Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <2015@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 01:49:43 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.2015
Posted: Sat Mar  2 01:49:43 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 08:07:28 EST
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-142000:inmet:7800319:177600:1813
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Mar  1 00:27:00 1985

I agree that there's been no utterly free society so that there's
no "utterly" unregulated place for "utterly" unregulated monopolies
to have formed.  Of course, that's not *quite* what I was saying.

My challenge is to find monopolies not regulated in such a way as to
tend to bolster the monopoly.  In other words, something like
OPEC would be a such monopoly, except they don't happen to control 
100% of the oil market (or even 90%) because no outside body forces them
to split up when they form a cartel, and no outside body similarly
prevents others from joining the oil business, nor protects
OPEC should OPEC try and use force against the newcomers.  

It should, of course, be noted that what seem like laws not meant to
protect the status quo may bolster a monopoly position (for example,
highly regulated industries are harder for people to enter because of
the (artificially) high fixed costs involved).

Any industry of national scope is somewhat regulated, of course,
if there are tariffs.

As it happens, I do believe that monopolies are not stable unless
given special, generally government-based protection.  As Daniel McK.
points out, such monopolies leave themselves open to "cracking"
if they charge rates over their marginal costs -- if, in other words,
they get greedy.  I know of only one example of a firm
NOT getting greedy, and it was broken up under antitrust laws.

As for whether McK's logic shows this to be inevitable or not, or not, I
suspect the argument supports the notion that there'd be no monopoly in
a Free Economy, but doesn't prove it.  No surprise there.  It's pretty
hard to prove economic stuff -- about all you can do is try and
understand things and show how their past behavior (in this case the
absence of supported monopolies) meshes well with your understanding.