Are monopolies OK?
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
“Some monopoly” - seems like a contradiction
-
This Tweet is unavailable
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
What was the movie where the only restaurant was Taco Bell? I love that it took a totalitarian government to make it true. Under any other system dozens would spring up around it.
-
Demolition Man. “Tonight we dine.... at Taco Bell. Oooooohhhhh”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes but 90% of them are owned by coke and Pepsi. Both coke and Pepsi and then owned by a third company.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nobody needs a water BOTTLE. If your tap water gives you a sore throat then that's a government problem not a business problem.
-
Except that in the world Stephan wants, the government wouldn't be involved with water quality at all. It's simply not efficient for multiple companies to run parallel water lines from the same source to the same city. Absent government, natural monopolies would form.
-
Absent government, people would have a choice. If people 98% choose the same provider then that provider is probably leaps and bounds better than what the king's granted monopoly would have given them.
-
That's not how natural monopolies work; history has already repeatedly shown us this Some industries require government regulation because they cannot have a competitive market; water, natural gas, and power are good examples.
-
"Requires government" implies there's just no other way, which is how government always tells the tale. It also negates 'natural.' However I am not libertarian and I'm not the best person to advocate for removing control over people who cannot control themselves.
-
Natural monopolies are natural because the cost of entry into the market is too high to make competition possible. There will never BE competition, and without regulation the costs would go up exponentially until the customers violently revolted.
-
If you're talking about water, power, or natural gas, those things are necessary to LIVE. They're what we call 'inelastic' in demand. No matter the price, you have to pay it because the alternative is to die of dehydration, or freeze to death, or die of heat-stroke.
-
So, the government can do one of two thinigs; regulate the price, or take over and provide the infrastructure for delivery and let the market be competition to PROVIDE the resource being transported. Either way, government involvement is required.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well.... this guy *Until We Cant* is very stupid, yet really believes he is smart. A Dangerous combo.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So few new designs or makers of toilets, tho everyone poos. Charge Teslas with THAT!
#BrownNewDealThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is that how it works with social media.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not necessarily. Let's keep on the example of water. If one private individual owns the Ogallala Aquafer, they have a monopoly on the source of nearly all water used in agriculture on the Great Plains.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.