 in order to start receiving ones mandatory retirement savings through social security etc. which means that ones money is tied up by the government until that point.
The problem is "free" encompasses economic, political, civil, etc.

If China maintains State Capitalism in the long run, then it may be possible to have much economic freedom but no political freedom and restricted civil freedom at the same time.
Reply 38
Avatar for Apagg
Apagg
13
"State capitalism" can not be described as economically free, I don't think
Reply 39
Avatar for Rubix
Rubix
L i b
Er, no, of course he doesn't. The two are very distinct things.



*******s.


Care to explain why?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you