Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Monopolies are detrimental in principle and in deed. Have you got an example where this is not the case?

A power company is a monopoly, so what?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Monopolies are detrimental in principle and in deed.
Have you got an example where this is not the case?

I'd have to think about it for a bit to give you examples, if there have been any, but I'd have to do the same to give examples where I'd say that monopolies were detrimental, too.

It's not that my view is about historical monopolies. It's a philosophical position.

Why do you feel that monopolies are inherently bad?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Monopolies are detrimental in principle and in deed.
Have you got an example where this is not the case?

I'd have to think about it for a bit to give you examples, if there have been any, but I'd have to do the same to give examples where I'd say that monopolies were detrimental, too.

It's not that my view is about historical monopolies. It's a philosophical position.

Why do you feel that monopolies are inherently bad?

Monopolies are able to set the highest price without competition. And you can't see how that is detrimental? They can be so large as to make it impossible to challenge. Such monopolies can also outcompete emerging industries that challenge them by setting temporarily low prices so the other businesses go down and are forced to sell out to the monopoly.

The only exception is a state run monopoly which is capable of setting a price even lower than cost for the benefit of the economy.

Melchior wrote: Remember Kodak?

Yes, why?

I suppose it is a good reminder that there is another sort of monopoly we generally approve of which comes in the form of patent protection for innovators who publish their trade secrets.

Good reminder.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Monopolies are able to set the highest price without competition.

For one, that's only relevant when we're talking about something that people need (to survive, for example), so that they have to pay whatever price is demanded. And that's assuming that we're talking about a situation where it would be legal to set any arbitrary price, and then you're imagining that no matter the monopoly in question, that's what they'd decide to do.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Monopolies are able to set the highest price without competition.

For one, that's only relevant when we're talking about something that people need (to survive, for example), so that they have to pay whatever price is demanded. And that's assuming that we're talking about a situation where it would be legal to set any arbitrary price, and then you're imagining that no matter the monopoly in question, that's what they'd decide to do.

No it is relevant for everything we find useful. Imagine how much inertia would have been put on the economies had IBM held the monopoly on the personal computer, yet we do not need them to survive.
There are also millions of drugs that pharmacies could have monopolised were it not for time limits on copyrights.
The issue is massive.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Monopolies are able to set the highest price without competition.

For one, that's only relevant when we're talking about something that people need (to survive, for example), so that they have to pay whatever price is demanded. And that's assuming that we're talking about a situation where it would be legal to set any arbitrary price, and then you're imagining that no matter the monopoly in question, that's what they'd decide to do.

No it is relevant for everything we find useful. Imagine how much inertia would have been put on the economies had IBM held the monopoly on the personal computer, yet we do not need them to survive.
There are also millions of drugs that pharmacies could have monopolised were it not for time limits on copyrights.
The issue is massive.

So are you okay with monopolies on things that people do not find useful?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:For one, that's only relevant when we're talking about something that people need (to survive, for example), so that they have to pay whatever price is demanded. And that's assuming that we're talking about a situation where it would be legal to set any arbitrary price, and then you're imagining that no matter the monopoly in question, that's what they'd decide to do.

No it is relevant for everything we find useful. Imagine how much inertia would have been put on the economies had IBM held the monopoly on the personal computer, yet we do not need them to survive.
There are also millions of drugs that pharmacies could have monopolised were it not for time limits on copyrights.
The issue is massive.

So are you okay with monopolies on things that people do not find useful?

Like what?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No it is relevant for everything we find useful. Imagine how much inertia would have been put on the economies had IBM held the monopoly on the personal computer, yet we do not need them to survive.
There are also millions of drugs that pharmacies could have monopolised were it not for time limits on copyrights.
The issue is massive.

So are you okay with monopolies on things that people do not find useful?

Like what?

Say if we had a monopoly on Super Elastic Bubble Plastic.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:So are you okay with monopolies on things that people do not find useful?

Like what?

Say if we had a monopoly on Super Elastic Bubble Plastic.

What is that?

PS. Okay I looked it up.

I Imagine that the company would wish to keep copyright on its name. I also think that they should hold patent on the item for a limited period so as to recoup development costs.
As for holding a monopoly in perpetuum, no.
If another firm figures out how to make it, and can do so at a better price then they ought to be able to do that, as long as they do not pretend to be the originators.
Competition between "YoYo" and "Duncan" means that yoyos are better and more competitively priced than would otherwise be the case. A school kid's money is also important.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Like what?

Say if we had a monopoly on Super Elastic Bubble Plastic.

What is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Ela ... le_Plastic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcJE2W65Rhs

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Say if we had a monopoly on Super Elastic Bubble Plastic.

What is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Ela ... le_Plastic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcJE2W65Rhs

See above edit.

ADDENDUM

BREAKING MONOPOLY means more competition, better choice.

http://www.yoyovillage.co.uk/12-brands

I wouldn't say it's detrimental to not have cheaper yo yos or super elastic bubble plastic, or to not have yo yos or super elastic bubble plastic that you like more.