@bradstevens monopolies are caused by governments and regulations. There is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market.
In. But need cashews or pistachios instead of peanuts.Was that more than subsidies and help? Did it include govt ownership of the railroad companies?It goes back more that 100 years. You guys are forgetting how we got all the western railroads built.
Off topic, but one of my all time favorite reads was Nothing Like it in the World.
I see what Mark is saying, but agree it didn't lead to government ownership of the railroads. The government did exert a tremendous amount of influence upon them though. Would be an interesting conversation with a few of you over a beer and peanuts (or folgers and eggs).
Who am I to judge?
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@receipt-keeper great book
@snarlcakes I don't think that's empirically true, even if some economic theory suggests it. Barriers to entry or the value of network effects and the first mover, I think, can cause them.
@receipt-keeper Unfortunately, I'm allergic to peanuts in the shell.
@snarlcakes I don't think that's empirically true, even if some economic theory suggests it. Barriers to entry or the value of network effects and the first mover, I think, can cause them.
Free markets are deflationary. They have to be because consumers demand it. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. As the margins increased, the barrier to entry would decrease. Eventually capital would attack the market deficiency.
@snarlcakes It's a neat theory in a frictionless, perfect world with perfectly rational actors who have perfect information and there is zero govt corruption or corporate capture.
That's not our world.
Stuff like this is why I laugh at people who blame capitalism for everything that is wrong. We haven't had free markets for a century at least and it just keeps creeping further towards the .gov controlling everything. It's been picking winners and losers for our entire lifetimes.
Au contraire. Most government intervention in the marketplace is to maintain a free market, not to limit it. Yes, the regulatory burden is overwhelming in some ways, and that is a big problem. While that over-regulation has the effect of making capitalism more difficult, that isn’t a socialism-capitalism issue.
@snarlcakes I don't think that's empirically true, even if some economic theory suggests it. Barriers to entry or the value of network effects and the first mover, I think, can cause them.
Free markets are deflationary. They have to be because consumers demand it. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. As the margins increased, the barrier to entry would decrease. Eventually capital would attack the market deficiency.
I think the Model T is a great example of free market capitalism. Prior to that, automobiles were only for the well-to-do. The Model T brought the price of automobiles way down and put cars in the reach of almost everyone. Is that deflation? I don’t believe it is, but I’m willing to listen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/07/10/pentagon-rare-earths/
Private company now partially owned by the federal government. It won’t be long now.
I think this move is a Master Class in out of the box thinking. You would never see this move from deep staters who are steeped in “how government works” kind of thinking. I congratulate all involved with this move. Hegseth? Trump?
As for this being a step towards socialism, I think that is an arguable point. But whatever the argument is, it is outweighed by the strategic importance of rare earths and ensuring that those stay in our hands. Uncle Sam participating as an investor is far different from simply seizing control of the operation with condemnation or other authority.
@co-hoosier So you supported TARP?
TARP was a bailout. This isn’t. Different analysis.
I don’t specifically remember if TARP was part of the GM reorganization. I thought at the time GM should have been reorganized under bankruptcy laws and not as it was with politically motivated priorities .
@snarlcakes I don't think that's empirically true, even if some economic theory suggests it. Barriers to entry or the value of network effects and the first mover, I think, can cause them.
Free markets are deflationary. They have to be because consumers demand it. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. As the margins increased, the barrier to entry would decrease. Eventually capital would attack the market deficiency.
I think the Model T is a great example of free market capitalism. Prior to that, automobiles were only for the well-to-do. The Model T brought the price of automobiles way down and put cars in the reach of almost everyone. Is that deflation? I don’t believe it is, but I’m willing to listen.
Yeah, it's an example of deflation. Everything trends to zero in a true free market. However, the fact it's not happening shows we don't have a free market.
@snarlcakes I don't think that's empirically true, even if some economic theory suggests it. Barriers to entry or the value of network effects and the first mover, I think, can cause them.
Free markets are deflationary. They have to be because consumers demand it. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. As the margins increased, the barrier to entry would decrease. Eventually capital would attack the market deficiency.
I think the Model T is a great example of free market capitalism. Prior to that, automobiles were only for the well-to-do. The Model T brought the price of automobiles way down and put cars in the reach of almost everyone. Is that deflation? I don’t believe it is, but I’m willing to listen.
Yeah, it's an example of deflation. Everything trends to zero in a true free market. However, the fact it's not happening shows we don't have a free market.
What does “trends to zero” mean? I thought free markets trends to equilibrium which isn’t zero.
One of the things I've tried to remind our more libertarian-leaning friends is that we've had a mixed economy for over 100 years at this point. A mixed economy is the status quo in some ways.Stuff like this is why I laugh at people who blame capitalism for everything that is wrong. We haven't had free markets for a century at least and it just keeps creeping further towards the .gov controlling everything. It's been picking winners and losers for our entire lifetimes.
But I'd also say "free markets" vs. controlled ones exist on a continuum, and the U.S. still enjoys relatively free markets in the vast majority of sectors.
Relatively free markets you say? That sounds equivocally delicious.
I reckon we can toss that in with mostly peaceful protests...
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"