"THE FREE MARKET HAS FAILED"
Voluntary labor unions are o.k.. When one is forced to join one as a condition of employment, that is not o.k.
ruveyn
Monopolies are illegal, but they largely exist because legislation undid prohibitions and while X, Y and Z corps don't have a "monopoly" in the legalistic term, they control over 90% of the market, set everything as if they were one entity, deny the public options, etc.
This distorts what a free market is supposed to be about...healthy competition.
How do monopolies come to be? It is either through help from the government, or because they provide goods or services more efficiently than their competitors.
Sometimes the very nature of the good or service precludes competition. Think of electric companies, telecom companies, or railroad companies.
Typically these instances, telecoms railroad companies etc. are licensed by help from the government. They recieve restrictive licenses to build a power plant or a rail line. It is possible that there would be more rail lines or more power companies if the government would allow it.
I take the point though, that because of the costs, and logistical problems (building powerlines and rails) these industries tend to be restrictive.
It is interesting, I have wondered why electric companies don't charge more for their electricity. I would think having collusion with the government would cause prices to go up. Also their service tends to be superb, when a powerline goes down (in my neighborhood) it usually gets fixed within 12-24 hours.
Perhaps the cost of electricity would be less if there were no licensing of power. Perhaps the increased competition would lower prices.
I can't be arsed to post it but please insert a thousand facepalms right here.
By definition, 'natural' selection is natural, the clue is in the name. If you start inserting arbitrary rules you are no longer under going natural selection.
Perhaps promotion to Pope depends on how much cardinal dick you sucked, this is not natural selection.
Perhaps the breeding of a cow depends on how she appears to a farmer. This is not natural selection.
Perhaps the distribution of chilli plant depends on a scientific measurement of yield per plant or scoviles per chilli or the attractiveness of the chilli or the colour of the chilli or the length of the flowering period or the size of the chilli, this is not natural selection.
Natural selection has zero rules applied. ZERO. If some guy, even god, wades in and starts altering the NATURAL breeding patterns then you are by definition, not undergoing natural selection but undergoing artificial selection.
Then you are bothered by the semantics you prefer "artificial" as opposed to "natural". But the idea, that the most suited to a particular environment thrives, whereas the organism or organization not well suited to the environment dies out.
The problem I have with "artificial selection" is this fallacy that man is somehow seperate from nature. There is nothing about the condition of being human that makes our selection any less natural than that of a tiger when it selects its prey.
Even shopping at Walmart, we can't live on $3 a day like the Chinese/maquiladora workers du jour do. If we lowered our wages to the degree that we were competing with 3rd world workers, our economy would collapse. There isn't enough consumer demand as it is; what you propose would make the situation vastly worse.
A better solution would be for those 3rd world workers to unionize and demand *more* pay.
3rd world workers cannot all unionize, nor would demanding more pay actually change the dynamics of the labor market that much. I mean, if they move from $3 to $4 per day, the impact on labor costs, while significant, is unlikely to make these areas inefficient.
Even shopping at Walmart, we can't live on $3 a day like the Chinese/maquiladora workers du jour do. If we lowered our wages to the degree that we were competing with 3rd world workers, our economy would collapse. There isn't enough consumer demand as it is; what you propose would make the situation vastly worse.
A better solution would be for those 3rd world workers to unionize and demand *more* pay.
3rd world workers cannot all unionize, nor would demanding more pay actually change the dynamics of the labor market that much. I mean, if they move from $3 to $4 per day, the impact on labor costs, while significant, is unlikely to make these areas inefficient.
It would make them less efficient, unless you they fire 1/4 of the workers. The costs are ultimately dependent entirely on labor. if wages go from $3 to $4 over the entire economy the effect is that the costs increase by 25%. The effect is no one is better off, it just leads to inflation.
The only way to increase wealth is to increase production.
"The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Company charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."[10]
France Telecom/Wanadoo—The European Court of Justice judged that Wanadoo (Now Orange Internet France) charged less than cost in order to gain a lead in the French broadband market. They have been ordered to pay a fine of €10.35m, although this can still be contested.[11]
Microsoft released their web-browser Internet Explorer for free. As a result the market leader and primary competitor, Netscape, was forced to release Netscape Navigator for free in order to stay in the market. Internet Explorer's free inclusion in Windows led to it quickly becoming the web browser used by most computer users.[12]
According to an AP article[13] a law in Minnesota forced Wal-Mart to increase its price for a one month supply of the prescription birth control pill Tri-Sprintec from $9.00 to $26.88.
According to a New York Times article[14] the German government ordered Wal-Mart to increase its prices.
According to an International Herald Tribune article,[15] the French government ordered amazon.com to stop offering free shipping to its customers, because it was in violation of French predatory pricing laws. After Amazon refused to obey the order, the government proceeded to fine them €1,000 per day. Amazon continued to pay the fines instead of ending its policy of offering free shipping.
Low oil prices during the 1990s, while being financially unsustainable, effectively stifled exploration to increase production, delayed innovation of alternative energy sources and eliminated competition from other more expensive yet productive sources of petroleum such as stripper wells.[citation needed]
In the Darlington Bus War, Stagecoach Group offered free bus rides in order to put the rival Darlington Corporation Transport out of business.
also:
The government-supported East India Company and its government-supported monopoly used price manipulation to drive out competitors in the US colonies:
http://lorribrown.suite101.com/causes-o ... ty-a150070
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T
http://philippinesgraphic.com/?p=1356
http://www.newrules.org/retail/news/wal ... ing-charge
http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/03/france ... _predator/
also:
http://works.bepress.com/aaron_edlin/18/
http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law- ... y-pricing/
The claim that Standard Oil engaged in predatory pricing however, is very contested. I have a textbook in American Economic History that insists that standard oil was simply more efficient. This efficiency allowed the company to charge lower prices, and as market share was increasing, prices of oil continually declined to 1/7th of what they originally were, and that the monopoly fell apart as the market dynamic shifted.
