Liberals: Is Monopoly Good Or Bad?

[bripat9643]

Virtually every liberal will tell you that monopoly is bad. They constantly inveigh against the evils of "monopoly capitalism. The economist Hanns Herman Hoppe explained the problem with monopolies this way:

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

Given that liberals accept the proposition that monopolies are bad, why do they think creating a giant monopoly for providing healthcare will produce superior results? Where is the evidence to support this proposition?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Virtually every liberal will tell you that monopoly is bad. They constantly inveigh against the evils of "monopoly capitalism. The economist Hanns Herman Hoppe explained the problem with monopolies this way:

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

Given that liberals accept the proposition that monopolies are bad, why do they think creating a giant monopoly for providing healthcare will produce superior results? Where is the evidence to support this proposition?

Single-payer healthcare would be a monopsony, not a monopoly.

 

[bripat9643]

Virtually every liberal will tell you that monopoly is bad. They constantly inveigh against the evils of "monopoly capitalism. The economist Hanns Herman Hoppe explained the problem with monopolies this way:

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

Given that liberals accept the proposition that monopolies are bad, why do they think creating a giant monopoly for providing healthcare will produce superior results? Where is the evidence to support this proposition?

Single-payer healthcare would be a monopsony, not a monopoly.

Wrong. That's like claiming Standard Oil was a monopsony because it was the main purchaser of crude oil. It was also the main seller of kerosene, and under single payer government is the single provider of coverage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Virtually every liberal will tell you that monopoly is bad. They constantly inveigh against the evils of "monopoly capitalism. The economist Hanns Herman Hoppe explained the problem with monopolies this way:

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

Given that liberals accept the proposition that monopolies are bad, why do they think creating a giant monopoly for providing healthcare will produce superior results? Where is the evidence to support this proposition?

Who said anything about creating a monopoly?

The UK has the NHS, it's not a monopoly, there's private healthcare on top of the NHS that you can choose to pay for if you wish.

Many other countries have something similar.

The monopoly in the US seems to be that all the companies in the system don't want to be more competitive.