JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

サービスに関する警告
明日、Destiny 2 はメンテナンスのため、一時的にオフラインになります。@BungieHelp で更新情報を確認してください。

フォーラム

SpiRitsにより編集済み: 3/1/2018 6:38:08 PM
8
SpiRits, THE STATE!!!!!!!! Ah yes, I almost forgot...[i][b]The State is the Ultimate Monopoly[/b][/i] The State has a legal monopoly on the right to use aggression against others in the form of taxation and compulsory edicts (legislation). Not only must “customers” pay into its operation without regard to their consent, but they must surrender to the rules its internal processes determine at all times. Additionally, the State has a monopoly on the provision of security, and has anointed itself as the ultimate arbiter in all conflicts, including those conflicts which involve its own agents. Agents of the State are motivated by profit and self-interest just like any given businessman. However, what separates the businessman from the State is that the former has to persuade you to pay for whatever is being offered, whereas the latter demands its citizens pay for its “services,” and unilaterally alters the price and scope of the "services" offered. Moreover, if payment towards an institution (the State) is guaranteed, then its services will tend to diminish in quality and increase in cost. [url=https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/242806080?sort=0&page=0]This is because the state has no sufficient means to produce much needed economic calculation.[/url] On this logic, it should be quite apparent that the state holds economic monopolies on Education, postal services, military, defense and security, legislation and law, police, fire services, streets and roads, etc...It seems that these services are extremely important. Yet those who criticize monopoly under free competition, are the first to praise compulsory monopolies by the state. After all, [i]What could such a monopoly possibly do better than the competitive market?[/i]
English

投稿言語:

 

マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • If you assume the government isn’t cost conscious you would also assume they wouldn’t attempt to profit maximize therefore the monopoly price would never be reached in theory. I hate the government as much as it seems like you do but antitrust laws are necessary for anything that resembles our current economic climate

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • SpiRitsにより編集済み: 3/2/2018 5:00:31 AM
    [quote]If you assume the government isn’t cost conscious you would also assume they wouldn’t attempt to profit maximize therefore the monopoly price would never be reached in theory.[/quote] No, monopoly price is clear when there is obvious force being used to exclude others from competing, which the state does with multiple services I listed above. Again you really haven't directly refuted or even addressed anything I put forth. Monopoly pricing is prevalent when you are the only supplier in the market and use coercion to stop other from competing with you. The fact that the state isn't cost curious and can't calculate profit/loss due to guaranteed incomes, is why they are grossly inefficient with their resources. Named link above to a more in depth explanation of the economic calculation problem. [quote]current economic climate[/quote] "Before moving onto competition, the above description is extremely different from the status quo. So when entering this discussion you must release this prejudice of the current atmosphere of transactions and exchange. To conflate the existing state capitalist system with the free market will not allow us to fully understand the true merits of unrestricted competition. The underlying premise of free markets is the mass network of mutually beneficially voluntary exchange and the absence of coerced or forced transaction. The state greatly inflicts with the competitive nature of markets and posits itself the position of relative to this topic, “breaks up market monopolies and encourages competition”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth" I am in no way talking about the current economic climate.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • [quote]First of all I didn’t realize you were the OP and second of all you clearly don’t know what monopoly pricing is.[/quote] Meant to put this here. A monopoly price is not simply any price a monopolist sets. A monopoly price is the exact price that maximizes profits, ie it needs to be calculated. Again it’s a theoretical concept but if you say the government isn’t cost conscious because they don’t need to be, they also would have no incentive to set a true monopoly price.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • SpiRitsにより編集済み: 3/2/2018 5:37:07 AM
    [quote]A monopoly price is not simply any price a monopolist sets. A monopoly price is the exact price that maximizes profits, ie it needs to be calculated. Again it’s a theoretical concept but if you say the government isn’t cost conscious because they don’t need to be, they also would have no incentive to set a true monopoly price.[/quote] You are misunderstanding...the point isn't to identify some "objectively calculated" price...Rather to just describe two different incentive structures between the monopoly and a competitive market, and how a market is preferred in every situation in supplying much demand goods and services. Also, take for example patent holders. Patents grant temporary legal rights to exclude others from production of the patented good...The point is that we know generally the price will tend to be higher then a market driven situation. The question I put forth earlier: What could such a monopolists possibly do better than a spontaneous market? The states lack of a pricing mechanism is a different discussion, and one that ties in with the states inability to perform economic calculation.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • Tosevite 187により編集済み: 3/2/2018 6:57:12 AM
    [quote][quote]A monopoly price is not simply any price a monopolist sets. A monopoly price is the exact price that maximizes profits, ie it needs to be calculated. Again it’s a theoretical concept but if you say the government isn’t cost conscious because they don’t need to be, they also would have no incentive to set a true monopoly price.[/quote] You are misunderstanding...the point isn't to identify some "objectively calculated" price...Rather to just describe two different incentive structures between the monopoly and a competitive market, and how a market is preferred in every situation in supplying much demand goods and services. Also, take for example patent holders. Patents grant temporary legal rights to exclude others from production of the patented good...The point is that we know generally the price will tend to be higher then a market driven situation. The question I put forth earlier: What could such a monopolists possibly do better than a spontaneous market? The states lack of a pricing mechanism is a different discussion, and one that ties in with the states inability to perform economic calculation.[/quote] I’m not misunderstanding anything. You even say in your OP[quote] Unless monopoly price is achieved, the use of the term monopoly is moot[/quote] For monopoly price to be achieved it has to be calculated. Basic micro can demonstrate how monopolies are inefficient among other things and through government interference breaking up said monopolies the market becomes more efficient (if only that’s all the government did) Patents are a whole discussion in and of themselves to throw ourselves into that I think is a little off topic and really is more philosophical than economic. Does the temporary inefficiency created by allowing a monopoly to form under a patent out weigh the lack of incentive to invest in research and new technologies? To answer you question in the context of patents [quote] What could such a monopolists possibly do better than a spontaneous market?[/quote] By allowing a level of profitability it incentivize innovation. Why would I ever spend millions of dollars in R&D for a medication when the second it goes to market you spend a few thousand to reverse engineer it and produce it yourself. So to answer your question a patent monopolist creates a market that would not have been created without intellectual protection.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • SpiRitsにより編集済み: 3/2/2018 7:34:59 PM
    [quote]Unless monopoly price is achieved, the use of the term monopoly is moot[/quote] Again, proceeded from this definition: “Monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group. Entry into the field is prohibited to others and this prohibition is enforced by the gendarmes of the State.” Monopoly only can occur in a environment when force is used to exclude others in production. The state holds this monopoly power to do so and is seen through intellectual property, corporate favoritism, unionism, etc...This is strictly what I'm arguing against, such force does not exist under the premise of free and voluntary interpersonal interaction and exchange. Since such a firm can not use force or coercion to erect massive barriers of entry or exclude others in the free market, there are no mechanisms to uphold and maintain monopoly privilege. If you think the free market monopoly is a possibility, please explain the formation of one under free competition. Deduced from the above logic, since we cant objectively determine if a firm is setting monopoly price on the free market, the mainstream dichotomy between "competitive and monopoly pricing" is false; therefore under free competition all prices are competitive. [quote]Basic micro can demonstrate how monopolies are inefficient among other things and through government interference breaking up said monopolies the market becomes more efficient (if only that’s all the government did)[/quote] Virtually all economists would agree every monopoly is bad for the consumer. Yet you are advocating for a monopoly firm (the state) to break up market monopolies, this is quite clearly a contradiction. Again, YOU CONTINUE to make these positivist appeals to the status quo about breaking up monopolies and are trying to use that to refute my argument. The status quo has nothing to do with my argument. Let me reduce my main claim a bit more for more clarity: The free market monopoly is a myth." The free market is explained more in depth in the OP, but to reduce it: Network of voluntary exchange in the absence of force and coercion. If you would like to refute my claim here, please don't appeal to the status quo again and address the point above: How could such a monopoly form in the free market? [quote]Patents are a whole discussion in and of themselves to throw ourselves into that I think is a little off topic and really is more philosophical than economic. Does the temporary inefficiency created by allowing a monopoly to form under a patent out weigh the lack of incentive to invest in research and new technologies?