Regulating Monopolies: A History of Electricity Regulation – Learn Liberty

Regulating Monopolies: A History of Electricity Regulation – Learn Liberty


One way we usually associate with government
intervention or government activity is the regulation of monopolies. And we think of
legislation like the Sherman Antitrust Act as a way that we control the growth of monopoly,
market power, and the ability of firms to come to dominate one industry. The history
of this kind of regulation teaches us a lot about the economic processes that drive innovation
and economic activity and whether or not regulation in these natural monopoly situations actually
provides value and makes consumers better off.
Take for example the electricity industry. By the 1890s it’s really starting to grow,
especially in large cities like New York and Chicago. Initially they were very rivalrous.
A lot of firms entered the market to provide electric service in larger cities and competed
against each other. The kinds of innovations that happened in this industry were on a big
scale: large generators, lots of long wires connecting large generators, in places like
Niagara Falls to cities like New York. That changed the cost structure of the industry.
It changed the cost structure of the industry in a way that the electric company that owned
this generator, their fixed cost was very, very high for building these big generators,
but then their cost for serving an additional customer was really, really, really low. And
so that meant that their average cost per unit of electricity they sold and their average
cost per customer really fell and fell over the course of serving a large number of customers.
In economics we call this economies of scale, and this economies of scale in the big technologies
and industries like electricity really make it challenging to have rivalrous competition.
In Chicago, for example, in the late 1890s there were about a dozen different firms providing
electric service in the Chicago market, but, as they competed against each other they competed
so much that they were lowering their prices, lowering their prices, lowering their prices
until price would go so low that they couldn’t actually pay all of the fixed costs that they
had incurred to build the generators in the first place. Not all of the companies could
stay in the market. That process, over time, led to the consolidation of the electricity
industry in cities like New York and Chicago into one large firm. That firm could, as a
monopoly in that market, charge a high price to consumers.
That was very much a part of the kind of public-interest motivation of regulation, this progressive
era suspicion of large corporate activity, suspicion of large companies, and also the
progressive era belief in the ability of government regulation to stand in for competition and
correct the imperfections that they saw. There is also a more kind of public-choice motivation,
looking at the incentives and the interests of both policymakers and the industry. They
have an incentive to embrace regulation, because regulation constructs a legal entry barrier
and says in a particular geographic territory, you will be the only firm allowed to provide
retail electricity service to the people living in this area, and no one else is allowed to
do that. In return for government protection of your
monopoly power, we will regulate the profits that you earn on your assets, and in that
process regulate the prices you can charge to consumers. And we’re going to shoot for
trying to keep those prices at around average cost per unit of output to try to keep prices
as low as are sustainable in the long run but still consistent with the firm investing
in assets, entering a return on their assets. That’s the regulatory compromise, and that’s
one reason why industry actually embraced regulation in electricity.
One of the presumptions on which regulation is built in this industry is one of stability,
that we have a static environment. And so, this is the cost structure in this industry,
boom. This is what kinds of assets firms are going to build, boom. And so we can figure
all that out and back out what the right profits are and what the prices are. The information
required to get that right is, I would argue, unknowable. They just think, okay here’s
this demand for electricity and we have to meet this demand. But now, especially with
air conditioning, we see demand fluctuating dramatically over the course of the day. And
yet we pay this fixed average retail price that gives us as individual consumers no incentive
to change our consumption even at 5:00 when it’s 95 degrees out on an August afternoon.
I would argue that today—here we are early in the 21st century—that now is when we’re
really seeing the cost of regulation in terms of how it stifles innovation. I attribute
this to a misunderstanding in the late 19th and early 20th century about what competitive
processes actually entail and what drives them and what they create. And that’s where
we are now is trying to deal with the fact that the regulatory system of the past century
doesn’t address, hasn’t adapted to, hasn’t evolved along with the ways we use electricity,
the new ways we may generate electricity, including renewables. It hasn’t evolved
to take into account the growth of digital technologies that we can use to basically
program and monitor our own electricity use and respond automatically to price changes.
And so I think that where we are now is on the brink of recognizing the costs of regulation.
We’ve focused so long on the benefits to consumers of having these low, stable, fixed
prices and universal service. But now these low, stable, fixed prices are leading to a
lot of electricity consumption in peak hours when it’s really expensive to provide it
for us. And also the environmental concerns: it’s generating a lot of emissions in the
process. So those are the 21st century challenges.

100 thoughts on “Regulating Monopolies: A History of Electricity Regulation – Learn Liberty

  1. @JoeJC the high prices would provided the impetus for competition and innovation. Imagine how easy it would be to find venture capitalists to fund your innovative way of providing cheap electricity if you lived in a city which had its electricity provided by a monopoly company charging excessive prices. Regulation maintains the monopoly.

  2. @Draanor You're truly pleasant and bright. First-off: It was a joke and reference you just didn't get. Secondly, "not how the video presented its information": This channel's videos are generally long-winded and made overly intricate by cherry-picking details out of desperation. I don't simply convey unconditional, blind loyalty or optimism out of bewilderment. Lastly: the speaking isn't on par with the message, which is good. I never said I disagreed, if that's your real problem.

  3. @UncleIrv I don't know what your politics are but your comments demonstrate a reasoned and rational point of view that appears – thankfully – divorced from ideology and dogma. I'm left of center and I find myself agreeing with you. I applaud your resolute ability to debate with some of these people.

  4. @SquashDog01 It's not a strawman to speak of current and extant realities not loopy anarchistic dream-lands that have never existed nor will ever exist. The context of this video discusses a capitalistic system protected by a state, not an anarcho-capitalistic one. I don't deal in fiction. You want fantasy? Write a book. Otherwise the one who fails at debating is you.

  5. @gnomechomskylives Dude, all fo your comments here are nothing but strawman and adhom attacks. These are tools used by those who cannot win a debate. Waste of time, move along folks.

  6. @gnomechomskylives That you are bad at debating and have to rely on logical fallacies to "win". Looks like I did prove that.

  7. @SquashDog01 You haven't proven a thing. Your logic is circular and you keep falling back on anarcho-capitalist talking points -which have neither historical precedent or are falsifiable – therefore, to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, any assertion than can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Until you have a substantive argument to make refuting my points simply falling back on the "big bad wolf government" canard is not proof of anything besides your ignorance.

  8. @gnomechomskylives The only one committing circular logic here is you. You use supposition and base your "opinions" on logical fallacies to attempt to make, what i think, is an argument.

    Why bother..

  9. @UncleIrv I respect that, even if – in another place and time – we might disagree on other issues. I suppose (to paraphrase Goldwater's "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" belief in an empirical fact is no dogma; but I follow your meaning. Cheers 🙂

  10. @cooljj82 In my state, we have a power company that exists as a "cooperative" with the people.

    In reality, it's just another statist monopoly. Prices continue to rise, even as I and everyone I know cut usage. Rates just arbitrarily go up month to month, and there is little any of us can do about it as there is no threat of competition.

  11. @UncleIrv Understanding gravity is not dogmatic, it's self evident.

    Now, if using Gravitational Theory, you made some other argument by extension, say all bodies seek the path of less resistance, and then went to say something akin to "Therefore all human beigns will seek the path of perpetual motion, will avoid resistance, any man who goes against a grain is not being true to his nature," THAT would be dogmatic.

  12. @gnomechomskylives What are you talking about? History is burdened with examples of Statist interventionism being the culprit behind diminishing standars of living, war, class divisions, etc.

    History not only provides evidence, it provides OVERWHELMING evidence!

  13. One major point this video didn't cover regarding monopolies is even if a monopoly could come into existence, as soon as they try to raise the price to increase their profits, the monopoly would be susceptible to competition again. Once profit margins get too high, it invites competitors back into the market thus driving prices back down. The only way a monopoly can stay a monopoly is to keep profits low enough to discourage any new competition.

  14. @cooljj82 that is typical of government regulation. Look at what happened to railroad prices before and after the ICC took over in 1887. Before there were different rates depending on destination. Afterward, the commission raised all prices to a set level. Who won? The Railroad industry. Who lost? The customer.

  15. This video is an embarrassment to LearnLiberty and you should take it down.
    .
    Utility monopolies are not a result of competition and economies of scale, but rather they are government-mandated monopolies. View The Electric Gas Company if you don't believe me.
    .
    If "natural monopolies" really were inevitable, then why would it be necessary to legislate out any potential competition? If the existing monopolistic company has such great economy of scale, why not allow competitors to enter and fail?

  16. The fault lies not with her, but in LearnLiberty posting what are clearly either lies, or completely missinformed opinions.
    .
    LearnLiberty is very good, and I have watched almost all of their videos, and this one stands out as an eggregious bit of dissinformation.

  17. what the fuck does that have to do with ANYTHING i said?!
    .
    don't they teach you kids critical reading skills anymore? read my comment again. i know it's difficult, since it has several paragraphs and a few different ideas, but if you really apply yourself, i believe you can do it. you just have to trust in yourself.

  18. I live in a small town in Iowa, if the government hadn't poked and prodded electric companies I wouldn't have electricity. Free markets work for most things but not this. Do you know how much money it would take to build a second infrastructure to deliver power? Things do need to change, but if we take government completely out of the power equation some people will literally be left in the dark.

  19. Politely put: You are using the fallacy of special pleading.
    Bluntly put:
    If you want to live in a rural town, fine. Go ahead. That does not give you the right to make other people pay to provide you with electricity. That makes you a selfish SOB.

  20. I agree with jeffiek's response. By using your own argument, rich dudes who want to build McMansions out in the boonies, away from the urban sprawl, ought to have taxpayers pitch in extra to run the new lines out to their construction site. Would you agree that rich dudes, seeking living circumstances beyond the existing grid, deserve subsidized utilities?

  21. New construction is one thing. I think you do have to pay some if you build a new house in the middle of nowhere. I'm talking about people who have lived on the same plot of land since the early 1800's. If you build a house within a couple hundred feet of a public road you should be able to expect power, without having to spend a quarter of a million dollars to put up line.

  22. Was there already power coming down that public road you referred to? The one that was hypothetically just a couple hundred feet away? Would it really cost 1/4 million to put up a couple poles and some line? Or were you exaggerating for effect?
    As I sit here thinking about this, it seems that in a proper world, the electric company should be the one to pay for the line. Not the consumer. Not the taxpayer. I say this because they will profit from monthly fees for years to come.

  23. ok here is the deal, power lines cost 50k per mile for low voltage 67k for med-high voltage and around 250k for the huge high tension lines that feed power to large cities. even if I'm only a mile away from an existing service it would cost me tens of thousands.

  24. thats not the big problem though. Companies don't plan past five years in the future. That is why no oil refineries or natural gas, regasification plants have been built in decades. If I live a couple hundred feet of way, it would still cost a thousand dollars and they won't pay for it because it will take more than 5 years to recoup the cost.

  25. Iowa is weird, I guess. Where I live, I think the utility company pays for the infrastructure up and down existing roads. Anything new (whether it is to a new house or an existing house) that leaves the road and crosses private property becomes the burden of the private property owner. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my understanding.

  26. maintenance yes but who pays for construction? The problem if you have to pay for constructions is that they will not let you do it yourself or hire someone, you have to use their company.

  27. Seriously? You are unwilling to find a way to capitalize a thousand bucks for a couple hundred feet of new utilities? You would rather live like some ludite, stuck in the 1800s with no electricity? I paid for cable to come 730' up my driveway and it was totally worth it. Grow some balls and pony up the change, for christ's sake.

  28. not everyone has a thousand dollars just siting in the bank. Power is not something like cable, you can't just go without for a couple of months while you save up for it.
    This is america I shouldn't have to sell a kidney to get electricity.

    Also been off the internet for a couple of days so my arguing skills are a little off.

  29. "This is america I shouldn't have to sell a kidney to get electricity."

    No, you should have to work for electricity.

  30. The problem with monopolies is that they have to much power, they can charge whatever they want if their is no regulations to stop them, and they Will kill small start up competitors even though there are laws against that.
    I shouldn't have to pay more for a product just because the provider doesn't have competition.

  31. Actually, the regulated price to beat in Texas was 10 cent per kilowat hour. And, the start up cost of the small firms drove the prices up to 16-18 cents per kilowat hr, back in 2002-04. But, after all the small firms entered the price per kilowat hr started to go down in 2011, and is finally below the regulated price to beat 10 cent per kilowat hr. So, a success story for now. I worry about the lack of workers now in place from direct competition, putting our energy sector at a greater risk

  32. On the upside, government isn't drumming up $8/hr line technicians to put electricity where it is unwelcome. 'Did you not want 1600v service? We have a bundle…'

  33. Your retort is uneducated. Besides upkeep costs electricity is free in most places.

    I have solar. Do I have to work for it? No…

  34. But how about the money to get that solar panel? Or how about the money to get some electrician to hook it into your house? That money comes from working. So yeah electricity isn't free.

  35. Well you still have to pay for maintenance and of times when there isn't any wind or sun to provide electricity for you.

  36. You realize it's U.S. regulation to sell off access electricity back to the electric companies even though it's your own?

  37. The money you get from that access electricity is very little. Like very little. I would know because I am actually in that situation. Luckily I live in Idaho, a state that does have good sun and somewhat good wind, but I do pay around a good chunk of electricity per year. Since my house isn't part of their deal I get charged hell of a lot more if power does go out. I do pay, just not as much as others.

  38. Well that sucks that you live in Idaho. =/
    It is not a federal law though and sorry I didn't know that you owned renewable energy.
    There is actually a cult, of people that are against clean energy, forming and I thought you were one of them. A bag of rocks is smarter than that multimillion person group.

  39. People making a lot of money selling fossil fuels and the people they can brain wash. What's scary is that it works so well. I see signs everywhere saying "Not clean, Not clean, Not cheap" with a windmill crossed out.

  40. So you can just snap your fingers and solar panels magically appear on the roof of your house? Wow! That's amazing! OH WAIT, you can't, so you have to work for the money to pay for the solar panels, for someone to install them, and for someone to hook them up to your house. Unless you build and install the panels yourself, and even in that case you still have to work for it. If you didn't need to work for solar everyone would have solar.

  41. The thing people like you fail to understand is that solar energy is an investment. Much like buying and selling money you get a lot for doing almost nothing.

    I basically snapped my fingers and it was done. Of course I'm not the kind of person that buys redundant useless things. If you understand math well enough you can get ahead on basically minimum wage.

  42. People could technically all have solar if they lived close to the equator and had good credit. To bad people are not altruistic or smart enough to make it work. =/

  43. I was a conservative, and that's how I defined myself, this channel has made me describe myself as a libertarian thank you LearnLiberty you offer logical arguments in a time of fallacies.

  44. As with the top comment – you posit natural monopolies exist in a free market where you example markets that are government controlled.

    Electric companies took government grants of transit over property, for example – which government then prevented others from obtaining.

    With no surprise, government action created the monopoly.

  45. So you advocate the use of violence to stop men from building "second" infrastructure, merely because it takes more money?

    I suppose you argue the same thing with cars – why should Toyota build cars when Ford does it already .. what a waste of money.

    or your food … why bother growing apples, when oranges are just fine … it would be a waste of money.

    Freedom is not measured by whether you think it is a good expenditure of money or not.

  46. When did I advocate violence? are you so far gone you equate any law or government action with violence?
    I said nothing of stopping the building of a second infrastructure, there is no need to, no one want to build a second infrastructure. hell they only built the first because they had to to sell electricity or water or gas.
    I also said the free market works for MOST things, does most mean none in your world?
    take your straw man and shove it.

  47. All law is violence. It is not a request, please or a thank you. It is a demand backed by coercion and force.

    All government action is violence. Government must take from someone for it to do something.

    Who are YOU to be so conceited to declare there is no need? How do you know? What was your calculation to arrive at this?

    Plenty wanted to build a second infrastructure – review concept of "Cell phone carriers" – because they do not want to use the incumbents for whatever reason.

  48. Free market works for ALL things – men in voluntary trade.

    And, no, to your last demand. How's that for freedom!

  49. so you are a nut job. thanks for stating that in the beginning of your comment so I don't have to subject myself to the whole thing.

  50. Good replay!

    You have no clue to the nature and existence of law and its purpose, nor the function of government.

    But you certainly have a strong grasp of ad homenien.

  51. and you are a passionate ranting idoit on the internet who can only see his side of the argument. do you understand how the people who disagree with you think?
    The only people who I can be sure are wrong, are the people who are sure they are right. Doubt shows intelligence my friend and you seem to lack any doubt that you are right, which means you are stupid or insane. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were insane. Your welcome.

  52. Really, why bother?

    You do not understand the nature of law-all law is violence, coercion and force. What do YOU think it is if not that?
    You said "no one wanted to" -which is a complete fabrication on your part. There were dozens that "wanted to",but were prevented by government restriction to the same right-of-way government granted the incumbent
    And further, you gave no reason to your (bizarre) believe that free men in voluntary trade doesn't work EVERY TIME – what exception do you imagine?

  53. "With no surprise, government action created the monopoly." I don't think you watched the video. The prof tells you that companies in the free market became monopolies without gov't aid at all. She tells you that because of economy of scales is what led to cut-throat competition and led to monopolies. The argument is not that gov't created the monopoly in this case it protected it! Do you see the difference? Free Market competition created monopolies, not gov't!

  54. You err.
    Government provided the incumbents with right-of-way access to lay their pipes/cables and then denied access to the same right-of-ways to competition, as one glaring example. You make the same mistake as Kiesling did – reviewed only superficially the conditions that created the monopolies.

    It has nothing to do with "cutthroat" – that never has created a monopoly in history, though it has created quite a few good deals for consumers.

    There is no example of a monopoly in a free market.

  55. "Government provided the incumbents with right-of-way access" Incorrect, gov't did do this, however as I pointed out it wasn't until after the company was already a monopoly. And that is the debate you seem to be missing.

    Hey, if you don't want to believe the history books that even this Prof talks about then of course you are going to disagree with the basic premise of monopolies. However, the contention of facts seem to be at play here and you disagree with the general consensus of history

  56. It's so absurd these assholes are trying to reframe the debate that robber barrons didn't exist, and the carnegies rockellers, mellons, and jay goulds where great guys who did try to have workers rights crushed with ruthless violence..theyy'd love the average man to pay more for power because of course the rich could still afford to run their air conditioner full blast in december it's really disgusting and laughable at the end how she even tries to cite them being on the side of the enviornment

  57. She is full of shit. She said the companies competed themselves to death. And a monopoly arose. How absurd.
    The reason a competitor cant come in an make a new power company is because the government does not allow it

  58. Okay some of what she is saying is just wrong, where I live there is a time of use option for electrical use where the utility does charge you more during the day than during the evening.

  59. @kamiyoko It's actually quite true, and if you need a more recent example (because I doubt you were alive during those days), just look at the state of cellular phone providers.  In the 90s, we saw a huge boom of cell phone companies in the mid-late 90s, each offering "better" service at a lower price.  The smaller ones priced themselves to death, and when they didn't have the money to upgrade or maintain their equipment, they sold themselves to a bigger company.  At the height in the US, there were around 10 cellular phone providers:  AT&T, BellSouth, Sprint, Nextel, Cellular One, AirTouch, VoiceStream/T-Mobile, and Verizon are the ones I remember, but there were probably others.  That number has shrunk to 4: AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon.  It would have been shrunk to three (with AT&T buying T-Mobile), but the DOJ stepped in and said no.  On top of this, the prices for cell phone plans have gone up since most of the cell phone companies have started merging.  They claim the price went down, but they break everything up now to include additional fees for things you don't even use.

    So there's a real world example of competition pricing themselves out of the market.  Want another?  Research ISP providers (specifically DSL, but it happened with dial-up too) in, you guessed it, the 90s and early 2000s.  It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on…just research.

  60. These videos are enough to make me start believing in demon possession.  None of the people look like they believe what they are saying, and they wind up saying things that are pure unadulterated bullshit.  We're in a lot better position now to know that reasonable costs are due to the existence of detailed simulation, and leaving monopolies completely unregulated is a non-option.

  61. Pretty explanation, but if I believe it's fatally flawed, here is my argument.  The supossed "economies of scales" are allowed to operate with competition, eventually a few big firms should remain and still compete with each other.  Funny how it is just accepted by the speaker and most people that a monopoly must exist for this industry.  We can argue that other industries "should" also be monomolized economies of scale, but they aren't, example aviation, computers, etc. 

  62. Bit like the land phone, energy and railway system in the uk.
    It makes sense to have one cable and one rail track – but no restrictions on who can provide the elec, the phone service or train.
    I cant see any alternative but for some kind of social institution to provide the track and cable – can you??
    Not ideal as that would stifle innovation – fibre optic cables etc
    But how else would that work – 10 cables down the street to each house?

  63. Having recently found this channel and these videos I'm trying to catch up on them. In this video I think a significant aspect that was missed is the situation where the government (federal, state, or local) has felt the need to take control of the service provision to ensure the proper regulation of the utilities be it electricity, water, or anything else. The end result is over time the bureaucrats in charge of the service see no need or reason to take any action that may reduce the usage and cost of the service, thus the encourage more use. This approach results in local laws and regulation stopping people from using alternative options to the regulated service provider.

  64. bullShlt. First she talks about the historic reasons why anti-trust regulations were introduced, then she silently swiched the topic that the current fixed pricing model for electricity is bad for coping with fluctuations and conclude from this totally different point that regulating monopolies is bad.

    When you think your idea would be sufficiently good, you usually dont use such rethoric tricks.

  65. I always think of the government when I think of monopolies . All Government programs run as monopolies and, only governments hold monopolies over nay length of time.

  66. I could tell she had no idea what she was talking about in the first 30 seconds when she said "natural monopolies" There are no such things, if they were natural the government wouldn't have to keep competitors out. Natural means without force or influence. Uhmmm Hello

  67. One of most flaws of today, jea just sent someone to mess with my meter.. I’m on the brink of AC electric discoveries aka free energy and the monopoly of jea wants to know exactly how much power I’m using… they’re watching but they can’t just wipe us all out .. most are waking up by now, once I release my book and first prototype to North America, then the world.

  68. AC is Nikola Tesla’s work, but with it and modifications to his towers he couldn’t finish… we will create energy so cheap that all electric companies will slowly dry up, unless there willing to downsize and work side by side with others and not monopolize something the world needs … I pay 285/m, some pay hundreds more.. yet we live states across in the same exact country. No more and Godspeed friends

  69. It’s funny actually, 2 car alternators could power an entire 2500 sq ft home… yet it’s “costly” … btw for those who don’t know, with the know how an alternator can be made into a magnet motor, put some blade wings on and wind will do the rest, don’t believe me or maybe u tried and didn’t work? Use the Fibonacci sequence for blade calculations, one car alternator.. if done properly and carefully can produce several kilowatts of power..

  70. Also the magnet motor transition takes some know how as well, but the internet is the worlds know how it’s just they’ve drained us of energy by gmo, fluoride water, rat race jobs, and tv “programs” … don’t listen to me tho” I’m crazy” and that fact keep me safe from trouble.. or does it, idk it’s only been 2 weeks but today my local monopoly changed my Meter, yesterday I had the breakthrough on free energy… maybe coincidence maybe not either way I hide in plain sight where most don’t bother to check

  71. If a natural monopoly really exists, as many argue, then why does government need to step in and grant a legal monopoly? Why do anti-monopolists only think that market monopolies are bad, but government-granted monopolies are good?

  72. Actually, I took issue with what she said about the low pricing. The government monopolies often increase the pricing rather than decreasing it. Another example would be the phone company. Once regulations were lifted the costs dramatically dropped and innovations & services increased.

  73. Thing is, no private firm should have any profit without competition with at least three players in the same market. Of it is not possible or not practical to do this with a particular industry, it is prudent then to nationalize it, removing profit from the equation. For those who automatically assume government is not capable of efficiency, I suggest ting or currency to electricity production, efficiency (that is, output to waste ratio), and consumption. A surplus would always be sought and effective means to increase surplus, due to the budget being tied to it due to currency in circulation limited by the surplus of electricity, would be prioritized in economic policy. We strengthen the dollar, puts of fortieth markets benefiting from a weak dollar, and pull back outsourced jobs to the states to take full advantage of a strong dollar. There's your America First policy.

  74. Anyone that doesnt believe in regulating monopolies or even oligopolies, needs too look no further than the disgusting abuses of facebook, youtube, twitter, etc.

  75. Very interesting take, always wanted to know about this specific kind of government regulation. Not a perfect explanation but better than anything else I've ever heard.

  76. Enron was a great example of an unregulated power company. Anyone know if it is still operating?

  77. "regulation"
    a euphemism for "central planning"
    sneaking leftism/collectivism into America unawares
    the mirage of "control" always holds such promise – yet it only ever yields frustration poverty failure destitution misery and loss

  78. I thought competition promotes innovation. This doesn’t address choice and censorship by companies and much more

  79. Free market would work it all out if Gov would let them. After the consolidation she spoke of happened and the prices climbed to high, some smart bank somewhere would see the opportunity and give a loan to start another company smack in the middle of the "giant" companies grid. Nearly overnight, entire towns would switch over to the new cheaper service, thus forcing prices back down again. It's a cycle that happens over and over until many companies agree on a standard price and hope another smart bank doesn't finance a new company at even lower prices again.

  80. Professor Kiesling reckons that people who used government to impose monopolies on others did so due to 'misunderstanding' (6:18).   
    …What a cute 'understanding' of human nature.

  81. 7 corporations in America own 90% of the things we buy today so tell me again….how the government regulates and controls monopolies????

    They don’t but it’s nice they have a law they only enforce when it suits them or the 7 corporations doesn’t want them cutting in

  82. funny how the avg joe is told it takes money to make money while those with money are taught it takes other peoples money to make money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *