Comments on: Should we have more monopolies? http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/01/should-we-have-more-monopolies.html High-minded, fanatically malthusian perspectives Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/01/should-we-have-more-monopolies.html/comment-page-1#comment-292749 tdaxp Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:51:50 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=7524#comment-292749 Michael, I think you sum up the consensus very well! Michael,

I think you sum up the consensus very well!

]]> By: Michael http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/01/should-we-have-more-monopolies.html/comment-page-1#comment-290995 Michael Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:18:35 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=7524#comment-290995 Haven't read the gnxp article yet, but my initial thoughts are that: a) Some industries produce more innovation in monopolistic conditions, but others do not. b) Monopoly is a relative term. Google hasn't prevented Bingo, Cuil or Yahoo from trucking along, nor has Microsoft killed Apple or Linux. c) CAREFUL regulation by the government can reduce the negative effects of a monopoly. Haven’t read the gnxp article yet, but my initial thoughts are that:

a) Some industries produce more innovation in monopolistic conditions, but others do not.

b) Monopoly is a relative term. Google hasn’t prevented Bingo, Cuil or Yahoo from trucking along, nor has Microsoft killed Apple or Linux.

c) CAREFUL regulation by the government can reduce the negative effects of a monopoly.

]]> By: tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/01/should-we-have-more-monopolies.html/comment-page-1#comment-290233 tdaxp Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:48:38 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=7524#comment-290233 TDL, Excellent answer, and I agree. The broader point seems to be that monopolies, out of an attempt to impress political leaders into not breaking them up, are able to fund pure science at an impressive rate. However, this works as an indirect form of federal support. Better, I think, to have free markets and federally-funded science. Jeffrey, LOL! Too bad Beijing monopoly is both $50 and only in limited circulation! :-) TDL,

Excellent answer, and I agree.

The broader point seems to be that monopolies, out of an attempt to impress political leaders into not breaking them up, are able to fund pure science at an impressive rate. However, this works as an indirect form of federal support. Better, I think, to have free markets and federally-funded science.

Jeffrey,

LOL! Too bad Beijing monopoly is both $50 and only in limited circulation! :-)

]]> By: Jeffrey Gayle James http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/01/should-we-have-more-monopolies.html/comment-page-1#comment-288266 Jeffrey Gayle James Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:20:59 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=7524#comment-288266 No. We already have enough editions as it is. http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1246475969/ref=sr_nr_i_0?ie=UTF8&rs=&keywords=Monopoly&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AMonopoly%2Ci%3Atoys-and-games No. We already have enough editions as it is.

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1246475969/ref=sr_nr_i_0?ie=UTF8&rs=&keywords=Monopoly&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AMonopoly%2Ci%3Atoys-and-games

]]> By: TDL http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/01/should-we-have-more-monopolies.html/comment-page-1#comment-288249 TDL Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:11:28 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=7524#comment-288249 The answer to this question is, "it depends." Monopolies rise and fall all the time and are usually temporary phenomenons. MSFT & GOOG are monopolies now, but very well could be supplanted by rivals (that currently exist or have yet be created) in the future. To take two specific institutions that excelled in innovation in a specific period of time and say that this is the solution to a perceived problem demonstrates very limited thought on the subjects of innovation, competition, and economics. There is much innovation & invention occurring right now (although I can not speak to computer science.) Again, the answer to the question is, "it depends." The "need" for monopolies depends on the contemporary dynamics of the marketplace. To answer the second question, I do not believe "we" should be encouraging any type of monopoly for the very reasons that Dan points out. Although, as a MBA, I would like to point out that it is "rule by Ivy League MBAs" we should be concerned about! Regards, TDL The answer to this question is, “it depends.” Monopolies rise and fall all the time and are usually temporary phenomenons. MSFT & GOOG are monopolies now, but very well could be supplanted by rivals (that currently exist or have yet be created) in the future. To take two specific institutions that excelled in innovation in a specific period of time and say that this is the solution to a perceived problem demonstrates very limited thought on the subjects of innovation, competition, and economics. There is much innovation & invention occurring right now (although I can not speak to computer science.) Again, the answer to the question is, “it depends.” The “need” for monopolies depends on the contemporary dynamics of the marketplace.

To answer the second question, I do not believe “we” should be encouraging any type of monopoly for the very reasons that Dan points out. Although, as a MBA, I would like to point out that it is “rule by Ivy League MBAs” we should be concerned about!

Regards,
TDL

]]>