Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:23:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1206 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Preface: Plowed ground alert. I probably shouldn't have posted a flurry of
> > responses, just summarised and let it go. This has been discussed before at
> > length. That said, onward.
>
> I think you simply couldn't resist an opportunity to invoke Dave!
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> >
> > > How so? Do you mean we're not free to form a new nation, or that we're
> > > not free to move from one to the next?
> > > In some cases, the latter is certainly true, but that's just the market in
> > > action; different types of product are available, with different
> > > requirements and benefits. I want to buy a car in a fictitious free market,
> > > but I only want to spend $1000. Does the fact that I can't buy a
> > > top-of-the-line luxury car for that amount mean that the market is not free?
> >
> > Not in and of itself. But if you had a grand scheme for a $1000 car that you
> > wanted to try out but the other car companies used armed force to stop you,
> > that would mean it wasn't.
> >
> > High barriers to entry (that are put in place by force or collusion, not
> > just because, for example, it costs money to build car plants) mean markets
> > aren't free. What are the barriers to entry to forming a new society, here
> > and now?
>
> I may be misunderstanding the question, but let me try with a hypothetical
> stab at it.
> Suppose you and a group of like-minded individuals locate and claim a
> previously un-owned but inhabitable island in international waters.
Does such an island exist? As far as I can tell, all land on this planet is
either claimed by some particular government (and thus ought not to be hived
off without the acquiescence of that government, or of the landowners or at
least of somebody!) or has been deemed offlimits (Antarctica) by all the
existing governments agreeing that it is so.
> And I'd say collusion
> is absolutely an element of the free market. When convenient and
> profitable, two agencies are almost certain to combine their efforts to work
> against an exploitable third party, especially after the initial two
> agencies have secured their corner of the market.
> For clarification, by "free market" you mean a market operating without
> the intervention of an overarching body, don't you? What's to prevent a
> number of companies from combining their efforts to squeeze the rest of the
> market? To me, this seems not just possible but inevitable!
Plowed ground alert: I (and many economists much more talented than I) long
have held that there are no natural monopolies. Thus it's not only not
inevitable, it's impossible.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
