445:
you can find a respected economist or some economic arguments or some empirical data to back it up, what amounts to a simple of statement of "ner, I don't think it exists" is not appropriate. And saying "advocates of laisser-faire" is misleading. Other than the von Mises people, I've yet to see any attempt to deny completely the existence of natural monopoly (I was going to say "serious attempt", but the DiLorenzo effort is too pathetic to count). My point is, in the absence of any actual argument, you do need to show that this view is actually held by people other than yourself plus isolated muppets. You know how many muppets there are who go on about fractional reserve banking being a conspiracy? We don't let their views distort the relevant
Knowledge (XXG) articles either, because they're patent nonsense. So I'm afraid you do need to engage in some actual debate; that's how Knowledge (XXG) works.
271:
monopolies in certain industries to be exempt from anti-trust laws, in exchange for regulations which limit their profitability and practices, and for protection from competition which could be seen as unfair since they are fettered." And if an example would make this clear, "For example, telephone companies are traditionally required to provide universal service, to bring phone lines to remote rural customers, and to keep residential rates low enough so virtually anyone can afford a phone; generally, this is achieved by cross subsidies from high rates for business customers, and protection from competitors taking advantage of this opportunity."
328:
curve intersects the demand curve. Since this is below the average cost curve, in the event of perfect competion all the businesses lose money, so perfect competition cannot exist. This causes one of three possibilities: either the government takes over the market, the market dies, or the government grants a monopoly/oligarchy to some party. A classic example of this is the market for a book. If anyone can sell the book, than soon the cost will equal the marginal cost (ie. the cost of the paper) and there will be no money for the author, hence the goverment grants a monopoly of copyright.
360:, on public goods, to take another one from that journal at random, is interesting, though not for the reason the author thinks. The examples of privateering and lighthouses (non-govt provision of public goods) are interesting: the former only works as national defence (as opposed to licenced piracy) to the extent that the privateers are blinded by patriotism to their self-interest; and the latter needs some social mechanism (ie disapproval of free riders) to avoid the tragedy of the commons the purely
212:
121:
100:
290:. It's existence is justified by the specific cost structure the monopolist, which barrs other competitors from entering he market by making it impossible for him to produce and sell his goods at a profit. A good practical example is a railway company - a competitor would have to build a second set of tracks in a specific area in order to be able to enter the market. Technically this implicates that the monopolists'
324:
governmental monopolies in most west
European democracies for most of the 20th century. Each city has a municipal monopoly for street lights. Each country has a monopoly currency. Some libertarian economists might think we could handle multiple currencies, regulated by private banks, and there would be no need for a central bank. Maybe this uncertainty should be reflected in the definition.
131:
69:
348:
Having taken the time to read the thing properly (I'd only skimmed it before), I have to say I'm shocked. It's not just bad; in the way it tries to construct arguments out of nothing but hot air and misdirection, it borders on the mendacious. Even beyond that, it's just useless at making its case. It
327:
ACoward: A natural monoploy has a exact meaning in economics and it does exist. It is a good that has the average cost curve above the marginal cost curve at the point that the demand curve intersects the marginal cost curve. If perfect competion exists, the price will be set where the marginal cost
444:
This is an economics entry in an encylopedia. If you want to provide economics arguments against natural monopoly, fine. If you want to find some political article to put views about the creation of regulated monopolies being completely unnecessary, well and good; we can link to it from here. Unless
516:
I said "von Mises people" because I was looking at www.vonmises.org. I don't know how widespread the viewis even amongst the
Austrian school. As for whether they should "have their arguments about natural monopoly represented" - I think I've made perfectly clear that if anybody can actually come up
436:
No, you're not going to engage me into a debate about whether a natural monopoly is possible. It doesn't matter. You need to understand that this is not about me. This is about stating the position of the advocates of laissez-faire. Whether their position is correct or incorrect is irrelevant. The
270:
The article currently states: "Claims of natural monopoly are typically used to justify the legal prohibition of competition." I don't think this is entirely accurate. I think it is more accurate to say something like: "Claims of natural monopoly are typically used to justify allowing particular
323:
However, I do have an uninformed opinion: I think it is an open matter of discussion whether any "natural" monopolies exist. It is very hard to do experiments on the national or continental scale, so tradition or ideology has determined what gets to be a monopoly. Radio and TV stations were
560:
It seems to me this article is garishly incomplete lacking text describing the
Austrian position, if that position has a lot to say about the idea of natural monopoly. I'm not an expert on Austrian economics; I just don't like seeing what looks to me like a campaign of systematic exclusion,
427:
I'm also inclined to point out to RJII that if he really believes there's no such thing as natural monopoly, perhaps he should try raising the capital to build a new water or electricity network for his home town alongside the old. He would of course be laughed all the way out of the bank.
