Wow, it's getting pretty heated in here.
Definitions:
Government monopoly: Control of a specific activity or business provided for the privileged few or manipulated via regulation or other barriers to entry. Force is applied to hinder competition who may want to attempt to provide an equivalent good or service.
Natural monopoly: A person or persons who control a majority (or proportionally larger) quantity of goods or services, but notwithstanding, acquired said goods or services in a non-coercive, non-forceful way. Competition in this scenario can not be prohibited, hindered or obstructed.
Questions:
1) If you wish for a government monopoly, why? What advantage does it serve?
2) If you have a natural monopoly and you don't like it, what would you do?
In all of these responses to responses, I see a confusion between the one type of monopoly and the other. Perhaps if we referred to which one we were conversing about we wouldn't get so hot-headed.
Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 8. (Read 28703 times)
Are you going to answer the questions I just asked? They're highly relevant to you proving your point.
What question ?
Are you going to answer the questions I just asked? They're highly relevant to you proving your point.
Think hard and you'll realize that all this demonstrates is that my car gets worse gas mileage with more weight in it. Explain how this shows that their costs are lower. Do you think gas consumption is the only cost they have? Do you think less gas consumption automatically means lower costs? Do you think they can't make up for HIGHER costs by simply charging higher prices and thus still turn a profit, completely destroying your logic?
Guess i should take back what i said, you are not a troll you are simply a total idiot. I have ALWAYS been talking about their COSTS not their final prices, their final prices are totally IRRELEVANT. Read about economics before engaging in debates about them.
I NEVER agreed that their costs were lower, in fact, here's what I've said:
Ok, then go back to my challenge to you, 10000 postcards vs 10000 x 50gram metal plates in your car. You now disagree withyourself, earlier you said its common sense that the 10000 postcards would use less gasoline and now you claim that driving around with postcards would not guarantee it will lower your gas consumption compared to driving around with 10000 x 50gram metalplates.
Think hard and you'll realize that all this demonstrates is that my car gets worse gas mileage with more weight in it. Explain how this shows that their costs are lower. Do you think gas consumption is the only cost they have? Do you think less gas consumption automatically means lower costs? Do you think they can't make up for HIGHER costs by simply charging higher prices and thus still turn a profit, completely destroying your logic?
I NEVER agreed that their costs were lower, in fact, here's what I've said:
Ok, then go back to my challenge to you, 10000 postcards vs 10000 x 50gram metal plates in your car. You now disagree withyourself, earlier you said its common sense that the 10000 postcards would use less gasoline and now you claim that driving around with postcards would not guarantee it will lower your gas consumption compared to driving around with 10000 x 50gram metalplates.
Ok you're not an idiot, you're a troll. And therefore my discussion with you is over, because this just insults my intelligence.
What's your point? That proves nothing about their costs to the customer being lower. All you've done is stated the completely common sense fact that more weight in my car means lower gas mileage.
Where does it say prices to the customer are lower? Maybe prices to the customer are actually higher and that's why they're still able to turn profit in spite of the weight.
What my point was ? You were trying to say that the extra 50gram per mail were IRRELEVANT. Now after i spelled it literally for you, you agree it's common sense.
You have the reading comprehension of a pre-schooler. I said never it was IRRELEVANT. I said it was A TRIVIAL COST COMPARED TO THE MARKET DOLLARS THEY NOW HAVE ACCESS TO.
I NEVER agreed that their costs were lower, in fact, here's what I've said:
Quote
Where did it say anything about lower cost? It said the companies still turn a profit, but it said nothing about lower cost to the consumer.
Quote
That proves nothing about their costs to the customer being lower. All you've done is stated the completely common sense fact that more weight in my car means lower gas mileage.
The rest of your post makes no sense because you say that only lowers costs matter (which is obviously wrong in and of itself), then you write off all the questions I had for you about proving their lower costs as irrelevant.
Quote
But that's all irrelevant so far because you have yet to show me that the private mail service has lower prices.
One last time, looking at the price on the shelf is absolutely pointless for comparing costs. If the government forces you to pay a $20,000 car tax and then you go buy a subsidized car for $0.01 then guess what, the cost of the car isn't $0.01. Simply focusing on the sale price is misleading and pointless.
