The speaker is obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. I managed to learn a lot about the Austrian view on competition.That being said, I wish he did a little less quoting. I though it was a little excessive.
uh in what way was it excessive??? Lorenzo is merely presenting an in depth analysis of competition, monopolies & the REAL history behind it. So aint it logical that one would buttress his position with direct quotes from the various people- especially of the past when tryin to debunk the misconceptions & falsehoods of the history?
When u speak about total misconceptions & fallacies propagated through history as most economic fallacies are(ie 'the myth of natural monopoly), its most helpful to use direct quotes especially from the papers & people of the time.
Lorenzo does a fabulous job here in the span of an hour.
But sadly many people who are economically illiterate would require several months of studious reading & critical thinking in order to even understand this stuff
It isn't a comment on his knowledge...it's a comment on his presentation. I find these types of lectures to be less enjoyable when the speaker is constantly quoting other people. No need to take it personal...It wasn't meant to be insulting. In fact, as I said, I found the talk to be very informative....as we say in Québec "on se calme le bacon" ("Let's relax the bacon"...roughly meaning "chill out")
The socialist indoctrination textbook I had to use in 88 or so was all concerned about the hostile takeover merger fad, which it blamed for several 'harmful' trends. Big Beer was buying all of the smaller breweries, steel foundries were being bought & shut down, Safeway was destroying our food, & all this was evidence of the failure of capitalism. Now Anheiser has been bought out itself, yet we have MORE small brewers, unions killed Steel, it HAD to go elsewhere, & Safeway is toast.
I really appreciate the Austrian School on monetary issues and libertarianism. BUT, this anti-trust theory is really their weak point. They really sound like a 'cult' when they talk about anti-trust law.
Not really. Actually, Thomas DiLorenzo has another vid discussing how he himself had done research on the subject and showed the "monopolistic" companies in the past were punished even though the prices of goods from those industries were falling faster than the price level and the people that wanted anti-trust were people that wanted tariffs(and high prices brought by them) and small competitors that couldn't compete with lower prices.
I understand your point. My question to the Mises guys is this:
If you are ok with Cartels and monopolies, then why do you complain about the 'state' and the 'banks' so much.
The modern state is just a 'monopoly over a certain terrirory'. There is no difference between Microsofts monopoly of the desktop and the state monopoly of political power.
I agree. The problem is: in the real world there is been no such thing as a free market. It is a purely theoretical concept (which I appreciate) but I haven't seen it anywhere.
Reality seems to indicate that markets evolve into some variation of oligopoly but they don't spontaneously evolve towards 'free' or 'perfect' markets.
As to the state: I see the political parties as competitors in an 'idealogy' market. There also it has evolved into a cartel of Left-Right establishment.
As a result, plitical 'entrepreneurs-innovators' like Ron Paul are marginalized.
You see, humans are in the business of exploiting each other. Whether it is through a political cartel or business cartel it doesn't make a difference.
people from the Mises Institute are NOT in favor of monopoly....
I don't know where you get that from. I guess you haven't really paid attention to their vids/audio or read articles on monopoly.
A single firm in an area is not a monopoly. A monopoly is a firm that has a government-granted charter/contract and the government FORBIDS competition by using force. By seeing this, you can see why many of them are against the state...it uses force and forbids competition.
Furthermore, they're not against the banks...only the Fed, central banking. That's because, once again, it has a government-granted monopoly. Violence is used against you if you wish to offer people an alternative currency due to legal tender laws, and nobody else is in charge of money supply because the state prevents competition in money. Secondly, central banks have been tended to be the engine of inflation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is odd to see a 'monopoly' as a governement 'granted' phenomenon only.
A monopoly happens naturally in the market.
The FED didn't just come out of nowhere and get a monopoly from the governement. It was set up by powerfull banks which were already dominating the markets. It was the banks which set up the FED NOT the state. The Sate of course gave its blessings to the money machine.
No, it's not odd to see a monopoly as that because that is by definition, what a monopoly is. A monopoly is not a single firm, unless you look at it through the neo-classical view, in which case a natural monopoly still is not a normal monopoly because it still behaves as if there could be competition at any moment( because there can be once profits get high enough).
As for the Fed, yes it was granted by the state. Bankers wrote up the proposal....but it was given the go-ahead by Congress.
