Neocon -
I feel as if we are talking past one another, at this point. I will consider the matter, and get back to you......
I agree. I looked back over your posts, and my responses, and would characterize the combination as mostly being in agreement, with my responses trying to emphasize Austrian approaches, and not our points of agreement.
Where we seem to differ is in emphasis and judgement of significance. For example, your worry about food monopolies seems to me to be very unlikely, with all the possibilities of substitution for edible calories. Water is more realistic, but more because of distribution (I think that this is called a space monopoly, as in two things, alternate distribution systems, can't occupy the same space at the same time) than water itself.
My claim is that not only are monopolies rare, and often unstable, but that they are less harmful than is commonly appreciated. OTOH, competition is the standard condition, and does not need government to mandate it. It is underappreciated how much inefficiency results from over-competition, itself the result of entrepreneurial overconfidence. Multiple suppliers of a given good, the majority operating at a loss, and forcing even the most successful competitor to be marginally profitable, are a huge mis-allocation of resources. This can't be cured by government, however, but just by the pain of losses.
If profits, especially initially large ones, are not allowed, then investment in new products or processes are discouraged. Profits are always fleeting, and must not be artificially limited.
Regards, Don |