[/quote] [quote]By allowing a level of profitability it incentivize innovation. Why would I ever spend millions of dollars in R&D for a medication when the second it goes to market you spend a few thousand to reverse engineer it and produce it yourself. So to answer your question a patent monopolist creates a market that would not have been created without intellectual protection.[/quote] Let's define the Patent: "A patent is a property right in inventions, that is, in devices or processes that perform a ‘useful’ function. A new or improved mousetrap is an example of a type of device which may be patented. A patent effectively grants the inventor a limited monopoly on the manufacture, use, or sale of the invention. However, a patent actually only grants to the patentee the right to exclude (i.e., to prevent others from practicing the patented invention); it does not actually grant to the patentee the right to use the patented invention." I hold philosophical priors that are fundamentally contradictory with intellectual property. I also have economic consequential "moral" issues with intellectual property. Patents strictly give the patent holder the legal right to assert force to stop another from replicating original works [i]on their own property.[/i] The logical issue with maintaining IP is it entails the enforcement of the holders rights at the expense of delimiting others right to their own property. This would my logical conclusion - [i]a priori[/i], IP "rights" can not exist along with legitimate property rights, any other claim can not be coherently defended. Moving away from philosophical priors and logical deductions, I want to specifically address your points. I often run into the claim of "Without IP, people are't as incentivized to create and/or innovate!" [b]Dubious at best.[/b] IP merely suppresses innovation. Every time a patent is legally created, everyone else under this legal jurisdiction now can not use their property in such a way or they will be legally prosecuted. Before an innovator even looks to enter the market, as they think about their creation, they are already restrained by IP. IP is merely approximate, as it simply doesn't preclude the reproduction of exact replications, rather innovations "too similar". Even making improvements upon anothers invention, I can still be legally sued for IP violation. The point being that the threshold for what constitutes a violation or not are merely arbitrary. What about the immense opportunity costs of the IP system in itself??? Land, labor, capital being used in a multitude of different ways. State bureaucrats to oversee operations...Applications for IP requires time, money, energy, etc that could all be used for more efficient ends and destroy less scarce resources. What about businesses who need to hire lawyers to file lawsuits and use huge amounts of resources to suppress market competition and maintain their monopoly privilege? All of this time, money, capital, energy surely could have been put to more productive and efficient ends. Building from above, even the mere threat of litigation and suits from IP creates costs. Now businesses must employ expensive legal teams just to conduct voluntary exchange. Again, huge amounts of wasted resources wrapped up in the inefficient legal system. IP destroys smaller businesses. There are thousands upon thousands IP certifications, which may never be know to an innovator yet he will still be held responsible for a violation. Powerful mega corporations have the advantage of being able to afford legal teams and large enough staff to secure hundred if not thousands of certifications. They are used as leverage against other large business, and such other businesses do the same back. It is basically mutually assured destruction defense, where companies refrain from suing each other as the defense will merely return the favor. Smaller businesses both able to afford legal teams and mass legal costs are merely the victims of this "thought war". They cant bear the costs of this war and simply aren't able to pursue entrepreneurship. The burden of proof doesn't fall on me, as you have to prove to me IP creates innovation. Addressing your specific concerns on the medical field in R&D. Again, many individuals hold the notion that without patents in the pharmaceutical field, pharmaceutical companies will not have the incentive to perform expensive R&D, unless the cost is made back through some monopoly privilege. But this notion seem to completely disregard the most expensive cost of R&D- that of the cost of complying with the mandated tests and trials that are conducted by the FDA. These tests are not just very expensive but erect massive barrier to entry to the industry. This keeps life saving drugs off the market for long periods. Many individuals suffer and die while the FDA takes it time granting approval. In now way is this an argument against testing, but one to show the unethical effects of giving quality assurance to a monopoly agency. Pharmaceutical firms will have to find the balance between testing and release time as participating in releasing a drug to late or early can have detrimental effects. One interesting option would to have pharm firms release drugs informed of what stage of testing it is in, allowing the consumer to profile their own risk. Notice, the FDA also is a monopolized tax funded regulation service. I personally don't want some monopoly made up of state bureaucrats regulating my healthcare.