[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Monopolies
GOVERNMENTS AND MONOPOLIES
the entire private property system, for bettor and for
worse, is a social construct (not "natural"), albeit
a very old and popular construct. law enforcement of
some kind was always essential to property. much
newer industrialized world property-relations require
armies of lawyers merely to define the borders of all
ownership, & to then administer status quo
force-bureaucracies.
GOVERNMENTS OPPOSING MONOPOLIES?
but the status quo is not a monolithic force vector.
and it is possible for much or all of the state, or
even the investment community, to oppose or even break
up a particular monopoly, as we observe. --much as
powerful individuals come and go but the relations of
power shift more slowly and with greater resistance.
BUSINESS OPPOSING MONOPOLIES?
monopolies can obstruct other commerce and investment
opportunities, and are not necessarily or uniformly
embraced by investors or the state at all. further
they can become an embarassment (see Bull Moose
Progressivism pre-WWI)
DEFINING MONOPOLY
Much of anti-trust definitions rest, i gather, on
"ease of a theoretical competitor's entry into the
market". results are what counts. a bit like the
test for restrictions on incendiary speech, the test
for restrictions on monopolistic practices is partly
based on efficacy, that is, whether it succeeds in its
anti-social goals.
--- aaa@netcom.com wrote:
> The monopolies that have been around throughlut
> history have only existed
> because the government helped them to do so.
> Microsoft and de beers are
> exceptions. andy
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Keith Rowley wrote:
>
> > That presumes that the monopoly is "franchised"
> and not "natural."
> > While, admittedly, most monopolies -- at least the
> ones we're familiar
> > with (e.g., public utilities, the maker of
> Prilosec) -- hold their
> > monopoloy power, at least in part, due to a
> governmental grant (e.g.,
> > exclusive franchise, patent), many monopolies
> historically arose due to
> > superior technology or other efficiencies combined
> with the nature of
> > the market for their goods or services.
> >
> > Keith A. Rowley
> > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
> > Mississippi College School of Law
> > 151 E. Griffith St.
> > Jackson, MS 39201
> > Tel: (601) 925-7157
> > Fax: (601) 925-7113
> > E-mail: rowley@mc.edu
> >
> > >>> Joe Shea <joeshea@cal.net> 08/02 4:31 PM >>>
> >
> > Charles, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that
> monopoly is
> > by
> > grant, i.e., of the government? A monopoly
> created by a municipality
> > is
> > a 100 percent market share. In Los Angeles, by
> the way, there are
> > four
> > cable companies in addition to the three now owned
> by AT&T, but to
> > your
> > point, AT&T's market share for high speed cable
> access could reach 80
> > percent under the Information Technology Agency's
> proposal. That is
> > because there are some 14 cable service areas and
> each has a monopoly
> > provider, making market share a suspect
> measurement of monopoly.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Joe Shea
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, charles carbone wrote:
> >
> > > Audrie -
> > >
> > > Monopoly is not by the number of competitors, it
> is by market
> > share!!!!
> > >
> > > Charles C.
> > >
> > > Audrie Krause wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lewis,
> > > >
> > > > According to the SF Chronicle, AT&T has two
> competitors laying
> > fiber in SF
> > > > in order to offer cable Internet access.
> Since I'm neither a
> > lawyer nor an
> > > > economist, I'm not an expert in monopolies.
> But it seems to me
> > that if
> > > > there are three companies providing the same
> service, one of them
> > can't be
> > > > a monopoly. And, as Joe Shea points out,
> there is also DSL and
> > wireless.
> > > > In SF, SBC/PacBell has at least two
> competitors already selling DSL
> > to
> > > > consumers. So there, too, consumers have
> choices.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and it is *not* my position that broadband
> access should be
> > sold only
> > > > by local monopolies. Those are your words,
> not mine.
> > > >
> > > > Audrie Krause
> > > >
> > > > >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:31:45 -0700
> > > > >From: "Lewis A. Mettler"
> <lmettler@lamlaw.com>
> > > > >To: antitrust@essential.org
> > > > >Subject: Re: M$ Monitor: Why You Haven't
> Heard From Us
> > > > >Message-ID: <37A065D1.4E3FF3B9@lamlaw.com>
> > > > >MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > > >
> > > > >Audrie,
> > > > >
> > > > >Your stand on suggesting that broadband
> access should be sold only
> > by
> > > > >local monopolies is short sighted.
> > > > >
> > > > >Consumers simply do not want to be limited to
> only two choices for
> > high
> > > > >speed internet access (i.e. the local cable
> monopoly and DSL).
> > That is
> > > > >a ridiculous suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > >Right now consumers have a choice of 3 or 4
> or more ISPs who can
> > provide
> > > > >comparable service.
> > > > >
> > > > >Your stand would cut that down to perhaps one
> or two based upon
> > who owns
> > > > >the wires.
> > > > >
> > > > >That solution will never serve consumers.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Audrie Krause <<NetAction>> E-MAIL:
> audrie@netaction.org
> > > > 601 Van Ness Ave., No. 631 San Francisco,
> CA 94102
> > > > TELEPHONE: (415) 775-8674 FAX: (415)
> 673-3813
> > > > * * * WEB: http://www.netaction.org
> * * *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com