Hotel CEO Openly Celebrates Higher Prices After Anti-Airbnb Law Passes (washingtonpost.com) 310
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post: A hotel executive said a recently-passed New York law cracking down on Airbnb hosts will enable the company to raise prices for New York City hotel rooms, according to the transcript of the executive's words on a call with shareholders last week. The law, signed by New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo on Friday, slaps anyone who lists their apartment on a short-term rental site with a fine up to $7,500. It "should be a big boost in the arm for the business," Mike Barnello, chief executive of the hotel chain LaSalle Hotel Properties, said of the law last Thursday, "certainly in terms of the pricing." Barnello's comment adds fuel the argument, made repeatedly by Airbnb and its proponents, that a law that was passed in the name of affordable housing also allows established hotels to raises prices for consumers. It was included in a memo written by Airbnb's head of global policy, Chris Lehane, to the Internet Association, a tech trade group, reviewed by the Washington Post. LaSalle, a Bethesda, MD-based chain, owns hotels around the country, including New York City. The memo is the latest volley in a bitter fight that has pit the hotel industry, unions, and affordable housing advocates against Airbnb and its supporters. At the heart of the fight is a debate over the societal value of the Airbnb platform and its role in the economy of cities throughout the world. The question is whether Airbnb has been a net benefit, by enabling middle class city-dwellers to make extra money by renting out their homes, or whether it has had the unintended consequence of exacerbating affordable housing crises in expensive cities such as New York and Los Angeles.
except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Informative)
here in NYC data from AirBnb showed that most of the apartments for rent for always available for rent because the owners were making more money on it then renting them out as housing. in a lot of cases it was affordable housing with special tax breaks being used as a money maker
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Insightful)
However the law shouldn't had been such a blanket ban, but more targeted towards people who abuse the service. Stipulations such as a minimum living time, in the building by the owners say 200 days a year. Rules to insure that safety and equality measures are taken place as AirBnB does have a problem with people excluding minorities. In essence to make sure people who are using the service are not playing by a different set of rules.
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Insightful)
Airbnb and hosts make money at the expense of the neighbors. That's abuse by itself.
You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb. What can you do? It's a new temporary tenant every fee days so even if you complain this start overs the following week.
Hotels are equipped for this and designed for this. Residential buildings are not. It's unfair to put this burden on neighbors just so the host and a startup can make a few bucks.
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Insightful)
You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb.
All your airbnb's turn into a 24/7 party? What they hell are you guys doing? Most of the time I see AirBnb's empty during the day and having several passed out tourists snoring in beds at night. I challenge your assertion that the place suddenly turns into a party room.
Re: (Score:2)
And have you seen the walls in the condos? The snoring! THE SNORING!!!
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a shitty low rise wood frame condo, noise is a problem, but then again that's the case in some woodframe condos I've seen that have notices in the elevator asking people not to close their cabinet doors too hard. That's not an AirBNB or regular occupant problem, that's a "developer was cutting corners on soundproofing/not bothering with soundproofing to maximize profit" problem. I live in a concrete tower and I hear *nothing*. It's lovely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most condo towers have rules and boards that work much better in regulating live-in owners than owners with transient tenants.
Have these condo towers not updated their regulations in the last decade?
Re: (Score:2)
As for the low income housing thing, this is already covered. If you make a dollar on low income benefits they take a dollar worth of benefits away so when they discover the income they will take the benefits away. The system is set up to prevent you from being able to make any substantial amount of money before it gets associated with you.
When I was 17 my mother went on SS disability, there was a single month check paid for
Re: (Score:2)
Condo towers are private associations; they can ban AirBnB for their association if they want. They can also assess steep fines against association members whose use of their condo disturbs the neighbors. It is exactly those kinds of neighbors that share walls and whose actions strongly affect each other that are bound together in private associations. Therefore, there is no need to i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your condo contract doesn't include a rule that you, as the owner, are held responsible for all problems your potential renters cause? Odd. Mine does.
This problem has a very easy solution.
Re: (Score:2)
> You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb. What can you do?
Uh, you complain to the strata and the unit owner gets fined. You keep complaining and the owner keeps getting fined. At some point the number of fines will outweigh their profit and they stop AirBNBing the place. Works here in my tower.
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just it. My parents run an airbnb in Australia for the most part they see their customers for an hour or two in the evening, and then briefly in the morning for breakfast. The rest of the time they are passed out from their busy travel days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And landlords ought to be free to impose restrictions on subletting in their rental contracts, and evict tenants that fail to comply with such terms.
