It's 12:00. Do you know where John Kerry is?

[SirNitram]

However, their government control is the reason why they are not prohibitively expensive, or certainly is for another heavily-subsidized company I know of, Amtrak, and I see no reason not to expect the same restrictions.

Sometimes, but more often the difference in prices between a totally unregulated monopoly and a heavily-regulated one are fairly small. Market controls dictate that a monopoly does not have infinite control over the price at which it sells goods. The reason the government USUALLY regulates monopolies is because unregulated monopolies have the POTENTIAL to make economic profit over a very long period of time, and they do not produce at a socially desirable level. In effect, the difference is that a competitive market with product differentiation encourages inefficiency through over-capacity, while an unregulated monopoly promotes inefficiency through under-production.

deBeers is my best example here. This is, again, understating the observed effects of monopolies.

There are problems, however, with government regulation of monopolies. For example, monopolies tend to be able to cement their power quite easily, preventing potential competitors from entering the market with superior products. These efforts are directly supported by government regulating committees, even if they do not provide all-out mandates to the companies in general.

Yes, this is so. So oppose that law, don't promote a lack of any regulation so that monopolies can do this more easily.

A restricted monopoly is sometimes a necessity; I recignize that the government can't simply cut Amtrak loose, without causing a shitload more trouble than the mere financial cost they pay now. An unregulated monopoly, the natural outcome of a government with no regulations on companies, is a damned dangerous thing.

Again, potentially, but monopolies still don't have infinite power over their prices.

Thank you for the strawman, Ossus. I never did say 'infinite'. They merely have to be damaging for me to be right.

[kojikun]

Except the kids made more along the lines of a few cents a day. My "seven cents an hour" comment was wild exaggeration.

Oh, sure, sure. But even still, in todays world, an appropriately safe and preferablly apprenticable job could be done at a small rate, and still be okay. I mean, you could surely apprentice a child in a bakery, and I'm sure that it's done all the time in more rural US towns. Officially employing them is only a benefit. Besides, in todays world, I highly doubt children would be TRUSTED to do anything. I don't know of any jobs today that kids could be good at doing, unless they're 10 or older. Paperroutes used to exist, and it was good for kids to have them. It built character. But that's child labour, so get rid of it. I don't agree with abusing kids and having them work in factories, but how many factories today exist like they did back then? How many companies would even be willing to hire a 10 year old, who is probably less than competent at what they need done? I think that if a child (10+) wants to work a simple job in a safe environment for meager pay, why not. Parental permission required, sure. But I can't see abuse taking place.

[Symmetry]

Again, do you realize that in Libertarian fantasies, no one would repair the rail network?

I'm not quite sure I grasp your logic here, or rather I'm sure I don't. If a company owns a rail network, then obviously at some point in the past they decided that the money they could extract from it was greater than the money they paid for it. And under normal conditions the amount of money it costs to keep the railways mantained so they can make more money is a lot less than the cost of buying them in the first place.

In any event, the idea that private companies don't maintain things well doesn't seem to bear out. Certainly the private roads around where I live seem to be slightly better maintained than the government roads.

Libertarian dogma places corporations above the citizens. Given how quick many corporations have been to screw us, you'd think people would learn this is stupid.

Of course I can't really respond to something as vauge as "places corporations above citizens." I'll simply say that most Libertairans tend to apply the same rules to all businesses, rather than granting special tax exemptions to the biggest companies like the two major parties do.

[SirNitram]

If they didnt want those jobs, they would not work them.

Wow, you live in a complete fantasy world.

No, take a look at it this way. If we regulated the businesses there, would enough people get jobs to help their economic situation? No.

Even 2 dollars an hour is better than nothing. It is enough to buy food. With that, the people would be able to spend money, with teh spending of money they will be able to open up businesses. These buusinesses will cmpete with each otehr, and employ others.

They may be exploited now, but that condition will not last.

'It's fine! Just look away for a while! It'll go away! It's vital to the survival of these people; we couldn't possibly promote the existance of a minimum-wage law that would let the adults get a living wage!'

