From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 09:18:51 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> ...
>
>I actually see more potential problem with oligopolies; a true monopoly
>can never exist for long without forcible exclusion of competitors, but
>a small oligopoly (for example, the tobacco companies or large media
>companies) can offer the public much of the price and quality benefits
>of true competition while still excluding newcomers, stifling innovation,
>and controlling information flow.
>
While technically true, experience shows that oligopolies of fewer than
around 10 companies tend to engage in collaborative price controls to
maximize their profit. After there are more than about 10 players,
someone is too likely to break the agreement. This, of course, depends
on what the immediate benefits/penalties are from breaking.
>As die-hard a capitalist as I am, I am not one of those who turns a
>blind eye to the idea that concentrations of wealth and power--even
>when acquired though entirely legitimate, even honorable, means--can
>tend to corrupt those who hold it. I think it's important, though,
>to be restrained in exercising force against such corruption, and it
>should be targeted in the right place. For example, the suits
>against Microsoft generally focus on some of its contract terms and
>pricing which are not corrupt at all, since they are free choices;
>but then they ignore the things MS has done that are actually wrong
>and need fixing, like the breach of contract with Sun, and their
>false claims of supporting public standards. Sure, power can corrupt,
>but let's not then fight power itself--let's fight just the corruption.
>
Both parts need to be fought. Centralizations of power are damaging to
society in and of themselves. OTOH, humans need a certain degree of
stratification to be satisfied. This creates a constant tension, and
it's probably that no stable solution is possible. But dynamic ones may
well be. Still, if one is to regard society as a pyrimidal structure
based on some dynamic (money, status, power, etc.), then it is probably
proper that each stratum be, O, 5% advantaged relative to the one below
it, and that it be 5% as numerous. This 20-way branching factor enables
the total height of the tree to be manageable. Now, clearly, no such
carefully structured setup is either reasonable or desireable, but the
social controls should be designed to encourage this kind of layered
grouping (with fuzzy edges) rather than as currently where they appear
to be encouraging an hour-glass shape, with a large bottom. It is even
possible, though I wouldn't say likely, that some such vision was behind
the pyramid on the US great seal (it's masonic, so it means not just
SOMETHING, but SEVERAL things). So this may have been the original
vision (mind you, the people envisioning it saw themselves at the top,
and used both scheming and violence to put themselves there).
However, a twenty way fan-out (i.e., each supervisor has 20 supervised,
each employer has 20 managers, etc) limits the amount of control
exercised. This has both good and bad effects, but generally good.
Actually, a more beneficial structure would have lots of low pyramids
that have a peak without supervision from outside. These are called
small businesses, and their disappearance under the current social
controls is one of the most damaging features. This is largely caused
by the excess burden placed on small business by the immense body of
regulations that they must deal with. It's currently nigh unto
impossible to run a business without a dedicated accountant, and a
lawyer. Also, insurance is usually a legal necessity. etc. These
regulations are quite reasonable for a large company, but for a small
business they are a crushing weight.
>...
>Feudal lands were generally acquired by force of arms, not purchase,
>so there's more justification for the use of force to break them up and
>put them back into the hands of the people. Indeed, I think what
>finally killed feudalism as a viable system is the crossbow--a relatively
>inexpensive weapon that could be used by a farmer of ordinary strength
>and could penetrate armor. Feudal lords and tax collectors tend to
>behave themselves more with the threat of a bolt in the chest.
>
1) actually, most feudal lands were acquired by local armed groups
setting up to defend the farmers. This was quite necessary under the
conditions of about 500 AD. Over time, the descendants of the
commanders became the barons. There was no formal ownership of land
originally, as there was no authority to recognize it. But commanders
decided which areas they would defend, and those who wanted protection
moved there. (Well, it was more complicated, but that's the basis.
Sometimes the villagers hired mercenary troops, etc. The end point was
the same.)
2) In England the invading Normans routed the Saxons, and took over the
role of military leaders, but they didn't replace the population, which
continued to have rights to the land until the enclosure acts (quite
late, and not feudal times at all).
3) Environment played a large part. In England there was not as great a
threat of an external invasion, so locals didn't feel as great a need
for a strong military. It needed to be good enough to keep out the
Danes (Vikings), and that was about it. So there was a strong class of
relatively independant people (yoemen). The Norman invasion subdued
them, but didn't eradicate them. Elsewhere, there was a greater threat
of invasion, and the military took more power (and, of course, abused it).
4) The crossbow is a lousy weapon unless you are in a fortification.
The longbow is much preferable. It has greater range, more power, and a
faster rate of fire. But it takes years of training, where the crossbow
can be picked up in a couple of months. Also the crossbow requires
machining, where the longbow can be hand made. Thus the longbow was the
preferred weapon of the independant yoemanry, while the crossbow was
used by soldiers defending fortifications.
And what does any of this have to do with justification of monopolies?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:39 MST