As to the examples, every cable-service monopoly in the US has govt backing. The postal service monopoly has govt backing. Intel uses patents (read govt backing) to limit the number of x86 producers. The old AT&T's long distance monopoly had govt backing, lost it, and then sprint and others started.
Standard Oil almost made it without govt backing, but we'll never know if they could have held.
Given that, in the US, government intervention mostly seems to consist of busting monopolies, I'm just a bit wary of the statement that no monopoly can exist without government support.
It seems to me that it is in the nature of a "true" free-market enterprise to seek, as much as possible, to neutralize the operation of the market in order to ensure the enterprise's survival. And history seems to provide some examples of such -- all manner of cartels, trusts, etc. have been devoted to nothing more or less than bringing the operation of the free market to an end, as quickly and effectively as possible.
> Given that, in the US, government intervention mostly seems to consist of busting monopolies,
Oh really? How are you measuring "mostly"? I see millions of patents. I see thousands of govt franchises.
> I'm just a bit wary of the statement that no monopoly can exist without government support.
I'm confused why anyone would think that a govt that "busts monopolies" couldn't also support them.
> all manner of cartels, trusts, etc. have been devoted to nothing more or less than bringing the operation of the free market to an end, as quickly and effectively as possible.
You're forgetting that a cartel or trust can only "regulate" behavior of its members. It can't affect transactions between third parties unless govt steps in.
Yes, one can imagine a situation where a cartel owns all of the relevant resource, but, apart from patents, that's quite rare.
"I see millions of patents. I see thousands of govt franchises."
Ah, yes, the vaunted trick of slyly redefining a term out from under the interlocutor. While it is true that a patent is an exclusive right and thus a form of monopoly, this type of monopoly is not what I was talking about and you were well aware of that. If you're so distrustful of your own arguments that you have to resort to rhetorical tricks to try to pull attention away from them, perhaps you should spend some more time thinking about the issue.
"I'm confused why anyone would think that a govt that "busts monopolies" couldn't also support them."
And I never suggested that a government cannot support a monopoly, or that no government has ever done so. This really makes you look desperate, you know? You start by trying the old redefinition trick, and then proceed into stuffing words into my mouth.
"You're forgetting that a cartel or trust can only "regulate" behavior of its members. It can't affect transactions between third parties unless govt steps in."
A cartel cannot enforce any part of its own operating agreements on third parties, true, but that's not necessary to the creation or maintenance of a monopoly and so is no counter-argument. A single large established entity, or a group of such working together, can easily manipulate factors such as supply chains, prices paid by the ultimate customers, etc. to cripple or destroy any competition.
What's more, parts of the history of the US abound with examples of precisely that behavior -- non-governmental entities subverting or disabling the operation of the free market for their own benefit. Do you dispute this?
> Ah, yes, the vaunted trick of slyly redefining a term out from under the interlocutor. While it is true that a patent is an exclusive right and thus a form of monopoly, this type of monopoly is not what I was talking about and you were well aware of that
You should probably describe the type of monopoly you are referring to, then. I have a general idea what you are talking about, but not a perfect one.
> What's more, parts of the history of the US abound with examples of precisely that behavior -- non-governmental entities subverting or disabling the operation of the free market for their own benefit. Do you dispute this?
You should definitely give a few examples, it's not exactly clear what you're talking about. For the record, I think that you're basically right: it's quite possible to create a monopoly without government intervention (De Beers, Microsoft, US Steel at one time.) However, it's difficult to maintain one (previous examples notwithstanding.)
> [patents are not the type] of monopoly is not what I was talking about
Since you were responding to my message where I explicitly mentioned a patent-based monopoly.... I note that you also didn't bother with the govt franchise monopolies.
Instead, we have vague references to cartels and the like that are supposedly not supported by govt action but were instead "busted".
> "I'm confused why anyone would think that a govt that "busts monopolies" couldn't also support them."
>And I never suggested that a government cannot support a monopoly, or that no government has ever done so.
You'll have to take that up with the person who wrote "Given that, in the US, government intervention mostly seems to consist of busting monopolies, I'm just a bit wary of the statement that no monopoly can exist without government support."
> A single large established entity, or a group of such working together, can easily manipulate factors such as supply chains, prices paid by the ultimate customers, etc. to cripple or destroy any competition.
Can "easily" requires some support. There's one big example, standard oil, but it manipulated prices down, for both customers and suppliers.
> prices paid by the ultimate customers, etc. to cripple or destroy any competition.
The argument for monopoly profits requires that the monopoly eventually raise prices. If it can't do that because competition might come in, where's the harm?
> What's more, parts of the history of the US abound with examples of precisely that behavior -- non-governmental entities subverting or disabling the operation of the free market for their own benefit. Do you dispute this?
I dispute that more than a handful have managed to maintain high prices without govt assistance. There are, of course, many examples where high prices had govt support.
As to the examples, every cable-service monopoly in the US has govt backing. The postal service monopoly has govt backing. Intel uses patents (read govt backing) to limit the number of x86 producers. The old AT&T's long distance monopoly had govt backing, lost it, and then sprint and others started.
Standard Oil almost made it without govt backing, but we'll never know if they could have held.