That being said, focusing on just the cost is also misleading. If I pay $5,000 for a car that gets 1 mile per gallon, has no air conditioner and takes a month to get fixed if it breaks it sure is cheaper than a $10,000 car that gets 30 miles per gallon, has air conditioner and gets serviced within a day or two but who the hell would care? The $5,000 car is a piece of shit.
The moral is, you have to compare true costs and you have to take quality into account as well. The fact that the government can give us a sale price of $0.01 for piece of shit car isn't a "deal" and it sure as hell doesn't justify robbing people at gunpoint (taxes). I don't know what would, if anything, but I know it isn't marginally better products, if that can even been shown, which hasn't happened yet even once in this entire thread.
That being said, focusing on just the cost is also misleading. If I pay $5,000 for a car that gets 1 mile per gallon, has no air conditioner and takes a month to get fixed if it breaks it sure is cheaper than a $10,000 car that gets 30 miles per gallon, has air conditioner and gets serviced within a day or two but who the hell would care? The $5,000 car is a piece of shit.
The moral is, you have to compare true costs and you have to take quality into account as well. The fact that the government can give us a sale price of $0.01 for piece of shit car isn't a "deal" and it sure as hell doesn't justify robbing people at gunpoint (taxes). I don't know what would, if anything, but I know it isn't marginally better products, if that can even been shown, which hasn't happened yet even once in this entire thread.
What's your point? That proves nothing about their costs to the customer being lower. All you've done is stated the completely common sense fact that more weight in my car means lower gas mileage.
Where does it say prices to the customer are lower? Maybe prices to the customer are actually higher and that's why they're still able to turn profit in spite of the weight.
What my point was ? You were trying to say that the extra 50gram per mail were IRRELEVANT. Now after i spelled it literally for you, you agree it's common sense.
If you are not a troll, read some stuff on economics, and use some imagination. I don't have time to give you basic economic lessons, what you are asking for here is ridiculous, what matters is their cost of doing business (and you now agree that cost is lower), if that cost is lower than their competitors and they make great profit it will automatically attract competition. You see there is a direct relationship between profitability and amount of competitors. You know the supply/demand rules ? More competitors means more supply, and you know what more supply means ? (look at the BTC chart since it reached 30$ till now, that's more supply growth than demand-growth).
Where did it say anything about lower cost?
Read that post as many times as its necessary for your to understand that. Or prove it wrong, buy a bag of 10000 postcards, and put them in your car, measure your gasoline consumption (pr km or miles driven) for a few days, then do the same expirement but replace the 10000 postcards with 10000 x 50gram metalplates. You're going to tell me you wont notice an economic difference ? You're either a troll, or a complete moron.
What's your point? That proves nothing about their costs to the customer being lower. All you've done is stated the completely common sense fact that more weight in my car means lower gas mileage.
Where does it say prices to the customer are lower? Maybe prices to the customer are actually higher and that's why they're still able to turn profit in spite of the weight.
Even if they're lower, you need to examine other factors to determine the full story of why.
If it's anything like the in US, where the postal service operates the largest vehicle fleet on earth and is consitutionally mandated to deliver mail six days per week to EVERY address in the country, then it's not too surprising why the operating costs of the government mail system are higher, thus yielding higher customer costs or lower profits. Government mails goes to EVERY house in the nation, private delivery services only go to a select number of addresses that actually have deliveries. Make them deliver shit to every house in the nation and see how fast their operating costs increase along with their postage rates.
But that's all irrelevant so far because you have yet to show me that the private mail service has lower prices.
It doesn't work like that. Your rule is that monopolies are always worse than competition. It only takes one instance of that rule not being true to disprove the rule.
No, I am saying that competition is always preferable to a violent monopoly.
Then my point still stands, because that statement is effectively no different. You haven't proved a case for your statement.
It doesn't work like that. Your rule is that monopolies are always worse than competition. It only takes one instance of that rule not being true to disprove the rule.
No, I am saying that competition is always preferable to a violent monopoly. Natural monopolies sometimes arise out of competition, when it is more efficient for a single company to provide the services.
Where did it say anything about lower cost?
Read that post as many times as its necessary for your to understand that. Or prove it wrong, buy a bag of 10000 postcards, and put them in your car, measure your gasoline consumption (pr km or miles driven) for a few days, then do the same expirement but replace the 10000 postcards with 10000 x 50gram metalplates. You're going to tell me you wont notice an economic difference ? You're either a troll, or a complete moron.
Thanks! We're done here.
We were done before we even got started. It's obviously not your intent to absorb any knowledge that might expand your worldview. I gave you plenty of links.
Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof.
It's all irrelevant anyway, exceptions don't disprove the rule
Thanks! We're done here.
It doesn't work like that. Your rule is that monopolies are always worse than competition. It only takes one instance of that rule not being true to disprove the rule.
On the other hand, I'm NOT saying that monopolies are always better than competition. I'm saying things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis - which is obviously something you'll never understand, living in a black/white world and all.
Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof.
It's all irrelevant anyway, exceptions don't disprove the rule
Thanks! We're done here.
Isn't it quiet amazing how iefficient the monopoly is, since a competitor can send simple mails attached with a 50gram weight and still deliver the service at lower cost? (despite the fact they need to spend more on marketing).
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
Where did it say anything about lower cost? It said the companies still turn a profit, but it said nothing about lower cost to the consumer.
Additionally, do you have any idea how cheap a little stamped piece of steel is? Of course they're able to still turn a profit by capturing an entire market they would otherwise not have access to for only an additional $0.00001 per letter.
I think the point is not the price of the metal. The point is the price to ship something would added weight. The energy cost is obviously higher, which the primary cost in shipping.
Again, it's trivial when considering that they're capturing an entire market they otherwise would have a 0% share of, and it costs them nothing more than fractions of fractions of a penny in materials and an insignificant amount more weight.
Look at it the other way if you want to, how high must their profit margins be if they buy and ship metal plates and STILL turn a large profit? Obviously they could afford to offer consumers a much lower price than they currently are.
It's all irrelevant anyway, exceptions don't disprove the rule and we know nothing about how inefficienctly run the Polish mail service is to begin with.
Isn't it quiet amazing how iefficient the monopoly is, since a competitor can send simple mails attached with a 50gram weight and still deliver the service at lower cost? (despite the fact they need to spend more on marketing).
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
Where did it say anything about lower cost? It said the companies still turn a profit, but it said nothing about lower cost to the consumer.
Additionally, do you have any idea how cheap a little stamped piece of steel is? Of course they're able to still turn a profit by capturing an entire market they would otherwise not have access to for only an additional $0.00001 per letter.
I think the point is not the price of the metal. The point is the price to ship something would added weight. The energy cost is obviously higher, which the primary cost in shipping.
Isn't it quiet amazing how iefficient the monopoly is, since a competitor can send simple mails attached with a 50gram weight and still deliver the service at lower cost? (despite the fact they need to spend more on marketing).
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
Where did it say anything about lower cost? It said the companies still turn a profit, but it said nothing about lower cost to the consumer.
Additionally, do you have any idea how cheap a little stamped piece of steel is? Of course they're able to still turn a profit by capturing an entire market they would otherwise not have access to for only an additional $0.00001 per letter.
Utilities are often a better deal for the customer when there is allowed a single provider. There are associated fixed costs with running a utility, and when it is divided up among many providers, the fixed costs become a larger percentage of the total revenue. Furthermore, as pointed out, there is probably less need for marketing.
That's a really interesting statement, i'll give you something to think about here:
Quote
The Polish post which is state owned has a monopol on sending letters under 50gramms. So what do private companies do? Well, yes you guessed it, they attach a piece of metal - yes a square piece of metal, which makes even a normal letter weigh more than 50gramms. Now imagine, for the private company it is worth producing the metal plate, glue it on the envelope and then delivery it to the customers and still make money. During a meeting with the Polish post last week, the people there could just not believe that the private companies make money with such a trick and were stunned. We in our company receive daily letters with the metal plate on the envelope. Imagine what amounts of metal plates have to be produced and what extra machines you have to buy to glue the plates on the enevelopes just to overcome one absurd law.
The funny thing is that nobody actually bothers to change it since the private companies still make enough to grow quickly, this situation will apparently last until 2013 when the Polish Post supposedely loses its monopol. As people would say - Only in Poland - tylko w Polsce!
Isn't it quiet amazing how iefficient the monopoly is, since a competitor can send simple mails attached with a 50gram weight and still deliver the service at lower cost? (despite the fact they need to spend more on marketing).
No monopolies aren't efficient, if don't believe me go to any country that has monopoly on some services and compare the quality of service.
Jump to: