It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ECONOMY: Privatization and Anti-Trust Elimination

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:18 AM
If privatization of services and goods occured, consumers would control the price. Companies would not be able to market services that a customer is either unable to pay for or unwilling to pay. This is only possible because of competition.

The first drawback I see is that of monopolies forming where the consumer does not have a choice and is forced to pay that price. Monopolies will only form if they control the only means of the service/product or if most consumers decide they want to do business with the company. Though things get more complicated, the price is still influenced by the customer. Monopolies will not become an integral part of a community's society if most of those consumers are either unable or unwilling to pay.

Then, you could say only the rich will use the services/products. The company though will decide to lower the price so as to increase their profits among a much greater clientele. If this is not possible, they will research the means to reach this goal. The only reason a company would NOT do this is if their goal was something other than money.

Now, lets say we take a monopoly which everyone is able to afford. They charge a certain amount for their product/service to maximize their profit. Entrepreneurs will be able to come in and drop their prices, so that they wouldnt be making as much profit as the monopoly, but they would start converting customers based on their lower prices so as to build their capital. There are other factors as well, such as the quality of the product/service.

The only problem would be that bigger companies would have a cheaper means of production for a greater amount of products/services. This is where it gets even trickier because the outcome is very unpredictable. There are two options I see: A) That the monopoly still holds because they can undercut their competitor to drive them to market. B) That those driven out will be compelled and motivated to research new technologies and markets.

Both options will always exist, and that is how we will see rapid growth in technology, price, and quality. It will be a return to darwinism, but isn't that, after all, the basis of nature. I believe in this way, we will see a great boom in quality of life for all.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:56 PM
So, what are the parties' stance on privatization of services and/or anti-trust elimination? Such a policy could revolutionize our industries.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:57 PM
The answer from a Libertarian perspective is simply that we believe in free market capitalism. Your initial post pretty well outlined what we believe with respect to monopolies, etc.

When the government is the sole provider for a good or service, you have, by definition, a monopoly. This is one of the reasons Libertarians are so fiercely against government control over entire industries - it limits freedom.

I have opinions about the positions of the two major parties, but I'll save them for the mudpit.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:03 AM
I mean monopolies just wouldn't occur in a totally free market system. Monopolies might be able to surface for a small period of time, but they would be quickly be swept away by new technologies, new competition, new consumer focus, etc. When we try to limit our markets, we encourage monopolies. Price floors diminish competition, price ceilings diminish consumer-demand-price.

I'd very much be interested to hear some input from other parties. I know how the Libertarians feel. Maybe even people in my own group have some ideas, maybe I'm forgetting something important.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I'd very much be interested to hear some input from other parties. I know how the Libertarians feel. Maybe even people in my own group have some ideas, maybe I'm forgetting something important.

I'd be happy to give my personal opinion, but I cannot speak for every member of the Democratic Party. Many Leftist Democrats would agree with me on this, though, as would many Greens.

I look at the Libertarian viewpoint as similar to the Communist one. Not that I'm comparing Libertarianism with Communist oppression, but both Libertarianism and Communism have been experimented with, and neither of them work.

The US was a Libertarian society for a long time, which worked decently during our agricultural period. But following the Industrial Revolution, there was need for change. Workers needed protection; child labor laws, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, the 40 hour work week with overtime provisions, etc., were introduced. The former classical liberals (the original "libertarians") became New Deal Liberals, recognizing the need of government regulation to some extent in the new industrial economy.

There were many historical reasons for this; one important reason was the so-called "Red Scare". American workers in a Libertarian America had no protection or financial security. They worked long hours, and their wages were hardly enough to feed their families. The work force was ripe to be indoctrinated by Communist propaganda.
With the New Deal, the Marxists could no longer accuse American capitalism of turning a deaf ear to the misery of the working class. The Democratic Party still championed the free market, but also provided a safety net for those in need. We also established free public education, Social Security, and federal medical bnefits for the elderly and underprivileged, producing a "mixed economy", which combines the best of both capitalism and socialism, while limiting their negative effects.

Even though our system is not perfect, our mixed economy is perhaps the most efficient in the world. It has produced unprecedented wealth, while ensuring that the less fortunate are not forgotten. It gives everyone a chance to succeed if they apply themselves, and offers assistance to them in this regard.

Therefore, in light of the question on monopolies, I personally believe that it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. For example, federally-funded education is a monopoly, but does not exist for the purpose of profit. If profiteering were introduced, our children would become customers instead of students, and equal opportunity would diminish.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Masonic Light]

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 08:13 PM
You bring up some very good points Masonic Light. I see why now across the board privatization would not work UNLESS some specific things changed in the minds of people first. Though that is a great task.

Anyway, I still believe that competition is being squashed in this day and age. I think anti-trust laws have a reverse effect in minimizing competition for the reasons I gave above. Same with price ceilings and floors.

I'm most though with small business. I am very happy to see the Internet lend a helping hand to such businesses as well as Ebay, because it opens up a whole new marketplace.

The worst idea I see in play is price flooring. You'd think a company producing cheaper products would encourage new technologies by its competitors.

new topics

top topics

log in