Monopoly and Competition

There is almost no economic problem, real or imagined, that cannot be made worse by inappropriate government regulation. Antitrust is no exception.

Competition and cooperation and not two things in conflict. They are both essential ingredients in a society based on voluntary action instead of violence.

Throughout American history, politicians have incessantly awarded preferential policies (e.g., “corporate welfare”) to special interests that has allowed them to create monopolies dominating virtually every major market.

Competition is a process of the formation of opinion: by spreading information, it creates that unity and coherence of the economic system which we presuppose when we think of it as one market.

For many years in London, firefighting was provided privately by insurance companies. Oddly enough, the Americans rejected this model for the far-more-politicized fire department model we know today.

In their war on "monopolies," Progressives like Elizabeth Warren show they don't understand the history of anti-monopoly legislation, and they also don't understand that modern day "monopolies" aren't really monopolies at all.

Whether or not anti-trust legislation remains helpful to consumers, or makes any economic sense, remains entirely debatable.

Companies with government-granted monopolies never have to worry about going out of business. And they can therefore behave badly without any consequences.

No such thing as a "natural" monopoly has ever existed. In real life, so-called "public utilities" faced frequent competition, so they secured government monopolies to destroy the competition and invented the myths to rationalize their monopoly power.

Since public schools are funded through tax dollars, the schools don't really care if their safety measures are done in a way that treats students with the sort of respect paying customers would likely receive.