Some monopolies are natural, ie the underlying market dynamics are such that it makes sense for a single company to be the sole provider of a particular good or service (utilities with a high fixed cost of distribution are typical examples). Other monopolies (or oligopolies), are legislated - ie the government decrees that a particular company (or set of companies) will provide a good or service. Examples in this category includes the TSA (airport security) and gambling. Online gambling is a particularly egregious example where local oligopolies are forced, so that a minority segment of the population can profit off of gaming. The segments that gain off this scheme are casino owners of Vegas, a number of indian tribes and their financiers, and politicians who receive contributions. The cost is to the society as a whole in terms of deadweight loss (high prices and unnatural profits). The internet has a tendency to eliminate boundaries and make the entire globe a single market. In the case of gambling, anyone with a gaming site can serve citizens of any country. Now there is an added cost to the US economy in terms of settlements with other WTO member countries which are suing as these laws go against the competitive requirements of the WTO. The US is taking a "rules dont apply to us" approach and paying off the EU, Japan and several other countries so that the complaint from Antigua does not get the required support. Tsk tsk - all this in a country that prides itself on free markets and every single student who takes an introductory economics class is taught that monopolies are wasteful to the economy.
The morality of gambling, whether we should allow people to gamble or not is a completely separate question. The issue is that if gambling is legal, should participating in that industry be limited to a few individuals or companies with ties to the government?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment