Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Monopolies
I spare you a long boring copy/paste you have to read and go directly to the main questions. Is it good and if not what would you do to prevent it?
Personally I think it is more often a bad as a good thing. I will post my arguments later today.
I am discussing today western economies here but feel free to debate about other economies or situations.
![[Bullet]](https://imperialconflict.com/forum/img/avatars/15004.png)
Some monopolies are good, some are bad.
Basic economics to explain why they're bad - loss of consumer freedom. There is no longer a variety of goods to chose from, at a variety of prices. If the monopoly has that large a market share, they can to a point control prices - undercut competitors to the point that they go out of business, then increase prices to above previous levels to make abnormal profits. The lack of alternative products means they can get away with providing goods of inferior quality as well.
Having said that, some monopolies are good/necessary - natural monopolies occur when it's more efficient for just one firm to be in the market. The example of this that I was taught was the British railway system. Network Rail owns the rail network in Britain, and thus gains large economies of scale when it comes to replacing tracks, or maintaining current tracks.
I guess another examples of this could be provision of water (regionally at least).
As I recall British railway is the worse in western world 
. But without the humor large scale can work productive to a certain extend and is one of the few advantages together with having one standard for products. Tough notice competitors can still buy large together, and a standard can be forced by a well functioning gov or an organization of many different companies.
Seems to difficult a subject for this forum. Although there is very little forum activity lately anyways
Well, I tried. And I never claimed that our rail system worked well, just that it works better than it would otherwise
Other than that, I can't really tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing or playing Devil's Advocate :s
i dont think monopolies are desirable in any situation. they breed waste and inefficiency. they dont feel the need to innovate because they have a monopoly. then workers get laxed because their company has no competition and its smooth sailing; the company doesnt need to fire bad workers because if they start not making money then they can get permission from the government to raise their rates.
when you think about it; the government is there to provide services to its citizens. and you dont have multiple government vying for power in a single country, so you have a monopoly. and government suffer largely from the same problems monopolies have.
I think it's desirable to have a monopoly on force (government).
> Justinian I wrote:
> I think it's desirable to have a monopoly on force (government).
only to the people that have the monopoly on force, which is true for all monopolies. its not like the local electric company hates being a monopoly.
"Well, I tried."
I'm wasn't referring to you when I said the subject was to difficult, but to the fact it had few responses when I posted it. I'm glad you posted.
"And I never claimed that our rail system worked well, just that it works better than it would otherwise icon39"
Problem is we have few practical examples to compare what it would have been.
"Other than that, I can't really tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing or playing Devil's Advocate"
I agree with the biggest part, but I always play the devil's advocate. It is my system to gain more insight myself. It drives most people on this forum mad. 
"I think it's desirable to have a monopoly on force."
That needs more explanation. The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is the soviet union and that is probably not what you mean.
> Little Paul wrote:
> "I think it's desirable to have a monopoly on force."
That needs more explanation. The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is the soviet union and that is probably not what you mean.>
Government has a monopoly on force - police, military etc
if theres not a monopoly on force, it doesnt mean there has to be armed conflict between the difference factions competing on force...
> avogadro wrote:
> if theres not a monopoly on force, it doesnt mean there has to be armed conflict between the difference factions competing on force...>
Well guess what, they would have every incentive to engage in coercion and armed conflict.
all monopolies are bad, however sometimes they are a necessity
monopolies run by government (in theory) are good... but monopolies run by individuals are corrupt by the time they become one.
i think that only one can come up with a total monopoly and we will either take the money or die in peace.
a coward dies many deaths, where as a hero only dies once.
> Justinian I wrote:
> > avogadro wrote:
> if theres not a monopoly on force, it doesnt mean there has to be armed conflict between the difference factions competing on force...>
Well guess what, they would have every incentive to engage in coercion and armed conflict.
just because in the scenario you immediatly came up with in your mind, they do. does not mean that it had to be the case in every scenario..
> > Justinian I wrote:
just because in the scenario you immediatly came up with in your mind, they do. does not mean that it had to be the case in every scenario..>
If we were to do an experiment, what do you predict the outcome would be the majority of the time, and how much of a majority?
Note: The experiment Justinian talks of has already taken place. It's called the world:
No sovereign power has a monopoly on force (we should probably exclude the post-UN period due to their new role in authorizing legal wars). How does it work out? Is war constant? Or are threats deterred by one another?
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> Note: The experiment Justinian talks of has already taken place. It's called the world:
No sovereign power has a monopoly on force (we should probably exclude the post-UN period due to their new role in authorizing legal wars). How does it work out? Is war constant? Or are threats deterred by one another?>
I didn't mean in a global context... I meant within a state, like having protection agencies assuming the policing and military roles of the state.
> Justinian I wrote:
> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> Note: The experiment Justinian talks of has already taken place. It's called the world:
No sovereign power has a monopoly on force (we should probably exclude the post-UN period due to their new role in authorizing legal wars). How does it work out? Is war constant? Or are threats deterred by one another?>
I didn't mean in a global context... I meant within a state, like having protection agencies assuming the policing and military roles of the state.
The difference being?
He talks of a military and police force to control a population within a nation, clearly different from only a military force used to engage on foreign ground.(mostly -but not exclusively- to engage other organized forces)
Imperial Forum → Politics → Monopolies
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.