> On Friday, August 27, 1999 2:17 AM O'Regan, Emlyn
> <Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> wrote:
> > > No, I'm saying that it is only perfectly, 100% reliable if there are
> no
> > > natural monopolies, and nanotech would get rid of those few situations
> I
> > > can
> > > see where a natural monopoly might actually exist. Without nanotech
> we
> > > merely have a system that is 99.9% reliable - local monopolies and
> cartels
> > > can occasionally form around unusual resource scarcities, but tend to
> be
> > > short-lived in the absence of government intervention.
> > >
> > > IOW, the free market isn't perfect, but it works much better than any
> > > other system humans have ever devised.
> > >
> > With nanotech, where's the need for a market at all? If it irons out all
> the
> > bumps due to resource scarcities, so vanquishes scarcity, why do we need
> > trade?
>
> Information might still be traded.
>
> And nanotech, itself, will not abolish scarcity. It will merely switch
> around the level and types of scarcity. Currently, air is hardly
> considered
> a scarce commodity, yet there is still a market in lots other things AND
> air
> quality is marketable item.
>
> Daniel
>
But the argument is that everything will be perfect once nanotech arrives,
removing all cartel/monopoly situations due to scarcity. If nanotech doesn't
remove scarcity, then it doesn't. So we still have monopolies/cartels (I'd
venture to say that they could be quite stable, at least over finite time
periods), and so the economic version of coercion is still an option in
Billy Brown's belt retreat.
Emlyn