The problem there is that the landlords cannot then take the obvious enforcement action
Re: (Score:2)
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/technology/new-york-passes-law-airbnb.html [nytimes.com]
The law does not preclude you from offering a room for rent on AirBnB in an apartment you continue to reside in, i.e., while you are present. Bottom line is that you must continue to live there during the rental period, sort of like taking on a short-term roommate. Perfectly legal.
The law doesn't even preclude you from subletting or renting your entire apartment on AirBnB, provided that the rental period is 30 days or longer. That brings the rental under New York's apartment rental laws, and gives the person who rents the apartment certain rights that they would not have had with a shorter rental period. Perfectly legal.
The law does preclude you from renting an apartment for fewer than 30 days in which you will not be also residing during the rental period.
TL;DR : the law is intended to prevent landlords from turning their apartment stock into hotel rooms.
Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Interesting)
Support your claim (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think things are worse or less fair? Obviously, any distribution of resources, compared to any other distribution is going to be good for some people and worse for others. I'll say, not only does this rule make things better for the far majority of people, it also makes things far better for the vast majority of people who can vote in NYC elections.
Winnners:
Losers:
Uncertain:
Why shouldn't a city be able to look at those tradeoffs and make a decision?
You forgot one of the losers (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy solution (Score:3)
It's clear to me that this is just the rent seekers (hotel owners) trying to keep the competition out (the AirBnB model). It has nothing to do with safety or property righ
Re: (Score:3)
Why Statists love rent-control (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure about these other regions, but the housing situation in NYC — and that's the topic — surely is a failure. The rent-control was introduced to the city in 1943 as a temporary measure to protect families of servicemen from "greedy landlords" jacking up the prices, while the men were at war. Housing remains very expensive. Landlords wary of difficulties evicting bad tenants are very particular about who they rent to — insisting on credit-reports, income tax return-copies, and background checks.
Meanwhile, well-connected politicians — especially the "fighters for affordable housing" [house.gov] get such subsidized apartments for themselves — and not just one, but up to four sometimes [nytimes.com].
Unfair, inefficient, corruption-prone — what's not to like about Statism?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure you also marveled at how huge the Soviet economy was and what a huge city Moscow was. See, it's easy to build a huge economy if you bleed others dry to pay for it.
And California, Chicago, and NYC also have huge fiscal problems, huge inequality, and huge social problems.
https [brookings.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ummm... except for vaccines, flood insurance, home loans (if black/latino), fire protection, car insurance, phone service, food, GPS, postal services, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the government is responsible for the existence of vaccines and flood insurance. I will not argue about the government involvement in vaccines because I have never looked at the role government plays there. Flood insurance is an example of an idea that seems good that may not be so good after all. Basically, at this point government guaranteed flood insurance is a subsidy by the middle c
Re: (Score:2)
always available for rent because the owners were making more money on it then renting them out as housing.
Makes sense. In other words..... listing that unit on AirBnB provides more value to both the owner and to the public than offering
that unit for long-term rent, since there is more consumer demand for what AirBnb provides than for long-term housing,
otherwise the two should cost about the same per day to rent.
Meaning what AirBNB does makes things fairer for people.
With a long-term rental I get stuck
Re: (Score:2)
Then the correct solution is to outlaw the use of affordable housing in AirBnb only.
Re: (Score:2)
And you ought to be free to make such decisions for your private associations. You ought not to be free to impose such restrictions on other property owners.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you're not going to complain about me opening that rendering plant next to your home, right? You wouldn't dream of imposing such restrictions on property owners, did I get that right?
Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you got it wrong. I have no problems with imposing restrictions on property owners, I have a problem with such restrictions being imposed through a political process that necessarily ends up being corrupt.
It is perfectly fine for my HOA to decide, according to our own rules, to prohibit AirBnB rentals.
It is not fine for the hotel lobby to corrupt the political process in order to prohibit other private property owners from competing with them, while they themselves don't bear the cost of the restrictions they impose.
As for the "rendering plant", you couldn't build that next to my house since the private property association that I'm a member of doesn't allow it; in effect, I paid for being protected from such land use. If, on the other hand, I had converted a building in an industrial area to residential use, then I wouldn't object to my neighbor building a rendering plant; there would be no basis for such an objection.
What you are saying is that you want to buy unrestricted land at a low price, and then later impose restrictions on other property owners without paying for them. That's what a lot of property owners are trying to do, and it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Corrupt, terrible, awesome, tremendous, disaster. I feel like powerful words have lost all their power through capricious use.
Hotel owners are part of the polity and deserve to have a voice in government. Hotel owners were not the only ones asking for this. Corruption is a serious charge which you throw out with no evidence. Maybe your point is that they have undue influence?
It wasn't the land owners that decided the original zoning in your stated example. There's a reason that these things are decided
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it fine for the hotel lobby to advocate for the political process to apply the same obligations and restrictions to AirBNB as they are expected to follow? The reason AirBNB does it cheaper and can compete with, say, Hilton, is because AirBNB claims it is exempt from many of the taxes, restrictions, and other regulations that hotels fall under, apparently, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you're not going to complain about me opening that rendering plant next to your home, right? You wouldn't dream of imposing such restrictions on property owners, did I get that right?
Rendering plant? Nope. I like CGI. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Government, esp. city government, is in essence a longterm homeowner's association. I defy you to draw a line between a city government and an HOA, with the exception that the city also maintains a police force (which is the same police force that would enforce the HOA's rulings anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Municipalities impose all kinds of zoning ordinances on property owners. Neighborhoods zoned for residential use are cordoned off from business interests
So freelancers working from home can't live there, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What? And live in "racist, homophobic, religious flyover country" that is going to vote Trump?
TRIGGERED!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarians object to subsidized housing in the first place. If you don't subsidize housing, you don't have to worry about people renting out subsidized housing on AirBnB.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way not to subsidize housing. Or at least, there's no way to make housing a free market. Between zoning, building codes, property taxes, tax-deductablity of mortgage interest. and numerous other things, the housing market is locked into being government regulated or at least influenced.
Also, housing does not consist of primarily interchangeable goods, which is pretty much required for most free market goods to get their huge benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: except it wasn't people renting out their room (Score:3)
taxes (Score:3, Interesting)
The law is there because the city is missing out on the tourist taxes hotels collect. Higher prices means more tax for the city, a win for everyone except the tourist. If Airbnb finds a way to pay the taxes these laws won't spread.
Re:taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is there because the city is missing out on the tourist taxes hotels collect. Higher prices means more tax for the city, a win for everyone except the tourist. If Airbnb finds a way to pay the taxes these laws won't spread.
There's nothing to prevent AirBnB from paying those taxes now. But the whole purpose of AirBnB's existence is to be in the house/apartment rental business but but pretend that they aren't so they can *AVOID* all the rules and fees that everyone else has to pay. Same with Uber and all the others. They just want to be a middleman who does nothing but skim a few dollars from every transaction, with no accountability to anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
they can *AVOID* all the rules and fees that everyone else has to pay.
And yet, liberals fail to see the actual problem. So, instead of recognizing the problem (too many fees and rules), they create more fees and rules designed to prevent people from avoiding all the previous fees and rules. And when someone figures a way around that, they add more fees and rules.
The real problem is, that nobody is stopping long enough to ask do we need more fees and rules to protect the people who have set the barriers to entry protecting their industries?
The biggest gripe I've seen is that t
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, liberals fail to see the actual problem.
Hey, hey, hey there... It's not just limited to liberals. I live in the "deep south" surrounded by some of the biggest conservatives out there, and there's tons of folks around these parts that act like airbnb is some kind of liberator to their "freedom". You just stop and say, "um, you could have totally rented out your place before airbnb was invented WTF?!"
Re: (Score:2)
They just want to be a middleman who does nothing but skim a few dollars from every transaction, with no accountability to anyone.
They should start a bank instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem cities have with AirBnB is that a lot of people, either landlords or tenants in subsidized or rent controlled housing, are effectively turning their homes into hotels, but without all the rules and regulations regarding fire safety, hygiene, registration and so on which real
So? (Score:2)
Lower rents for residents, at the cost of higher hotel prices for visitors. Sounds like a very reasonable tradeoff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the rents tend to be higher and availability is lower, since Landlords can now rent AirBNB and earn more money than they can doing whole month leases.
The problem isn't for the Landlords it is for the big Hotels that are losing lots of customers due to increased supply. These new rules are designed to realign the supply for the benefit of the entrenched industries (hotels)
he's just supplying what we're all demanding (Score:2)
A hotel executive said a recently-passed New York law cracking down on Airbnb hosts will enable the company to raise prices for New York City hotel rooms...
"Dammit, Mark! We all agreed! We don't teach the easants-pay about asic-bay economics-way!"
Capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that every time we have a good example of capitalism the entrenched players come in and justify why it doesn't work. There is no way that capitalism will ever exist in it's true form because the established payers have no incentive to allow it. That's one reason but this article mentions another, subsidized housing (socialist solution that encourages lower wages).
There is no right or wrong here if the playing field would just remain constant but as soon as there is a way that the little guy can make a profit the rules change. I may be over simplifying the problem but the way I see it if rules were not written to favor one citizen over another then maybe we would see the wealth evenly distributed.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way that capitalism will ever exist in it's true form
I very much hope so.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you can't even articulate why you think Capitalism is bad, and what the "better" option would be, without using anecdotal evidence and emotionalism.
Re: (Score:3)
And comrade, as soon as world communism is established the Politburo will disband but until then it is only reasonable for ministers to have second dacha to recuperate from all hard work they do on behalf of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
"But we need to protect the ___________ industry ... because of jobs"
Government should stop protecting industries from competition
Government should stop sponsoring industries that can't support themselves
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of pretty economically liberal areas within the US and around the world. The fact that NYC is not one of them doesn't change that.
In fact, the biggest problem the US faces is that many other countries have caught on to the benefits of free ma [heritage.org]
Re: (Score:2)
'wealth evenly distributed' - well that's a nonsensical idea. Wealth cannot and should not be 'evenly distributed', somebody will always be more efficient than many other people, thus wealth will never be 'evenly distributed', nor should it be.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, under True Capitalism, the rich cannot enslave anyone, especially in a republic of laws that prohibit it. So instead of Capitalism and Republic, we are going down the tubes to Socialism and Democracy based on convenience and emotion.
They(Liberal socialists) never realize that markets want to be free, and the only way to keep them from being free is totalitarianism (rules, regulations, taxes and government guns)
Re: (Score:2)
No, sorry, that's false. Free markets and low taxes have existed in many places throughout history, and they have generally resulted in peace and prosperity.
Today, there are many nations economically more free than the US [heritage.org], and economic freedom strongly correlates with prosperity [heritage.org] and other positive social indicators [blogspot.com].
While some minimal
Re: (Score:2)
Rule changing is a function of a non-free economy. The only way there are rules, is because people want them. Enough rules, and you no longer are free.
Business as usual (Score:2)
At the heart of the fight is a debate over the societal value of the Airbnb platform and its role in the economy of cities throughout the world. The question is whether Airbnb has been a net benefit, by enabling middle class city-dwellers to make extra money by renting out their homes
These things don't enter in as legitimate questions in a free society. Free people reserve their right to enter a new business and compete. Opportunities are not things to be doled out to powerful and connected people in backroom deals.
It is literally laughable that these wealthy people carving up the power to rent to you, used "affordable housing" as a meme to get this anticompetitive law passed.
Observe as attack lap dogs regurgitate distraction memes about safety or regulation. No shortage of memes sup
Re: (Score:2)
Observe as attack lap dogs regurgitate distraction memes about safety or regulation.
Most of those meme fail once you actually test them. The "Safety" regulations aren't just the obvious (Fire alarms), but go all the way down to "bedbugs". The problem is, that no amount of regulation actually solves any problem and the regulations aren't actually enforced when there is a failure. Yes, Hilton has fire detectors in every room because of regulation, but my view is that they would have them (eventually) anyways. It is kind of like "free wifi" is, it is a "selling point". Eventually everyone has
Neighborhoods, not hotels or housing stock (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks, jackass (Score:2)
I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is newsworthy/noteworthy that reduced competition leads to higher prices?
From what I understand, cities like NYC have very carefully-crafted laws regarding hotels designed to protect the rights and safety of both the hotelier and the guest. AirBnB wants to be exempt from all those regulations and hospitality taxes because, well, it allows them to offer a lower-cost option without any significant investment. In effect, AirBnB wants to be a hotelier that owns no hotel rooms, pays no hospitality taxes, and has no legal responsibility for anything that happens in a space they rented.
