Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Supposed monopolies: Standard Oi Message-ID: <7800366@inmet.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 00:20:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800366 Posted: Tue Aug 6 00:20:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 05:05:33 EDT References: <1105@umcp-cs.UUCP> Lines: 49 Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-110500:inmet:7800366:000:1912 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Aug 6 00:20:00 1985 >/* Written 1:15 am Aug 5, 1985 by umcp-cs!mangoe in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Supposed monopolies: Standard O" ---------- */ >In article <9561@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > >>The following table shows Standard's >>difficulty at holding a monopoly on oil refining: > >>date market share >>1899 90% >>1904-1907 84% >>1911 80% > >I dunno, 80% seems pretty damn large to me. That's okay -- 80% is hardly a "monopoly", especially when independents are growing quickly. >>... >Which goes to show another reason why monopolies are undesirable; they can >do a lot of damage when they collapse. The current distress in the auto >industry is a prime example. I don't see that a large company has to be a monopoly to cause problems when it collapses -- all it has to do is employ enough people and resources. Of course if the government tries to help out the problem can get worse in two ways: 1. The government can succeed in saving the company, which amounts to rewarding incorrect allocation of resources. (At this point the company may (like Chrysler) do somewhat better, but the lesson becomes clear -- if you've the clout, and you're in trouble -- don't bother fixing things -- it's easier to yell for help). 2. The company can fail despite the aid -- and guess who gets the bill for delaying the inevitable? Do you think the executives don't get paid? One of the odd public misperceptions of corporate collapse is that the resources owned by (say) the automobile companies would simply disappear if the automobile companies were to fold. Not so! Those factories, furnaces, office buildings, computers, (and yes) employees become available for other purposes. Among them the formation of new and better (as well as new and worse!) automobile companies, and the general lowering of price of these items (supply increased). Nat Howard.