Here Mark disabuses me of my notion that he's a glib Randite, makes a few good points, and leaves me much more in a frame of mind conducive to an intelligent discussion. What follows tends to be much more on topic from both sides from here on out.

On 7/20/2003, Mark Peters wrote:

Nope, it isn't my view that monopolies harm consumers. My view is that companies that have gained large market shares through voluntary means are beneficial for everybody.

We won't be able to agree on principles of classical economics, because I think classical economics contains too many errors to be of value. My heroes in economics are Von Vises, Menger, Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt not Adam Smith or other classical economists.

The view that weak or average people are somehow threatened by the existence of strong people is a fallacy about capitalism that the above thinkers exposed. The main reason it is a fallacy is that when a company, dominant or not, begins displeasing its customers, it has no power to stop competitors who come on the scene in response.

There isn't even _one_ example in history of a dominant company harming its customers in the way you suggest is possible - unless the company gained its dominance via the government. The only thing anti-trust activity has accomplished is the destruction of mass quantities of wealth and of the lives and careers of our best businessmen.

If you look at who complains about alleged abuses, you will see that it is not the customers of the accused company, but its _competitors_.

Mark Peters

Return to the index for this subject.