Talk:Free market/Archive1

Blessed
Some BON blessed us with the argument:

"Obviously, there is a basic and logical response to this; in a free market, cartelised producers would be charging "supernormal" prices. This potential profit margin would encourage other firms to fly this route, and the cartel would be short lived. This has been seen in nearly every market where cartelisation has occurred (for example, Virgin Airways was itself set up to break the cartel of BA, UA and Delta!). The only reason there are only four companies flying the (all-important) London-East Coast route is due to government intervention."

Surely we can address this argument-by-edit, that appears to simply worship the free market, with no mention of entry costs?  ħ uman  23:28, 16 December 2008 (EST)


 * The BON has a good point in theory this is what is suppose to happen. One thing I have noticed is governments do interfere to limit the number of companies participating market (interfering where they shouldn't) and let too many mergers occur (being non-invasive where they should). More an observation than something I could find you data for easily. - User   23:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Ironically, your comment "and let too many mergers occur" is what the free market would do - allow eventual monopolization, with high barriers to entry in the market. BON has not addressed that issue yet, I hope they come back and do so. Do they realize how many billions it takes to launch an airline?  ħ uman  23:41, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * That was my point really, here in Australia we have government legislation restricting us to three commercial TV networks. When digital TV started one of them bought 5 digital channels, but again legislation prevented them using the space so it now simultaneously broadcasts 5 channels of the same thing. How ever the policy for mergers is if the new company doesn't take more than 70% of the marketshare it can go ahead. So we have two airlines, two supermarket chains, two service station chains (who have both cut a deal with the supermarkets as they are not in the same industry), two breweries and they all charge the same price because how much easier is it to collude with only one other person. As I said the problem is the government interferes in the free market at the wrong end. - User   23:49, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Wait, is it the gov't's fault that there are only 2 supermarkets, 2 fuellers, 2 brewers? Maybe it's because your local market is so small you're lucky to have 2 majors and not just one?  Just curious (I know you're in NZ, btw).  How many sheepers do you have? (sorry, joke!)  ħ uman  23:52, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * No we use to have more once they just kept buying each other out. Also the US take overs always annoy me, if they have so much money they can buy a company why not just open another one to compete? Simple reason they will make less money that way. - User   23:56, 16 December 2008 (EST)


 * Yup, in the "free market" it's always cheaper to buy a company than to start one. Wait, is that what you meant?  ħ uman  00:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hence we hit the flaw in BON's argument. - User   00:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Actual a brewery merger that failed but was approved by the ACCC recently annoyed me, on a national level it would not have given Lion/Nathan a larger marketshare than 70% as Coopers only has 5% of the national market, but would have put them over 70% locally in Adelaide, it is always macroeconomics rather than micro that concerns the federal regulators. - User   00:00, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Am I the Only Fre-Marketeer on Rational Wiki?
--Yuppie (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. 23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. 23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only Fremen on Rationalwiki?
--Stilgar. (Talk) 23:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)