Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
Publicity won't do shit to their stocks if their product is irreplaceable.
But history shows that only the government can make a product irreplaceable. Monopolies only exist as a result of government action, so yes, when backed by the law, companies can charge whatever they want. Even in utilities markets, competition DOES take place, and lots of it at that. These monopolies you're talking about only exist because politicians bring in revenue from companies in exchange for monopoly rights.


Not a valid example because it's regulated by the government? That's my point, ditzyjoe. If it WEREN'T regulated by the government, they would wind up doing all sorts of ridiculous things to their drugs, making them addictive, all sorts of additives, ridiculously manipulative marketing campaigns, etc etc, just to get them sold. I'm sorry, but letting the chains loose on people who are only in it to make money is simply not a good idea, given the amount of power they stand to wield. I agree that the government should interfere less, but it's a necessary evil.
Why wouldn't a competitor step in and reveal all the shady details about one particular medicine in order to win over the market? That's EXACTLY what would happen.

Also, the FDA, which you claim saves lives, actually kills far more people than it saves.

How is it theoretical when we have laws designed as the result of attempts to embody it? How is it negligible when the stakes are as high as they are? You are an idealist.
List one single example of companies successfully creating and sustaining monopolies without the help of government.

Maximizing generation of capital is great, but it shouldn't be the highest priority of society, the standard by which its efficacy is judged. The highest priority of society, is ensuring the continued existence of society and its moral structure that allows people to live together in relative safety (that being the evolutionary origin and projected goal of the concept of a society).
The free market does this better. Maximizing capital output measurably leads to happier, healthier, safer citizenry. There is no evidence whatsoever that the government is needed to regulate economic behavior.

Do I have to repeat myself? It hasn't happened, because as long as there have been corporations with the potential to do such a thing, there has been government to stop them.
Have some Ti: It is fundamentally illogical to say that measures you are taking are preventing something from occurring that has never been observed or proved.