This is exactly what I meant by a wall of ignorance.

[Symmetry]

Um, wouldn't pursuing totally free-market policies lead us right back to the Industrial Revolution, where children work 12 hous a day for seven cents an hour?

Would you send your child to work 12 hours a day for seven cents an hour? The messed upedness of that have a lot more to do with enclosure than anything else.

[Master of Ossus]

deBeers is my best example here. This is, again, understating the observed effects of monopolies.

de Beers is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, too. It promoted inefficiency through under-production, as opposed to over-capacity.

Yes, this is so. So oppose that law, don't promote a lack of any regulation so that monopolies can do this more easily.

The problem is that it's inherent within regulation. The government would need to radically alter its method of regulating in order to change this.

Thank you for the strawman, Ossus. I never did say 'infinite'. They merely have to be damaging for me to be right.

I don't even think that most monopolies are that "scary." Do you think that the city is getting ripped off everytime it builds a sidewalk for the cement that it uses? I don't, but the cement company that supplies them with that is a monopoly. Do you think that a movie theater in a small town is very scary? I don't. Again, it's a monopoly. Only a VERY small number of monopolies even have enough power over their prices to cause anybody concern. Most of the time, regulators are really trying to make a monopoly produce more, rather than keep prices down, since under-production is a larger concern.

[SirNitram]

Again, do you realize that in Libertarian fantasies, no one would repair the rail network?

I'm not quite sure I grasp your logic here, or rather I'm sure I don't.

No one owns the rails. The only group who could is Amtrak, and if they aren't given subsidies, they'll simply roll over and die.

[Alyrium Denryle]

'It's fine! Just look away for a while! It'll go away! It's vital to the survival of these people; we couldn't possibly promote the existance of a minimum-wage law that would let the adults get a living wage!'

This is exactly what I meant by a wall of ignorance.

A min wage law would remove the financial incentive for a company to go into a disease ridden crime infested 3rd world slum to start up a business.

Without the low pay(which is still amazingly better than what they currently make) these people have NO chance to advance.

Noone is forced to take a job. If they do not like the pay they have the option to not take it. However $2/herou is better than nothing. If they want more, they can organize and bargain for better wages. In the meantime however the amount of money they know have in their pockets, will entice other businesses into the area. They will compete for workers by offering better wages.

[kojikun]

Aky, not to burst your bubble, but that isn't truly going to happen. Companies ALREADY try to pay as little as possible, and if they know damn well that they can get cheaper labour, they will. Besides, it's not as if there is any trouble finding a job. McDonalds and Burger King will hire anyone presentable, and begging can get you enough to make yourself presentable very easilly. A quarter an hour, 10 hours a day, every day, is 75 dollars a month. Enough to buy cheap but new, clean clothes, soap, etc. And you know beggers make much more than that. Anyone who wants a job can get one. It's not hard. And companies are willing to pay them, because they keep hiring them. They would pay less, but then you get into the realm of causing more harm than good. It becomes an issue of preventing lots of harm to everyone by causing minor amounts of it to people who won't even feel it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

edit: now have

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aky, not to burst your bubble, but that isn't truly going to happen. Companies ALREADY try to pay as little as possible, and if they know damn well that they can get cheaper labour, they will. Besides, it's not as if there is any trouble finding a job. McDonalds and Burger King will hire anyone presentable, and begging can get you enough to make yourself presentable very easilly. A quarter an hour, 10 hours a day, every day, is 75 dollars a month. Enough to buy cheap but new, clean clothes, soap, etc. And you know beggers make much more than that. Anyone who wants a job can get one. It's not hard. And companies are willing to pay them, because they keep hiring them. They would pay less, but then you get into the realm of causing more harm than good. It becomes an issue of preventing lots of harm to everyone by causing minor amounts of it to people who won't even feel it.

Dude, I am talking about third word slums. There are not any jobs in third world slums... You know, in places like Zambia.

[SirNitram]

deBeers is my best example here. This is, again, understating the observed effects of monopolies.

de Beers is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, too. It promoted inefficiency through under-production, as opposed to over-capacity.

