Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:10:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > I don't think ANY product requires a monopoly. Certain products may be
> > most efficient with localized monopolies, but so long as the overall
> > freedom of the market is high, a localized monopoly must still compete
> > with the localized monopoly of the same product in another region.
>
> That's fine in a macroscopic sense, but it could easily mean that two
> whole populations of consumers get hosed in pursuit of that will-o-wisp
> named The Free Market. In my region, for instance, AT&T holds a de facto
> monopoly on cable service,
De facto or de jure? My experience has been that it is almost always de jure.
<snip true (I have them too) account of horrific service and product offering>
> So it seems to me that the "free" market being proposed is only "free" of
> government contol but would embrace the authoritarian control of a single,
> private, monopoly power--correct?
No. Sans barriers to entry there are no natural monopolies. You have a
government barrier to entry that is preventing ComCast or Cox from entering,
I am sure of it, or else you are so rural that it does not make economic
sense for a second competitior to enter in which case satellite IS your
competitive alternative.
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) That's fine in a macroscopic sense, but it could easily mean that two whole populations of consumers get hosed in pursuit of that will-o-wisp named The Free Market. In my region, for instance, AT&T holds a de facto monopoly on cable service, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