The Fed was not set up by the state? You fail history. Yeah, bankers came up with the idea, but it could only exist through a charter granted by Congress, & it can only be ended by Congress, not by, say, a universal boycott by US citizens. What's to boycott? Federal Reserve Notes? Wouldn't accomplish anything.
A monopoly CAN happen when a co. is really good, but how can it continue indefinitely? If they start raising prices too high, competition will begin to thrive again.
Exactly when did Microsoft have a monopoly, and when did it end? My first computer was an original Mac 128K. I went PC when Mac failed to provide what I could get on a PC using the Win OS. I've tried Mac OS X and Linux (Ubuntu) since then. Currently using Vista x64 Ultimate. It's great. But for a certain uses, I might recommend to a friend or family member that they use a Linux or Mac OS computer. It depends.
Yea no kidding. I own a vista laptop, win 2000 for making music, and two linux boxes. It's funny and sad when the majority that don't know jack about computers complain that the guys selling the simple solution that comes with the computers are somehow being monopolistic...
Some people may argue that Microsoft has a monopoly through IP. However, I too feel that Microsoft has no monopoly and people choose to buy their products voluntarily, I chose Linux.
@rumco so do I; in fact, piracy helps microsoft to sustain its monopolistic position through vendor lock-in. basically, they've gotta love it. Only on home pc market they are monopoly, notice how professional markets are much more diverse. And still, they seem to suck more and more every day.. it is like they are rotting from inside...
The banking system: the mises guys constantly use the word 'cartel' to designate the FED and the banking system.
The fact is this: any structure which is big and poweful enough to dominate a 'space' (ex. market) will inevitably exploit that space to its own advantage. It doesn't matter whether it is IBM, the State Bureacracy, A King or a Ruller.
There is a big difference. The supposed "monopolies" he is talking about arise from added value and economy. As soon as they deviate from that, they can be taken down as a course of natural market forces. The FEDs existance does not depend on the value it provides or it's success or failure. It is enforced at the point of a gun. IBM doesn't force you to buy it's products. The government does...
While we're telling monopoly jokes. I heard this one on Jay Leno, and it's one of my favorites:
"Did you hear they're going to raise the price of postage stamps again? Yeah, they plan to use the profits to buy more "THIS WINDOW CLOSED" signs for the post offices.
I always think it's funny when the government accuses private entities of cartelization, given that the only successful cartels arise from government intervention.
The first one came too early to work, accused of spying. The second one came too late, accused of sabotage. The third one came always on time, accused of possesing a foreign watch
The speaker is obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. I managed to learn a lot about the Austrian view on competition.That being said, I wish he did a little less quoting. I though it was a little excessive.
MrJamesBP 6 months ago
@MrJamesBP
uh in what way was it excessive??? Lorenzo is merely presenting an in depth analysis of competition, monopolies & the REAL history behind it. So aint it logical that one would buttress his position with direct quotes from the various people- especially of the past when tryin to debunk the misconceptions & falsehoods of the history?
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880
When u speak about total misconceptions & fallacies propagated through history as most economic fallacies are(ie 'the myth of natural monopoly), its most helpful to use direct quotes especially from the papers & people of the time.
Lorenzo does a fabulous job here in the span of an hour.
But sadly many people who are economically illiterate would require several months of studious reading & critical thinking in order to even understand this stuff
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880
It isn't a comment on his knowledge...it's a comment on his presentation. I find these types of lectures to be less enjoyable when the speaker is constantly quoting other people. No need to take it personal...It wasn't meant to be insulting. In fact, as I said, I found the talk to be very informative....as we say in Québec "on se calme le bacon" ("Let's relax the bacon"...roughly meaning "chill out")
MrJamesBP 3 months ago
Love this stuff.
These guys could tear my Econ professors apart.
FCmagic01 2 years ago 9
The socialist indoctrination textbook I had to use in 88 or so was all concerned about the hostile takeover merger fad, which it blamed for several 'harmful' trends. Big Beer was buying all of the smaller breweries, steel foundries were being bought & shut down, Safeway was destroying our food, & all this was evidence of the failure of capitalism. Now Anheiser has been bought out itself, yet we have MORE small brewers, unions killed Steel, it HAD to go elsewhere, & Safeway is toast.
Jaycephus01 2 years ago 6
It took a few minutes for DiLorenzo to warm up, but then he got going. Another winner.
WOLF333999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hm, Learned Hand was never a Supreme Court justice; he was a Court of Appeals judge.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Hm, Learned Hand wasn't a Supreme Court judge, only a very influential Court of Appeals judge.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is what DiLorenzo is good at. He should stick with this and spare us from his poor scholarship on historical figures.
DarthByss 2 years ago
Are you referring to the work on Lincoln or Hamilton? if Hamilton then I'm inclined to agree.
Loserido 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by anti-trust competition
But this should answer it either way, competition is inherently anti-trust
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I really appreciate the Austrian School on monetary issues and libertarianism. BUT, this anti-trust theory is really their weak point. They really sound like a 'cult' when they talk about anti-trust law.
NietzscheIsBack 2 years ago
Not really. Actually, Thomas DiLorenzo has another vid discussing how he himself had done research on the subject and showed the "monopolistic" companies in the past were punished even though the prices of goods from those industries were falling faster than the price level and the people that wanted anti-trust were people that wanted tariffs(and high prices brought by them) and small competitors that couldn't compete with lower prices.
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 3
I understand your point. My question to the Mises guys is this:
If you are ok with Cartels and monopolies, then why do you complain about the 'state' and the 'banks' so much.
The modern state is just a 'monopoly over a certain terrirory'. There is no difference between Microsofts monopoly of the desktop and the state monopoly of political power.
NietzscheIsBack 2 years ago
You didn't get it. In a free market there are no monopolies.
taubstumm 2 years ago 3
I agree. The problem is: in the real world there is been no such thing as a free market. It is a purely theoretical concept (which I appreciate) but I haven't seen it anywhere.
Reality seems to indicate that markets evolve into some variation of oligopoly but they don't spontaneously evolve towards 'free' or 'perfect' markets.
As to the state: I see the political parties as competitors in an 'idealogy' market. There also it has evolved into a cartel of Left-Right establishment.
NietzscheIsBack 2 years ago
As a result, plitical 'entrepreneurs-innovators' like Ron Paul are marginalized.
You see, humans are in the business of exploiting each other. Whether it is through a political cartel or business cartel it doesn't make a difference.
Like you, I also wish the world was libertarian.
NietzscheIsBack 2 years ago
people from the Mises Institute are NOT in favor of monopoly....
I don't know where you get that from. I guess you haven't really paid attention to their vids/audio or read articles on monopoly.
A single firm in an area is not a monopoly. A monopoly is a firm that has a government-granted charter/contract and the government FORBIDS competition by using force. By seeing this, you can see why many of them are against the state...it uses force and forbids competition.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 8
(continued)
Furthermore, they're not against the banks...only the Fed, central banking. That's because, once again, it has a government-granted monopoly. Violence is used against you if you wish to offer people an alternative currency due to legal tender laws, and nobody else is in charge of money supply because the state prevents competition in money. Secondly, central banks have been tended to be the engine of inflation.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is odd to see a 'monopoly' as a governement 'granted' phenomenon only.
A monopoly happens naturally in the market.
The FED didn't just come out of nowhere and get a monopoly from the governement. It was set up by powerfull banks which were already dominating the markets. It was the banks which set up the FED NOT the state. The Sate of course gave its blessings to the money machine.
NietzscheIsBack 2 years ago
No, it's not odd to see a monopoly as that because that is by definition, what a monopoly is. A monopoly is not a single firm, unless you look at it through the neo-classical view, in which case a natural monopoly still is not a normal monopoly because it still behaves as if there could be competition at any moment( because there can be once profits get high enough).
As for the Fed, yes it was granted by the state. Bankers wrote up the proposal....but it was given the go-ahead by Congress.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 4
The Fed was not set up by the state? You fail history. Yeah, bankers came up with the idea, but it could only exist through a charter granted by Congress, & it can only be ended by Congress, not by, say, a universal boycott by US citizens. What's to boycott? Federal Reserve Notes? Wouldn't accomplish anything.
A monopoly CAN happen when a co. is really good, but how can it continue indefinitely? If they start raising prices too high, competition will begin to thrive again.
Jaycephus01 2 years ago
Exactly when did Microsoft have a monopoly, and when did it end? My first computer was an original Mac 128K. I went PC when Mac failed to provide what I could get on a PC using the Win OS. I've tried Mac OS X and Linux (Ubuntu) since then. Currently using Vista x64 Ultimate. It's great. But for a certain uses, I might recommend to a friend or family member that they use a Linux or Mac OS computer. It depends.
Jaycephus01 2 years ago 5
Yea no kidding. I own a vista laptop, win 2000 for making music, and two linux boxes. It's funny and sad when the majority that don't know jack about computers complain that the guys selling the simple solution that comes with the computers are somehow being monopolistic...
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago 4
When you can even pander a FREE OS you know you should pack it in and find the nearest tall structure.
Xtro2005 2 years ago
Some people may argue that Microsoft has a monopoly through IP. However, I too feel that Microsoft has no monopoly and people choose to buy their products voluntarily, I chose Linux.
rumco 2 years ago
@rumco so do I; in fact, piracy helps microsoft to sustain its monopolistic position through vendor lock-in. basically, they've gotta love it. Only on home pc market they are monopoly, notice how professional markets are much more diverse. And still, they seem to suck more and more every day.. it is like they are rotting from inside...
coturnix19 1 year ago
The banking system: the mises guys constantly use the word 'cartel' to designate the FED and the banking system.
The fact is this: any structure which is big and poweful enough to dominate a 'space' (ex. market) will inevitably exploit that space to its own advantage. It doesn't matter whether it is IBM, the State Bureacracy, A King or a Ruller.
NietzscheIsBack 2 years ago
The point is that when the state grants the monopoly, it uses force to forbid competition. That is a significant difference.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 4
There is a big difference. The supposed "monopolies" he is talking about arise from added value and economy. As soon as they deviate from that, they can be taken down as a course of natural market forces. The FEDs existance does not depend on the value it provides or it's success or failure. It is enforced at the point of a gun. IBM doesn't force you to buy it's products. The government does...
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago 5
HEY, that's the guy who bashes Lincoln.
He is my hero.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 2
I think patents are just a way to preserve intellectual property
And they expire after like 20-30 years anyway, so even if a company buys up patents to hold them out of the market, they can only do it for so long
And they can't be inherited, so you don't have to pay the descendants of the Wheel for the privilege of driving a car
Overall patents are absolutely needed
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
up is down, black is white, smart is stupid, Paul Krugman is an economist
vorbeigehende 2 years ago 26
and Rahm Emmanuel is a freedom-loving peacenik.
sinitskyd 2 years ago 3
with his famous "never waste a good crisis" (to expand government even more)
vorbeigehende 2 years ago 2
you forgot Krugman has a nobel prize!
kotash2 1 year ago
@kotash2
you forgot Obama has a nobel prize too
vorbeigehende 1 year ago
@vorbeigehende now that's the obamination ! al gore at least was given the prize for doing something (chasing manbearpig), but obama...
coturnix19 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading this video. I really enjoy these lectures, their entertaining and you learn a lot.
coltrane1966 2 years ago 7
One more, attibuted (probably falsely) to George W. Bush:
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'".
RakeRocter 2 years ago 6
It's entrepreneur
DavidAKZ 2 years ago
Right. That's the joke - or part of it anyway.
RakeRocter 2 years ago
"probably falsely"
I would not misunderestimate him.
vorbeigehende 2 years ago
While we're telling monopoly jokes. I heard this one on Jay Leno, and it's one of my favorites:
"Did you hear they're going to raise the price of postage stamps again? Yeah, they plan to use the profits to buy more "THIS WINDOW CLOSED" signs for the post offices.
RakeRocter 2 years ago 11
There's this joke about antitrust that I find hilarious:
"Three businessmen are sitting in jail, and they get to discussing their crimes.
'I charged lower prices than anyone else, so they accused me of cutthroat competition, and threw me in here!'
'I charged higher prices than the norm, and they locked me up for price-gouging!'
'Really? Because I charged the same price as everyone else, and they found me guilty of collusion and cartelization...'"
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago 33
I always think it's funny when the government accuses private entities of cartelization, given that the only successful cartels arise from government intervention.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago 15
Add to that the fact that the government IS a monopoly.
TheAtheistRising 2 years ago 7
It's actually a VERY old soviet joke.
Three workers in jail.
The first one came too early to work, accused of spying. The second one came too late, accused of sabotage. The third one came always on time, accused of possesing a foreign watch
vorbeigehende 2 years ago 11
is that a joke?
thisisbunk 2 years ago
i don't know. but the story about a man who was 25 years in jail for dropping the
portrait of Comrade Stalin at some demonstration seems to be true.
vorbeigehende 2 years ago
lol, that would bite. in all honesty i was joking when i asked if it was a joke. (i dont what word describes my humor? dry? wry?)
thisisbunk 2 years ago