So the fact that it is price fixing to an outright absurd degree simply sails over your head and into the distance?

Yes, this is so. So oppose that law, don't promote a lack of any regulation so that monopolies can do this more easily.

The problem is that it's inherent within regulation. The government would need to radically alter its method of regulating in order to change this.

Radical alterations can occasionally be good. I'm not so much of an economics student to know whether it's time, but I would far prefer even radical, sweeping changes to the complete removal.

Thank you for the strawman, Ossus. I never did say 'infinite'. They merely have to be damaging for me to be right.

I don't even think that most monopolies are that "scary." Do you think that the city is getting ripped off everytime it builds a sidewalk for the cement that it uses? I don't, but the cement company that supplies them with that is a monopoly. Do you think that a movie theater in a small town is very scary? I don't. Again, it's a monopoly. Only a VERY small number of monopolies even have enough power over their prices to cause anybody concern. Most of the time, regulators are really trying to make a monopoly produce more, rather than keep prices down, since under-production is a larger concern.

And why is underproduction not considered here, Ossus? You know, the thing that nearly shut down California for a while to promote some people's profit margins. The magic hand of the free market didn't stop that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, and if what you say is true Koji, then I suppose no one would make over min wage.. oh, wait... They do.

[HemlockGrey]

Uh, I was sorta under the impression that the reason businesses stopped employing child labor and raised wages was because of the massive labor reforms and the rise of trade unions and federal regultions in the mid to late 19th century.

[kojikun]

A min wage law would remove the financial incentive for a company to go into a disease ridden crime infested 3rd world slum to start up a business.

I don't think minimum wage laws apply to US firms working outside the country. They might, but I don't think they do.

Without the low pay(which is still amazingly better than what they currently make) these people have NO chance to advance.

This is true, outside the US a minimum wage similar to ours is ridiculous. A scaled minimum, sure. Like in India, programmers only make 8k a year, which is PITIFUL compared to American programmers, making 40k+. But in India, 8k is enough to live as upper middle class by American standards.

Noone is forced to take a job. If they do not like the pay they have the option to not take it. However $2/herou is better than nothing. If they want more, they can organize and bargain for better wages. In the meantime however the amount of money they know have in their pockets, will entice other businesses into the area. They will compete for workers by offering better wages.

Noone is forced to take a job, but for many, they have no choice other than starve. And it doesn't even matter, because as in my last post, I noted that getting a job, even with minimum wage laws, is not hard. And companies other than fast food tend to pay above minimum wage ANYWAY. Eight dollars an hour is pretty common and thats nigh twice minimum wage.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Uh, I was sorta under the impression that the reason businesses stopped employing child labor and raised wages was because of the massive labor reforms and the rise of trade unions and federal regultions in the mid to late 19th century.

No, it largly stopped before then. You may have been able to find some factories using kids, but not the major ones.

[SirNitram]

Uh, I was sorta under the impression that the reason businesses stopped employing child labor and raised wages was because of the massive labor reforms and the rise of trade unions and federal regultions in the mid to late 19th century.

You'd be right. However, admitting that regulation and laws fixed the problems would destroy the fundamental belief of the Libertarians, thus they can't.

[kojikun]

Dude, I am talking about third word slums. There are not any jobs in third world slums... You know, in places like Zambia.

Yeah, that wasn't entirely clear. But what I said still applies for the US, and even for third world slums, but there its not a problem because scaling makes the minimum wage damn close to pennies an hour. One thing we have to remember is that five dollars in the US is a huge amount in Zambia. Two hundred dollars is enough to feed a family for a year with, while in America its barely enough to feed a family for a week with. So applying the 5.xx minimum wage to Zambia is absurd. Tho a one dollar minimum wage might make things curiously nice for Africa.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The thing is, a company has to be willing to pay enough to meet its labor needs. Especially when they have comptition from other firms. In the Third world, even the lowest wages are a boon, because they give people money to spend that they didnt have previously.

