Perhaps you should write in english, or is that no longer taught in the UK?
im sorry, what dont you like about my english? im open to instruction. go to it.
Any economics book.
why so mean?
Any economics treatise, you wish. Preferably Human Action or Man, Economy and State.
Well then you should study it more, that is what economics is about. Economics is the study of how scarce means can be put towards various ends held by human actors. In other words it’s about the production of wealth.
Because you’re in the wrong and I’m not.
Negative.
Sorry, that makes no sense.
What ends ? Ends are not people. Only people (act and) compete.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you equivocating the word competition ?
And I said that a nominally ‘private’ monopoly has no incentives to provide a better service than a public one. Only real competition forces producers to provide better services. Even in the case that the nominally private producer were more ‘efficient’ that doesn’t mean that consumers will benefit since the producer will keep whatever gains his higher efficiency yields to himself. And that’s true if we assume he’s more efficient but the assumption is unwarranted anyway.
How does it not make sense, whilst there may be a monopoly on a certain good people can choose to employ their money to purchase other substitute goods.
Yes and. Let’s say the government monopolizes milk, the producer of milk will still face competition from orange juice producers.
No.
Why is it unwarranted? He will not engage in capital consumer because it is he and he alone that will benefit from the capital, this is not the case with a public monopoly in which case many people can exploit the means of production.
That, depending on specific details, is barely true. In the the case of roads it’s highly likely that there is no substitute good availabe.
And consumers will eat cheese and ice-cream made of orange juice ? But yes, if you’re thirsty you can drink orange juice instead of milk…
Now, how does the fact that, to a limited extent, one good can be replaced by another, prove that ‘private’ monopolies are better than public ones, is beyond me.
It seems you didn’t realize that your argument applies to both ‘private’ and public monopolies…And so is totally irrelevant.
Even it it were true consumers wouldn’t benefit. Which is all I’m concerned with. Maybe I’m an utilitarian after all…
Again that’s unwarranted. A private monopolist is just a state-licensed thief. He can use the spoils in any way he wants. Also. you’re assuming we’re dealing with a single owner and rehashing all the usual monarchical nonsense, but a ‘private’ monopoly seldom if ever has a single owner.
That’s not true, moreover it’s possible to move elsewhere.
No but they can switch to othert goods.
That’s a different argument entirely, one which you brought up.
Yes they would, just in the same way they would if any other producer managed to lower their costs.
We’re assuming a single owner though, whether or not this often occurs is a different argument.
Giles, do you realize that your ‘argument’ is an epic fail ?
A private monopolist faces no competition. Product substitution applies to both public and private monopolies so it is not relevant. Try again.
Once you’ve yet to refute.
That was a tangential point that you first mentioned.
Fail is a verb. Failure is a noun.
What the hell is wrong with people?
Juan is a wetback, it’s not his fault.
at Thu, Apr 2 2009 7:36 PM you wrote :
You introduced the subject as an attempt to show that ‘private’ monopolists face competition (which is absurd since by defintion they don’t). You fail.
Actually, I was defending an unrelated, but correct point made by Stranger, you’re the one who first took issue with it and then assumed it constituted part of my argument for private monopolists as opposed to public ones.
Using slang with you is good enough. You don’t know the basics anyway.
Irrelevant. You provided a wholly wrong argument to prove that private monopolies were superior to public monopolies. And you elaborated your wrong argument in various posts.
Show me where I stated the two arguments were related, please?
It’s obvious when you read them IN CONTEXT. This is a thread discussing roads and private monopolies and you lamely tried to show that private monopolies are subjected to competition when they are not.