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • [quote][quote]Unless monopoly price is achieved, the use of the term monopoly is moot[/quote] Again, proceeded from this definition: “Monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group. Entry into the field is prohibited to others and this prohibition is enforced by the gendarmes of the State.” Monopoly only can occur in a environment when force is used to exclude others in production. The state holds this monopoly power to do so and is seen through intellectual property, corporate favoritism, unionism, etc...This is strictly what I'm arguing against, such force does not exist under the premise of free and voluntary interpersonal interaction and exchange. Since such a firm can not use force or coercion to erect massive barriers of entry or exclude others in the free market, there are no mechanisms to uphold and maintain monopoly privilege. If you think the free market monopoly is a possibility, please explain the formation of one under free competition. Deduced from the above logic, since we cant objectively determine if a firm is setting monopoly price on the free market, the mainstream dichotomy between "competitive and monopoly pricing" is false; therefore under free competition all prices are competitive. [quote]Basic micro can demonstrate how monopolies are inefficient among other things and through government interference breaking up said monopolies the market becomes more efficient (if only that’s all the government did)[/quote] Virtually all economists would agree every monopoly is bad for the consumer. Yet you are advocating for a monopoly firm (the state) to break up market monopolies, this is quite clearly a contradiction. Again, YOU CONTINUE to make these positivist appeals to the status quo about breaking up monopolies and are trying to use that to refute my argument. The status quo has nothing to do with my argument. Let me reduce my main claim a bit more for more clarity: The free market monopoly is a myth." The free market is explained more in depth in the OP, but to reduce it: Network of voluntary exchange in the absence of force and coercion. If you would like to refute my claim here, please don't appeal to the status quo again and address the point above: How could such a monopoly form in the free market? [quote]Patents are a whole discussion in and of themselves to throw ourselves into that I think is a little off topic and really is more philosophical than economic. Does the temporary inefficiency created by allowing a monopoly to form under a patent out weigh the lack of incentive to invest in research and new technologies?[/quote] [quote]By allowing a level of profitability it incentivize innovation. Why would I ever spend millions of dollars in R&D for a medication when the second it goes to market you spend a few thousand to reverse engineer it and produce it yourself. So to answer your question a patent monopolist creates a market that would not have been created without intellectual protection.[/quote] Let's define the Patent: "A patent is a property right in inventions, that is, in devices or processes that perform a ‘useful’ function. A new or improved mousetrap is an example of a type of device which may be patented. A patent effectively grants the inventor a limited monopoly on the manufacture, use, or sale of the invention. However, a patent actually only grants to the patentee the right to exclude (i.e., to prevent others from practicing the patented invention); it does not actually grant to the patentee the right to use the patented invention." I hold philosophical priors that are fundamentally contradictory with intellectual property. I also have economic consequential "moral" issues with intellectual property. Patents strictly give the patent holder the legal right to assert force to stop another from replicating original works [i]on their own property.[/i] The logical issue with maintaining IP is it entails the enforcement of the holders rights at the expense of delimiting others right to their own property. This would my logical conclusion - [i]a priori[/i], IP "rights" can not exist along with legitimate property rights, any other claim can not be coherently defended. Moving away from philosophical priors and logical deductions, I want to specifically address your points. I often run into the claim of "Without IP, people are't as incentivized to create and/or innovate!" [b]Dubious at best.[/b] IP merely suppresses innovation. Every time a patent is legally created, everyone else under this legal jurisdiction now can not use their property in such a way or they will be legally prosecuted. Before an innovator even looks to enter the market, as they think about their creation, they are already restrained by IP. IP is merely approximate, as it simply doesn't preclude the reproduction of exact replications, rather innovations "too similar". Even making improvements upon anothers invention, I can still be legally sued for IP violation. The point being that the threshold for what constitutes a violation or not are merely arbitrary. What about the immense opportunity costs of the IP system in itself??? Land, labor, capital being used in a multitude of different ways. State bureaucrats to oversee operations...Applications for IP requires time, money, energy, etc that could all be used for more efficient ends and destroy less scarce resources. What about businesses who need to hire lawyers to file lawsuits and use huge amounts of resources to suppress market competition and maintain their monopoly privilege? All of this time, money, capital, energy surely could have been put to more productive and efficient ends. Building from above, even the mere threat of litigation and suits from IP creates costs. Now businesses must employ expensive legal teams just to conduct voluntary exchange. Again, huge amounts of wasted resources wrapped up in the inefficient legal system. IP destroys smaller businesses. There are thousands upon thousands IP certifications, which may never be know to an innovator yet he will still be held responsible for a violation. Powerful mega corporations have the advantage of being able to afford legal teams and large enough staff to secure hundred if not thousands of certifications. They are used as leverage against other large business, and such other businesses do the same back. It is basically mutually assured destruction defense, where companies refrain from suing each other as the defense will merely return the favor. Smaller businesses both able to afford legal teams and mass legal costs are merely the victims of this "thought war". They cant bear the costs of this war and simply aren't able to pursue entrepreneurship. The burden of proof doesn't fall on me, as you have to prove to me IP creates innovation. Addressing your specific concerns on the medical field in R&D. Again, many individuals hold the notion that without patents in the pharmaceutical field, pharmaceutical companies will not have the incentive to perform expensive R&D, unless the cost is made back through some monopoly privilege. But this notion seem to completely disregard the most expensive cost of R&D- that of the cost of complying with the mandated tests and trials that are conducted by the FDA. These tests are not just very expensive but erect massive barrier to entry to the industry. This keeps life saving drugs off the market for long periods. Many individuals suffer and die while the FDA takes it time granting approval. In now way is this an argument against testing, but one to show the unethical effects of giving quality assurance to a monopoly agency. Pharmaceutical firms will have to find the balance between testing and release time as participating in releasing a drug to late or early can have detrimental effects. One interesting option would to have pharm firms release drugs informed of what stage of testing it is in, allowing the consumer to profile their own risk. Notice, the FDA also is a monopolized tax funded regulation service. I personally don't want some monopoly made up of state bureaucrats regulating my healthcare.[/quote] Still, even by your own definition the state would not be considered a monopoly because they would not achieve monopoly price. A natural monopoly exists without any of the things you mentioned. Literally google the word. In my other reply I go into more detail. Again Patents are offtopic and a different beast entirely. The discussion likely will go nowhere because again it’s philosophical and there’s no real way to change someone’s opinion of human nature in a forum.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

