NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings!

We have re-introduced our Anti-Monopoly Act:

BE IT RESOLVED,

That in understanding that the development of national, regional, or international monopolies or cartels of raw or finished goods reduce competition and thereby injure the premise and practice of free trade;

That members of the United Nations pledge to remain non-aligned with industrial cartels of raw or finished products;

That members of the United Nations pledge to closely self-regulate their industries so that monopolies, interlocking directorates, or cartels be dissolved;

That members of the United Nations practice embargoes with any existing monopoly or cartel, including those who are sponsored by nations not affiliated with the United Nations.


:arrow: As so many of you voted for it previously, we hope you will vote yes for it again. I'll be in touch with individual delegates over the next day or so.

Can I post a reply to my own message? :wink:

For those of you who are looking at the proposal and like it, please let your UN delegate know. We were so close to quorum last time, so a little push will go a great distance.
-- Baudrillard

"Ignorance is a renewable resource."
--PJ O'Rourke

[Note: I know that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, I just felt like writing that]

Even died-in-the-wool capitalists should realize that monopoly is per se anticompetitive.

Even died-in-the-wool capitalists should realize that monopoly is per se anticompetitive.

Only if it is coercive, which only happens by government fiat.

Note: governments are also the ultimate in coercive monopolies.

I have a better idea--let's not punish people for being good at what they do.

I have a better idea--let's not punish people for being good at what they do.

E :evil: ven if that involves destroying competition, employment, and ultimately fair trade, if not a higher quality of life? I think not.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.
:shock:
Monopolies exist because the people who run them are fantastic marketers and ruthless competitors.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.
:shock:
Monopolies exist because the people who run them are fantastic marketers and ruthless competitors.

Monopolies exist either because:

1. A given area will only support that one supplier.

or

2. Government fiat.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.
:shock:
Monopolies exist because the people who run them are fantastic marketers and ruthless competitors.Monopoly is a cool game :D

We will support the Anti-Monopoly Act.

And yes, Monopoly is one of the greatest games ever made.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.
:shock:
Monopolies exist because the people who run them are fantastic marketers and ruthless competitors.

Dense socialist dumbass...

People still have to decide that they want to buy their products, you know.

I endorsed it, although the tg was unessasary. I either endorse a propsal or I don't.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.

That presupposes that alternative products are available, whereas the primary characteristic of a monopoly is the NON-existence of alternative products.

For example, let us assume that a nation has an auto manufacturer, National Motors, which has a monopoly on the auto industry in that nation. Now, due to this monopoly, anyone who wishes to benefit from motor vehicle transportation must use a National Motors vehicle. Choosing NOT to use any form of motor vehicle transportation is not a valid option for the majority of citizens, as their society has configured itself so that schools, retail shopping, industrial employment, and residential housing are all located too far apart from each other for people to walk the distance.

As a result of this, National Motors has its nation's citizens by the throat. They can not break their dependance on motor vehicles without massive urban renewal, while National Motors is free to charge any price that they choose for access to said motor vehicles.

You're always free to do without.

Monopolies exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products, you know.
:shock:
Monopolies exist because the people who run them are fantastic marketers and ruthless competitors.

Dense socialist dumbass...

I didn't want to do this but you flame way too much Ithuania.

Modalert

In the NS world Communism can work, in the real world it can't
I suppose this proposal works if the ISI works. It's basically turning the world into a giant Communism... which can be a good thing, but the people who voted for the beat commies with sticks proposal won't even be considering this one.

Monopolies exist for a variety of reasons. Preventing the development of some monopolies - ones which grow out of the overwhelmingly superior value of a particular seller's product over all of its substitutes - would require infringements on free trade. In fact, depending on how one defines free trade, preventing any monopoly whatever may require infringements on free trade. Some argue that the regulation of horizontal mergers affirms free trade by preventing collusion between the sellers of a product, but it could also be argued that truly free trade includes permitting competitors to cooperate when it is in their mutual self-interest. Regardless of which side one takes on this debate, adopting policies to prevent the existence of all monopolies requires infringements on free trade to prevent those that grow purely out of competition in which on player is simply vastly superior to the others.

You're always free to do without.

Certainly, but as my example above shows, "doing without" using a National Motors vehicle means doing without traveling between places of shopping, school, housing, or employment since these places will be located so far from one another that travel between them becomes infeasable. For example, let us say that you both work and attend school, and the two are located 40 kilometers apart. Traveling between the two on foot thus takes approximately six hours, making it an impractical proposition to do so. Getting a job closer to your school (or vice versa) is also not practical because no job in your field of employment in the region is closer in distance to a school in your field of study. Therefore, to put it briefly, you are screwed.

Monopolies exist for a variety of reasons. Preventing the development of some monopolies - ones which grow out of the overwhelmingly superior value of a particular seller's product over all of its substitutes - would require infringements on free trade. In fact, depending on how one defines free trade, preventing any monopoly whatever may require infringements on free trade. Some argue that the regulation of horizontal mergers affirms free trade by preventing collusion between the sellers of a product, but it could also be argued that truly free trade includes permitting competitors to cooperate when it is in their mutual self-interest. Regardless of which side one takes on this debate, adopting policies to prevent the existence of all monopolies requires infringements on free trade to prevent those that grow purely out of competition in which on player is simply vastly superior to the others.

While this holds true, the actual problem with monopolies is when the monopolist uses its domination of the market in order to prevent products superior to its own from reaching potential consumers. For example, the monopolist will use intimidation to make the creators of a superior product afraid to compete with it, or the monopolist may buy out the competitor and then completely dismantle the superior product rather than incorporating the superior product's features into future models of its own product. Thus, the danger of monopolies comes not from the existence of their dominance, but rather from the monopolists' tendency to use unethical means to maintain their dominance.

You're always free to do without.

Certainly, but as my example above shows, "doing without" using a National Motors vehicle means doing without traveling between places of shopping, school, housing, or employment since these places will be located so far from one another that travel between them becomes infeasable. For example, let us say that you both work and attend school, and the two are located 40 kilometers apart. Traveling between the two on foot thus takes approximately six hours, making it an impractical proposition to do so. Getting a job closer to your school (or vice versa) is also not practical because no job in your field of employment in the region is closer in distance to a school in your field of study. Therefore, to put it briefly, you are screwed.

Well, that'll be too bad, won't it? You're more than welcome to go from place to place, but no one has an obligation to provide you with an efficient, affordable means to do so.

Monopolies exist for a variety of reasons. Preventing the development of some monopolies - ones which grow out of the overwhelmingly superior value of a particular seller's product over all of its substitutes - would require infringements on free trade. In fact, depending on how one defines free trade, preventing any monopoly whatever may require infringements on free trade. Some argue that the regulation of horizontal mergers affirms free trade by preventing collusion between the sellers of a product, but it could also be argued that truly free trade includes permitting competitors to cooperate when it is in their mutual self-interest. Regardless of which side one takes on this debate, adopting policies to prevent the existence of all monopolies requires infringements on free trade to prevent those that grow purely out of competition in which on player is simply vastly superior to the others.

While this holds true, the actual problem with monopolies is when the monopolist uses its domination of the market in order to prevent products superior to its own from reaching potential consumers. For example, the monopolist will use intimidation to make the creators of a superior product afraid to compete with it,
Nothing unethical with that as long as the intimidation does not come in the form of threats of physical violence.
or the monopolist may buy out the competitor and then completely dismantle the superior product rather than incorporating the superior product's features into future models of its own product.
Nothing unethical about that as long as the owner(s) of the company sold of their own free will.

Monopolies exist for a variety of reasons. Preventing the development of some monopolies - ones which grow out of the overwhelmingly superior value of a particular seller's product over all of its substitutes - would require infringements on free trade. In fact, depending on how one defines free trade, preventing any monopoly whatever may require infringements on free trade. Some argue that the regulation of horizontal mergers affirms free trade by preventing collusion between the sellers of a product, but it could also be argued that truly free trade includes permitting competitors to cooperate when it is in their mutual self-interest. Regardless of which side one takes on this debate, adopting policies to prevent the existence of all monopolies requires infringements on free trade to prevent those that grow purely out of competition in which on player is simply vastly superior to the others.

While this holds true, the actual problem with monopolies is when the monopolist uses its domination of the market in order to prevent products superior to its own from reaching potential consumers. For example, the monopolist will use intimidation to make the creators of a superior product afraid to compete with it, or the monopolist may buy out the competitor and then completely dismantle the superior product rather than incorporating the superior product's features into future models of its own product. Thus, the danger of monopolies comes not from the existence of their dominance, but rather from the monopolists' tendency to use unethical means to maintain their dominance.

Wouldn't you agree that "competition in which one player is simply vastly superior to the others" fails to describe a situation in which competitors don't arise because they are "intimidated" by the monopoly producer? The "intimidating" behavior can be prohibited without prohibiting monopolies.

And, if a competitor arises which outperforms the monopoly producer, and the monopoly producer acquires the competitor, this is covered by the "regulation of horizontal mergers" comment. Even so, if the potential competitor was in fact producing a more valuable product, the acquiring monopoly producer would adopt the market for the superior product, because they would be able to make more money off of it than their existing product.

:shock: The time is nearing for the proposal to reach quorum....be sure to get your delegates to endorse it!

I already endorsed it, but I am also founder of another region with a delegate (it was designed as a puppet holder, except that I gave it a real world name, and therefore it now has a delegate, and I nearly had a heart attack the first time that I saw it) whom I might persuade to endorse it. (The delegate of Anatolia is a Left-Wing Utopia after all).

I already endorsed it, but I am also founder of another region with a delegate (it was designed as a puppet holder, except that I gave it a real world name, and therefore it now has a delegate, and I nearly had a heart attack the first time that I saw it) whom I might persuade to endorse it. (The delegate of Anatolia is a Left-Wing Utopia after all).

:D I hope you do. With the Geneticorp Convention vote being so close now, it's obvious there's a renewed interest in the long-term effects of the U.N.