Comments

AAM welcomes recommendations to its data base of government regulations favoring monopolies on the comments section of this page. Please submit comments in the simple form used in the sector summaries and preferably add references. 

Other comments are also welcome. Sorry, but this isn't meant to be a blog with the exchange of comments (especially since Nationbuilder doesn't have the programming capacity to allow for comment editing or direct responses). Inappropriate comments may be deleted.

 

 

 


Showing 5 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Mike O'Mara
    commented 2019-01-24 12:02:50 -0600
    I’m glad to see an organization which addresses the extremely important issue of corporate welfare, meaning government favoritism to special interests – that problem distorts the whole economy.

    You might be interested to hear that within one of the two major parties there is a caucus which addresses the corporate welfare problem, and promotes freedom for everyone, which is beyond left and right.
    http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/category/poverty-and-inequality/
  • David Chester
    commented 2019-01-24 08:18:11 -0600
    The most serious monopoly in many countries including the US is that of land ownership, and the way it is being used or withheld from use. Would-be landlords can borrow money easily from banks, since the bank knows that the value of the land normally grows and so the bank will get its money back when the land eventually is sold.

    Meanwhile the government invests tax money in the infrastructure which raises the productivity and usefulness of the sites in question. Public money is thus helping landlords to benefit, due to their speculation in the purchase of the sites. These sites are then reserved for delayed development and potentially better use after the prices of land have risen.

    When such sites are then held unused whilst their values grow, the cost to entrepreneurs and would-be tenants increases and so do the rents being paid to the owners. These two effects make the goods being produced on these sites and the homes being built on them more costly. It creates a situation of less affordable goods and homes but it invites borrowing and mortgages of new real-estate.

    Eventually the cost bubble bursts when the builders find it not worthwhile to continue their business and their suppliers are also badly limited, with many would-be monopolists finding that their properties are of less value than when they first borrowed for owning them. We know what happens next—some of the banks having bought up cheap mortgages find them to have become “toxic” with failed returns, and the repossession that follows is at a loss to them.

    Land monopoly is of benefit only when infrastructure is improved but its our tax money which is being used and helping the business cycles of boom and bust to be repeated.
  • Mike Holly
    published this page 2018-11-05 13:00:01 -0600
  • Mike Holly
    commented 2017-07-05 07:25:54 -0500
    @Dennis Wilson Point taken, I will add reducing taxes on local merchants as another possible solution. Frankly, I didn’t see it as very likely. In addition, I want to remind everyone that the goal of AAM is to abolish government regulations favoring monopolies (not necessarily reduce taxes or meddling).
  • Dennis Wilson
    commented 2017-03-27 12:08:01 -0500
    Tax exemptions for internet sales should be protected and expanded. Customers benefit, especially in States with high local taxes. The pressure is on State governments to reduce taxes to allow local merchants to reduce costs.

    One does not reduce government meddling by expanding government power to tax.
Spread the word Contribute