Bill Bartlett wrote:
      The writer points out that capitalism, which is predicated on and
       justified by free competition, inevitably trends toward increased
       monopoly, simply by the development of increasingly sophisticated
       machinery of production.
Mumpsimus prior
      This is nonsense.
      There are two types of monopoly; coercive and natural.  Natural is
      a desired variety as the best product is produced at the best
      price -- such has never existed.  A coercive monopoly requires the
       Government to enforce.
b wrote:
      What aspect of the claim cited by Bill is nonsense?

That Capitalism (an economic system void of Government intervention
which has never existed) 'trends' toward monopoly.  Take the much
maligned oil industry and Rockefeller ... when he was crucified by the
Government, there were 147 independent refineries snipping away
at the market share Rockefeller attained by the efficiencies of economies
of scale and vertical integration ... causing the prices of refined petroleum
to fall from over 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874 and to 5.9
cents by 1897.  During the same period, Rockefeller reduced his average
costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon.

Because of intense competition the company's oil production as a percentage
of total market supply had declined to a mere 11 percent in 1911, down from
34 percent in 1898 ... but then you prefer chanting nonsense to reality.

Apparently it does not fit your goal.


b wrote:
     What aspect of it is any more of a nonsense than the 'natural' monopoly
      that 'has never existed'?

Noting you failed to provide one example ... but then there has never been
such an animal.


b wrote:
     And why, assuming such a thing to be possible, is a 'natural monopoly'
     particularly desirable?

What is the goal?
The BEST product at a price approaching zero.

Bill Bartlett wrote:
      The only free competition they can engage in is the race to sell
       their labour at the cheapest price to those who do own the tools.
Mumpsimus prior
      Bullshit.
      Learn some reality and get back to us.
      Microsoft is no more a monopoly than McDonalds.
b wrote:
      Bullshit? - I guess it depends on what one considers to be sufficient in
      terms of market domination - is it 100%? is it 95%, but with the other 5%
      having no hope of improving?

'Market domination' is not a 'monopoly'.


b wrote:
      And what's with the McDonalds thing? McD's, offensive as it is,
      competes with countless other restaurants and outlets owned by
      countless other individuals and organisations. The situation with
      Microsoft, regardless of whether or not M is to be adjudged a
      monopoly, is obviously very different.

Nope.

Mumpsimus
_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html