[SirNitram]

The thing is, a company has to be willing to pay enough to meet its labor needs. Especially when they have comptition from other firms. In the Third world, even the lowest wages are a boon, because they give people money to spend that they didnt have previously.

So it's all alright, no need to worry or regulate, don't you big meanies see? They're doing everyone a service!

[kojikun]

Oh, and if what you say is true Koji, then I suppose no one would make over min wage.. oh, wait... They do.

I was talking about the real scuzzy jobs where people don't make over minimum wage or just barely. I don't doubt that McDonalds would pay significantly lower if they could. Maybe not, I don't know their pay range, but I don't doubt that for the non-skilled labour jobs companies would lower wages as much as reasonably possible. I could be wrong.

But if thats the case then minimum wage laws really are irrelevant and removing them only takes up time, since most people get more than minimum wage anyway.

[Master of Ossus]

So the fact that it is price fixing to an outright absurd degree simply sails over your head and into the distance?

De Beers was never regulated, but it seems to have lost its monopoly due to voluntary practices. Did you simply forget about the last two decades?

Radical alterations can occasionally be good. I'm not so much of an economics student to know whether it's time, but I would far prefer even radical, sweeping changes to the complete removal.

Well, explain what price you think the government should set for a monopoly, if not the fair return price.

And why is underproduction not considered here, Ossus?

It is. The point is that the costs of correcting the situation are MASSIVELY greater than the benefits of doing so. It's not enough to point to a graph and say, "This is why a monopoly is inefficient." If a monopoly remains the best method of providing a beneficial service, then you can't complain because it isn't perfectly societally ideal.

In short, you can't brandish a theoretical model as a club to say that monopolies always have to be regulated. At some point you have to realize that the costs of regulating monopolies are greater than the benefits of doing so.

You know, the thing that nearly shut down California for a while to promote some people's profit margins. The magic hand of the free market didn't stop that.

I have no idea why you think that this has anything to do with a monopoly, since a large part of the issue was simply that the monopoly in California was DESTROYED and sold off piece-meal to various producers.

The "re-regulation" of the power industry in California was a disaster because of the idiotic manner in which the legislature chose to pursue it. If it makes you feel better, the rules governing that movement and the re-regulation of the telephone system in California are functionally all but identical, so you should be seeing some "slight problems" with the California phone system pretty quickly, too.

[kojikun]

So it's all alright, no need to worry or regulate, don't you big meanies see? They're doing everyone a service!

You have to consider third world economics tho. A few pennies an hour is alot for a poor person in the third world where the poverty line is 100 dollars a year or lower. Their labour is only worth an equivalent of that much, and you can't argue against that.

[Master of Ossus]

Tho a one dollar minimum wage might make things curiously nice for Africa.

I doubt it. You're talking about a rise of several hundred percent over what people are ordinarily making. Things like that cause all sorts of problems with the economy in both the short and long run, although at this point in Africa it's not really clear to me that anything can be done about the situation, anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The thing is, a company has to be willing to pay enough to meet its labor needs. Especially when they have comptition from other firms. In the Third world, even the lowest wages are a boon, because they give people money to spend that they didnt have previously.

So it's all alright, no need to worry or regulate, don't you big meanies see? They're doing everyone a service!

there you go! You are finally getting it.

You really do need to put abuse into perspective with living conditions. 200 dollars a year is, as koji said, enough to feed a family in africa and other third world countries.

Compare that with their living conditions... rampant starvation, the occasional outbreak of ebola...

I will go through this step by step

1 Factory opens with a wage of a dollar a day
2 family becomes employed, all of them.
3 family makes 5 dollars a day for an anual income of 1560 dollars.
4 subract cost of feeding... brings that down to 1360 dollars.
5 the increased number of people eating frces stroes to hire new workers
6 new workers can now also eat
7 repeat that process for all new businesses opened.
8 after eating, the family has disposable income
9 family spends
10 the businesses effected by said spending will hire more workers
11 more businesses pop up
12 businesses compete for workers
13 wages increase
14 more spending
15 more business
repeat whole process ad nausium