381:
Only the disruptive technology issue (canals example) really belongs under the
Existence and Persistence heading, and that could perhaps be accommodated under the Regulation option of doing nothing (wait for technology change to make the natural monopoly disappear or its effects be
550:
Look, given RJII's reluctance to engage in reasoned debate, it's hardly surprising that the odd insult creeps in. Sticks and stones, etc. (And in general, the insults haven't been directed at editors so much as at edits and at info sources. A fine distinction, but still.)
452:
If you don't want extensive debate on Talk, how about you agree that the article be unprotected and let me have a go at structuring the regulation section and do some general editing, and if the result doesn't satisfy you, we can discuss your disputed paragraph again?
583:
arguments and evidence about the extent of natural monopoly in practice; but he seems too focussed on insisting that the non-argument "it might not exist at all and the concept's probably a con anyway" be included without supporting justification to go look for it.)
279:
the following seems to have been intended as part of the overall discussion, but as I am quite confident that I read and understand
English perfectly well, and it really doesn't flow here, I'm separating it whilst cleaning up the "sectioning" of this discussion:
340:, you ought to use the term, and credit Baumol. (And preferably have read Shapiro's response.) And his argument about regulatory capture would never in a million years lead the man to the conclusion of doing away with the private element doing the capturing.
546:
on an encyclopedia. That means that instead of just outright deleting contributions and insulting people (you've now added "muppet" to "content-free" and "Randroid", I see) you should consider working on integrating the disparate views into an article.
399:
The contestable markets argument actually doesn't apply to natural monopoly; competitors can't contest such markets when there is an incumbent (though there may be industrial users/household users differences). Only the contestable markets
349:
really should go; it's useless for anyone interested in the possibility that there is no such thing as natural monopoly. But (sigh) that would lead to an edit war, plus I can't find anything better in that line of thought, so never mind.
422:
unbundling of vertically-integrated industries can reduce the scope of natural monopoly (eg electricity liberalisation, separating generation from transmission/distribution), but at the cost of loss of economies of scope (eg electricity
389:
the market (various forms of franchising) doesn't happen without government intervention; it's a form of regulation. (Private monopolies may outsource parts of the business for efficiency reasons, but they obviously themselves remain
606:
The first sentence claims that any technology is inherently a natural monopoly, and the citation is a blog entry that no longer exists, and that even cites this
Knowledge (XXG) entry in the article. (
579:
It's worth pointing out that he never made any serious attempt to address the criticisms made. He could have at least tried to NPOV it, if he didn't have more substance to add. (And there
607:
396:-type competition (eg British Model electricity liberalisation) equally doesn't happen without government intervention; and equally can be considered a form of regulation.
47:
513:
policy (which would say that the article on natural monopoly needs to present it in the views of those who favor the idea) you should consider editing
Wikinfo instead.
437:
purpose of the paragraph is simply to document what that position is. And, the fact that you don't want people to know what that position is is highly suspect.
187:
404:
applies, where monopolies can be contested by users complaining to government, which can institute some form of regulation (which in this context includes
638:
177:
377:
It strikes me actually that most of the
Existence and Persistence belongs in Regulation, which should be made more systematic (noting major forms).
603:
The "Natural monopoly in technology" section is mostly speculative, unsupported claims. I am tempted to butcher it. This section has 3 sentences:
643:
153:
521:, then there is a place for them. 172 and I have been deleting RJII's paragraph not because we disagree with the views, but because it neither
628:
608:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150328031118/http://www.eleven-strategy.com/does-the-arrival-of-the-internet-mean-the-end-of-natural-monopolies/
478:
No, I'm not sore at all. I don't take it personally...rules are rules..3 reverts, whatever. So don't waste your time trying to patronize me.
320:. Pointers are always useful, whether they point to related or opposite words. (I have no informed opinion on the economic theory here.)
561:
especially one so doctrinaire that it has to reassure itself by insulting those it seeks to exclude. That's not encyclopedist behavior. --
505:, by the way) should have their arguments about natural monopoly represented in the article about natural monopoly? Knowledge (XXG) has a
283:
This was the original article. I'm not sure it jibes with my understanding of the subject, but maybe I misunderstand what's being said:
633:
485:
I was trying to express sympathy with you, as well as elicit a more helpful response, but as you say, that seems to be a waste of time.
467:
I know you're probably feeling sore for being banned over it (I would) but how about being a tiny bit more cooperative? Even allow the
144:
105:
572:
are not being systematically excluded and won't be in future. And are you seriously suggesting that RJII's para was encyclopedic?
529:
critics neutrally. (Hence the shorthand description in the edit summary of "content-free POV".) NB I don't know what
Wikinfo is.
225:
80:
136:
255:
499:"Other than the von Mises people, I've yet to see any attempt to deny completely the existence of natural monopoly"
364:
free market would create. Stimulating, at least (rather than pointless and aggravating, like DiLorenzo's article).
337:
234:
86:
152:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
68:
562:
419:
Surrogate competition ('yardstick' comparison or "benchmarking"), between geographical monopolies
240:
405:
236:
211:
613:
The second sentence explains why airlines are not natural monopolies, but has no citation.
502:
393:
336:
What a load of pants. For example, if you're going to write an article heavily using the
357:
622:
120:
99:
585:
573:
552:
530:
486:
472:
454:
446:
429:
416:
Competition for corporate control via the capital market (takeovers + mergers)
365:
350:
341:
126:
460:
Go ahead and have the article unlocked. I'll just put the paragraph back in.
479:
461:
438:
238:
149:
471:
that the article might end up so that you'll agree your para isn't needed?
501:... well, don't you think that the "von Mises people" (usually called the
130:
317:
313:
287:
542:
things you don't like than in coming to terms with the fact that we're
616:
The third sentence explains utilities and has a reasonable citation.
538:
I'm really concerned that you and 172 seem to be more interested in
303:
295:
241:
205:
62:
40:
148:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
358:
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Sechrest7.pdf
316:: Either way, you should keep the pointer back to
599:Remove "Natural monopoly in technology" section
525:criticism (by presenting proper arguments) not
249:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
568:Big 'if' in that first sentence. To repeat:
94:
19:
15:
96:
66:
259:when more than 5 sections are present.
162:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Economics
7:
142:This article is within the scope of
85:It is of interest to the following
509:policy -- if you're looking for a
408:as a form of 'direct' regulation).
14:
639:Mid-importance Economics articles
253:may be automatically archived by
332:External link - Thomas DiLorenzo
266:Legal Prohibition of Competition
210:
129:
119:
98:
67:
182:This article has been rated as
644:WikiProject Economics articles
165:Template:WikiProject Economics
1:
338:theory of contestable markets
156:and see a list of open tasks.
137:Business and economics portal
629:Old requests for peer review
306:) decrease when the output
660:
634:C-Class Economics articles
188:project's importance scale
565:16:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
511:sympathetic point of view
482:01:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
475:00:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
464:00:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
457:00:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
441:22:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
432:12:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
181:
114:
93:
22:
18:
588:16:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
576:16:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
555:16:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
533:16:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
489:12:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
449:00:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
368:00:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
353:00:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
344:21:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
300:long term marginal costs
292:long term average costs
256:Lowercase sigmabot III
75:This article is rated
507:neutral point of view
286:a specific case of a
145:WikiProject Economics
79:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
168:Economics articles
81:content assessment
23:Article milestones
275:Original Article?
263:
262:
202:
201:
198:
197:
194:
193:
61:
60:
57:
56:
41:February 18, 2008
651:
570:actual arguments
423:liberalisation).
406:public ownership
258:
242:
214:
206:
170:
169:
166:
163:
160:
139:
134:
133:
123:
116:
115:
110:
102:
95:
78:
72:
71:
63:
43:
20:
16:
659:
658:
654:
653:
652:
650:
649:
648:
619:
618:
601:
503:Austrian school
394:Common carriage
375:
362:homo economicus
334:
277:
268:
254:
243:
237:
219:
167:
164:
161:
158:
157:
135:
128:
108:
76:
39:
12:
11:
5:
657:
655:
647:
646:
641:
636:
631:
621:
620:
600:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
577:
558:
557:
556:
536:
535:
534:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
450:
425:
424:
420:
417:
410:
409:
397:
391:
383:
374:
371:
370:
369:
354:
333:
330:
276:
273:
267:
264:
261:
260:
248:
245:
244:
239:
235:
233:
230:
229:
221:
220:
215:
209:
200:
199:
196:
195:
192:
191:
184:Mid-importance
180:
174:
173:
171:
154:the discussion
141:
140:
124:
112:
111:
109:Mid‑importance
103:
91:
90:
84:
73:
59:
58:
55:
54:
51:
44:
36:
35:
32:
29:
25:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
656:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
630:
627:
626:
624:
617:
614:
611:
609:
604:
598:
587:
582:
578:
575:
571:
567:
566:
564:
559:
554:
549:
548:
545:
544:collaborating
541:
537:
532:
528:
524:
520:
515:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
488:
484:
483:
481:
477:
476:
474:
470:
466:
465:
463:
459:
458:
456:
451:
448:
443:
442:
440:
435:
434:
433:
431:
421:
418:
415:
414:
413:
407:
403:
398:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
372:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
347:
346:
345:
343:
339:
331:
329:
325:
321:
319:
315:
311:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
274:
272:
265:
257:
252:
247:
246:
232:
231:
228:
227:
223:
222:
218:
213:
208:
207:
204:
189:
185:
179:
176:
175:
172:
155:
151:
147:
146:
138:
132:
127:
125:
122:
118:
117:
113:
107:
104:
101:
97:
92:
88:
82:
74:
70:
65:
64:
52:
50:
49:
45:
42:
38:
37:
33:
30:
27:
26:
21:
17:
615:
612:
605:
602:
580:
569:
543:
539:
526:
522:
518:
510:
506:
498:
468:
426:
411:
401:
390:monopolies.)
386:
385:Competition
376:
361:
335:
326:
322:
312:
307:
299:
291:
285:
282:
278:
269:
250:
224:
216:
203:
183:
143:
87:WikiProjects
46:
469:possibility
382:mitigated).
310:increases.
48:Peer review
623:Categories
517:with some
412:Also note
373:Regulation
527:describes
519:arguments
356:At least
159:Economics
150:Economics
106:Economics
540:deleting
318:monopoly
288:monopoly
251:365 days
217:Archives
53:Reviewed
402:analogy
186:on the
77:C-class
31:Process
298:) and
83:scale.
34:Result
586:Rd232
574:Rd232
553:Rd232
531:Rd232
523:makes
487:Rd232
473:Rd232
455:Rd232
447:Rd232
430:Rd232
366:Rd232
351:Rd232
342:Rd232
480:RJII
462:RJII
439:RJII
28:Date
581:are
563:FOo
387:for
314:LA2
304:LMC
296:LAC
178:Mid
625::
610:)
308:Q
302:(
294:(
226:1
190:.
89::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