I wouldn't be surprised if your other wikipedia example is also the same way.
Honestly, predatory pricing is not much of a concern. Predatory pricing is a VERY HIGH RISK strategy that only pays off if you have a warchest of funds, and if you can't expect new entrants into a market. Most instances of it are contested. Standard economic models can't even make sense of it. This isn't to say that there aren't more advanced strategic models where predatory pricing is possible, just that even then criticisms are kind of clear. I mean, in order to stop a price predator, all a company would have to show is that it is willing to engage in a war of attrition. The price predator will not be able to handle that, and so through OTHER strategic behavior, the predatory pricing would stop.
I have to agree with mcg that predatory pricing is overblown. It's a notion people have. There are some rare theoretical models allowing it. It is not a convincing story for what likely happens though.
Note: A good extended article on the matter is this one: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html Certainly very biased, but it is also relatively informed.
Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 05 Sep 2011, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Perhaps the cost of electricity would be less if there were no licensing of power. Perhaps the increased competition would lower prices.
One would hope that the presence of competition would also assure the quality of service associated with the electric grid; That would be installation and repair.
ruveyn
The only way to increase wealth is to increase production.
Yes, the situation would be less economically efficient, EVEN IF they fire 1/4 of the workers.
If the purpose is industrial workers unionizing in industries producing for export, then higher costs across the economy will not be seen.
In any case, my comment is only properly read in the context of responding to LKL. Your "rebuttal" has no meaning.
My wife picked up a 5 lb. package of chicken thighs which was on special for only $0.80 a pound. Once again the Free Market failed. If that is failure, I am not sure I am all that hot for success.
In the United States there is no shortage or lack of good food. If anything food is too abundant which is why there is an obesity problem. However, in New Jersey, good fresh produce is available the year around and is very abundant during the local growing season. The failed Free Market provides some of the best tomatoes. lettuce and corn available on this good green earth of ours. So keep on Failing, Free Market.
ruveyn
Certain services (e.g., utilities) are permitted monopolies because the cost of setting up the infrastructure is too steep to allow competition. You don't want 4 sets of electrical wires set up so 4 companies can compete for service (not that any of them would come out ahead with such an overhead cost). You likewise don't want one company setting up the infrastructure and then a competitor walks in to provide cheaper service using their infrastructure already in place.
In these instances, the cost of service is regulated and watched by state/federal agencies to ensure that service is fairly priced but that the companies can still make a profit.
In cases where a competitor wants to move in and utilize the same infrastructure, pricing arrangements must be made so that they are paying for the load their customers put on the system (maintenance and upgrades).
I take a somewhat different view.
Markets are efficient and they are effective. But they require a few characteristics in order to work:
1) They must be open
2) They must be fair
3) They must be subject to prudential supervision
The financial crisis of the last four years is a spectacular example of what happens to an open, fair market when it is not subject to prudential supervision. Banks did not exercise monopolies. Banks had to compete for access to liquidity, and banks were free to create products that advanced returns for their investors. But in the absence of prudential supervision, no one was looking at the overall health of the financial market. Banks were modelling their own risk, but no one was modelling the risk for the entire banking sector.
So it is with any commodity, good or service. The market should be as free as possible to provide supply to meet demand in as open an environment as possible. But someone, somewhere, must be looking at the marketplace to ensure that open and fair trading continues to be possible on an ongoing basis.
_________________
--James
So it is with any commodity, good or service. The market should be as free as possible to provide supply to meet demand in as open an environment as possible. But someone, somewhere, must be looking at the marketplace to ensure that open and fair trading continues to be possible on an ongoing basis.
The main things are:
1 deter and punish commercial fraud
2 make sure all contracts are honored.
That is your fair trading and prudential oversight.
ruveyn
Voluntary labor unions are o.k.. When one is forced to join one as a condition of employment, that is not o.k.
Why not? There is no gun being held to the employee's head. "Right to Work" is government coercion. It is government telling companies they can't make union membership a condition of employment.
Companies are also forbidden by federal law to make not joining a union a condition of employment or to make a no-strike pledge a condition of employment. The Wagner Act
ruveyn
1 deter and punish commercial fraud
2 make sure all contracts are honored.
That is your fair trading and prudential oversight.
ruveyn
While those are essential, core features of a fair and open market, I do not believe that they are the "main things" in prudential supervision. Businesses are not responsible for the financial well being of their competitors. They are required to model and manage their own risk, but they are not responsible for the risk modelling of the entire marketplace.
Consider the banking crisis. At root, the subprime mortgage industry and the housing collapse lay at its root, and you might well argue that a failure to honour those mortgage contracts was the root cause of the liquidity crisis and subsequent failures. But it seems to me that a government that was watching out for the overall health of the financial system should have stepped in and prevented these loans from being made in the first place.
_________________
--James
Companies are also forbidden by federal law to make not joining a union a condition of employment or to make a no-strike pledge a condition of employment. The Wagner Act
ruveyn
What about public sector workers? Should they have the right to unionize?