  • SpiRitsにより編集済み: 3/4/2018 9:08:35 PM
    [quote]Still, even by your own definition the state would not be considered a monopoly because they would not achieve monopoly price.[/quote] [quote]“Monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group. Entry into the field is prohibited to others and this prohibition is enforced by the gendarmes of the State.”[/quote] Yes, the state does fit this definition. I explained this below and how it fits Rothbards definition: "The State has a legal monopoly on the right to use aggression against others in the form of taxation and compulsory edicts (legislation). Not only must “customers” pay into its operation without regard to their consent, but they must surrender to the rules its internal processes determine at all times. Additionally, the State has a monopoly on the provision of security, and has anointed itself as the ultimate arbiter in all conflicts, including those conflicts which involve its own agents." It maintains this monopoly power through the threat of aggressive force, clearly fitting Rothbards definition. [quote]Again Patents are offtopic and a different beast entirely. The discussion likely will go nowhere because again it’s philosophical and there’s no real way to change someone’s opinion of human nature in a forum.[/quote] One, I don't even believe in human nature, it is merely a spook. Second, I refuted the patent mainly based on economic reasons and how it stifles growth, not incentivzes it.

    投稿言語:

     

    マナーを守りましょう。投稿する前に、Bungie の行為規範を確認してください。 キャンセル 編集 ファイアチームを作る 投稿

このコンテンツはご覧いただけません。
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon