The government should have no part in the clean up of Sandy.

Again, if a monopoly is coercive and/or inefficient, then new businesses could form and attempt to take over. The reason why a monopoly would screw their customers if if they know they're protected under the law and by government influence. This has been the case with AT&T (which was broken up) and the Post Office. Both were coercive monopolies which restricted competition in order to protect themselves.

As for one famous (or infamous) monopoly that wasn't under government control, Standard Oil was a superior competitor and it was debated that they were going to break up, despite the Sherman Trust Act.

The thing is, coercive monopolies whether government or private sector, should be illegal but if there's a business that attained monopoly status but isn't screwing over their customers and not barring competition, then it's not a huge deal. It just means they're a superior competitor.

leviathan91

If the monopoly is inefficient and coercive, you are still stuck on the same damn street, and likely the same route to location of employment. That is a game-breaking mechanism. And, any business that owns a sole route(s) to a regularly travelled destination and/or residential area, is an effective monopoly. You might have to pass through half a dozen of 'em on the way to work, each of 'em itching for cash.

In this case, it's not that the monopoly is a superior competitor, it's that it owns the damn street people live on, or control a few choke points that massive amounts of traffic flow through w/ possibly no immediate (or possibly future) alternative. In the case of residential streets, you'll have to move to avoid it.

Also, monopolies occur in industries with a high barrier to entry, and are bad there, too.

Monopolies break sh!t and are, like, worse than socialists.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Roads and monopolies.

That is all.

leviathan91

Government is technically a monopoly that can operate with force. In other words, a coercive monopoly.

Also, if a corporation does so well that it becomes a monopoly, yet it still continue to give customer satisfaction, what's the issue? As long as it doesn't to bar new businesses from opening and competing, again, what's the big deal? :?

Yes, but we need roads, ergo it might as well be coercive, at least until people manage to pay off that 30-year mortgage which they can't sell for the same they got it for. And, private monoplies, charge $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ more moneys

Because they can.

Monopolies break the market thing.

And, in this case, it is providing "satisfaction" by being the only street their house is built on. That is, like, almost literally highway robbery.

[/QUOTE

Again, if a monopoly is coercive and/or inefficient, then new businesses could form and attempt to take over. The reason why a monopoly would screw their customers if if they know they're protected under the law and by government influence. This has been the case with AT&T (which was broken up) and the Post Office. Both were coercive monopolies which restricted competition in order to protect themselves.

As for one famous (or infamous) monopoly that wasn't under government control, Standard Oil was a superior competitor and it was debated that they were going to break up, despite the Sherman Trust Act.

The thing is, coercive monopolies whether government or private sector, should be illegal but if there's a business that attained monopoly status but isn't screwing over their customers and not barring competition, then it's not a huge deal. It just means they're a superior competitor.

The reason why inefficient monopolies are able to survive is due to their ability to enact market barriers, such as their ability to crash prices and annihilate their financially weaker and smaller-scale competitition even if the competition has more efficiency. Firms have a variety of goals, the most common among them being revenue/profit maximisation and market share dominance because these are the most likely goals that firms can have and still have a good chance of surviving.

They also ensure that monopolies have no incentive to offer equilibrium prices (unless they are also revenue-maximising prices) or to allow competitors to enter the market. A public monopoly in theory wouldn't have a profit incentive, so it has no reason to raise prices to unreasonably high levels to wring cash out of consumers. Of course, this depends on the degree of corruption of the government, but in general Western governments are relatively benevolent and transparent, so it isn't going to be a large problem.

The reason why inefficient monopolies are able to survive is due to their ability to enact market barriers, such as their ability to crash prices and annihilate their financially weaker and smaller-scale competitition even if the competition has more efficiency. Firms have a variety of goals, the most common among them being revenue/profit maximisation and market share dominance because these are the most likely goals that firms can have and still have a good chance of surviving.

They also ensure that monopolies have no incentive to offer equilibrium prices (unless they are also revenue-maximising prices) or to allow competitors to enter the market. A public monopoly in theory wouldn't have a profit incentive, so it has no reason to raise prices to unreasonably high levels to wring cash out of consumers. Of course, this depends on the degree of corruption of the government, but in general Western governments are relatively benevolent and transparent, so it isn't going to be a large problem.

Barbariser

It is definitely worth mentioning the differing motives. That is an important consideration WRT monopolies that I failed to state explicitly. Good on you.

I thought Sandy was meant to clean up New Jersey.

THE_DRUGGIE

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

The reason why inefficient monopolies are able to survive is due to their ability to enact market barriers, such as their ability to crash prices and annihilate their financially weaker and smaller-scale competitition even if the competition has more efficiency. Firms have a variety of goals, the most common among them being revenue/profit maximisation and market share dominance because these are the most likely goals that firms can have and still have a good chance of surviving.

They also ensure that monopolies have no incentive to offer equilibrium prices (unless they are also revenue-maximising prices) or to allow competitors to enter the market. A public monopoly in theory wouldn't have a profit incentive, so it has no reason to raise prices to unreasonably high levels to wring cash out of consumers. Of course, this depends on the degree of corruption of the government, but in general Western governments are relatively benevolent and transparent, so it isn't going to be a large problem.

coolbeans90

It is definitely worth mentioning the differing motives. That is an important consideration WRT monopolies that I failed to state explicitly. Good on you.

Thank you. I also wonder something actually, and you seem to be far more advanced in economics than myself - is it theoretically possible for a monopoly to set prices at the market equilibrium without doing it "by accident"? It seems to me that even if a monopoly intended to behave in an economically "welfare-maximising" fashion and chose the equilibrium price and output level, they would have exactly the same problem as a public producer in that they wouldn't know where the equilibrium is.

That has to be the worst satire.

I disagree although private properties will be repaired in the private sector. General clean up should be left up to the government.

British weather for the win.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]British weather for the win.LJS9502_basic

it doesn't rain everyday, sometimes it snows instead.

Local governments and state governments can do what they want about the cleanup. The federal government, however, should not be involved.

Yes, let's leave the clean-up of a decimated infrastructure to the state's currently decimated infrastructure. 1/10

Thank you. I also wonder something actually, and you seem to be far more advanced in economics than myself - is it theoretically possible for a monopoly to set prices at the market equilibrium without doing it "by accident"? It seems to me that even if a monopoly intended to behave in an economically "welfare-maximising" fashion and chose the equilibrium price and output level, they would have exactly the same problem as a public producer in that they wouldn't know where the equilibrium is.

Barbariser

Your posts seem to be p. solid. I took, like, a few intro level courses some years back and the knowledge is constantly dying - so, yeah. And, that's a good question. Really not sure, beyond trial and error how such knowledge would be ascertained.

Ask Chess. He does economics IRL.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Thank you. I also wonder something actually, and you seem to be far more advanced in economics than myself - is it theoretically possible for a monopoly to set prices at the market equilibrium without doing it "by accident"? It seems to me that even if a monopoly intended to behave in an economically "welfare-maximising" fashion and chose the equilibrium price and output level, they would have exactly the same problem as a public producer in that they wouldn't know where the equilibrium is.

coolbeans90

Your posts seem to be p. solid. I took, like, a few intro level courses some years back and the knowledge is constantly dying - so, yeah. And, that's a good question. Really not sure, beyond trial and error how such knowledge would be ascertained.

Ask Chess. He does economics IRL.

In my expert opinion, a wizard did it.

Well, in that situation I'd guess it would be relatively easy because the equilibrium price is the price where the monopoly has any sales at all, but the problem for the monopoly there is that it wouldn't be able to price out any competitors, and perfectly elastic demand is an assumption that is usually made in cases of a single firm in perfect competition anyway. So basically the only case where a private monopoly is most likely to be welfare-maximising is also the case where a private monopoly is least likely to appear and/or survive.

Again, if a monopoly is coercive and/or inefficient, then new businesses could form and attempt to take over. The reason why a monopoly would screw their customers if if they know they're protected under the law and by government influence. This has been the case with AT&T (which was broken up) and the Post Office. Both were coercive monopolies which restricted competition in order to protect themselves.

leviathan91

omg

shut up.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Again, if a monopoly is coercive and/or inefficient, then new businesses could form and attempt to take over. The reason why a monopoly would screw their customers if if they know they're protected under the law and by government influence. This has been the case with AT&T (which was broken up) and the Post Office. Both were coercive monopolies which restricted competition in order to protect themselves.

pie-junior

omg

shut up.

That's actually one of the few legit roles for the government.

TC is on the good dank. The government has alot of money they can help people with. End of story.

What we should do is leave it to the private sector to clean up the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.Jebus213

TC is on the good dank. The government has alot of money they can help people with. End of story.

dominer

TC is on the good dank. The government has alot of money they can help people with. End of story.

dominer

The government has alot of moneydominer

I think that the government should rebuild the roads and municipal structures that were damaged or destroyed by the storm. I don't think they should do anything for private businesses or homes. That is, unless they are responsible for creating/enchancing/steering the storm with something like HAARP. Then they are responsible. Otherwise I don't see how their budget and/or powers have anything to do with natural disasters.