That AirBnB can't pick and choose the tax, safety, and other regulations that apply to their 'service' isn't discriminatory against AirBnB, it is treating everyone equally.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
cities like NYC have very carefully-crafted laws regarding hotels designed to protect the rights and safety of both the hotelier and the guest
I'm sure this is exactly what happened as shown by this example of the powerful hotel lobby. It's all for guest safety. /sarcsam
Re: (Score:2)
AirBnB isn't picking anything. They are hooking up private property owners with private guests. This is no different from renting out rooms on Craigslist or having a Bed&Breakfast, except that it is actually safer for both renters and hosts.
So why don't these owners that want to do this.... (Score:5, Interesting)
While it means you'd have to pay tax on the money you make from rentals... that's what you were supposed to be doing all along, right?
I protest (Score:3, Interesting)
Whereas my agreements with temporary tenants are mutually consensual
and there are no complaints from my neighbors
and justification for this law is to control housing prices
now therefore I do not recognize the legislature's authority to make this regulation.
I will continue to rent out my room in short terms. But I will now call it a long-term lease with early cancellation provisions. Or I will call it a house sale with temporary back-out period. Or I'll call it housesitting.
This generation is finally getting involved in local politics in the best way. They are circumventing the letter of unjust laws and following the spirit of the correct constitution. This demonstrates knowledge of law, civil disobedience and allegiance to the constitution, what could be better?
Re: (Score:2)
what could be better?
Gallows in the public square?
Re: (Score:2)
We make laws in part to stop people from having to knock on people like you (let's call them "assholes") door at all hours to complain about stuff. "I just parked in their driveway, and they didn't complain." or, more politically, "I just grabbed her by the pussy".
Zoning laws are your neighbors registering issues. Passing laws is your neighbors registering issues.
But just because you don't like the justif
Loopholes (Score:2)
I don't know enough about the new law to know if this is a viable loophole, but I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the economy sucks balls. On the other hand, if you have a better idea, we're all ears.
Deport illegals, shut down immigration, ban H1-Bs, kill NAFTA, kill TPP, enact protectionist tariffs as needed, vote Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
I should vote for someone whose main business is building houses... and he's the one who is going to get rid of cheap and/or illegal laborers...
I sense a conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two main choices for President are kind of proof that the people can't vote properly, IMHO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you side with the people instead of the businesses the media companies the businesses own call you a racist sexist islamophobe homophobe xenophobe and pay a bunch of whores to say you traumatized them with a kiss.
Do the what the businesses want and fuck you can do whatever you want. Threaten your husband's rape victims and they'll call you a champion for women, and steal money from Haitian reconstruction and they'll call you an advocate for the poor.
Re:I would openly celebrate, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the state to fight your competition is called crony capitalism and gets more opposition from capitalists than commies.
Re: (Score:2)
laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.
laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.
solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer si
Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta (Score:4, Funny)
You mis-spelled "Republican", not "Muslim"
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate people are retarded.
It's either:
"a shot in the arm"
OR
"a big boost"
Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually known as "rent-seeking"; a businessman uses the power of government to attack other businesses. Because it's easier for a big business to get the government to attack small businesses (because small businesses don't have a gross of lawyers on retainer) than it is for the big business to actually do BUSINESS in an efficient way.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems slandering Jews as moneybags got out of fashion while I wasn't looking. New scapegoat, yay.
Just like the old Armenian said: My dear Children, treasure the Jews. Because who do you think they will come for should they be gone?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm paying too much already and it's going up enough I may no longer be able to afford it many more years- because I earn just a little too much!
I am dropping down a level and will be paying about the same or a little more.
That's one way- all the people I'm supporting because it's just another damn tax, and I already pay plenty of taxes, am just about taxed to death in fact.
It's destroying healthcare for me, and when I and others pay less and less and eventually stop paying, it'll mean less money into the s
Re: (Score:3)
http://fortune.com/2016/10/25/... [fortune.com]
The Obamacare "Chickens have come home to roost". Everything predicted is coming to fruition, and the people who created the mess, are all running around saying that they are the only ones able to fix the mess they created.
How does that work?
It doesn't. It can't. It was never supposed to work. It was simply the path to single payer that liberals want. They just lied to get the whole thing going.
Next up the anecdotal evidence "I have insurance now, even though I have cancer" stories.
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't protect anyone, except the special interests that are having their industries threatened. There is absolutely no reason other than to stripmine taxes and protect the status quo for these rules. The ONLY ones complaining are those that have something to lose. That is the way of Capitalism, compete or die. The protected industries can't compete, so they will either die, or change the rules (like this) in order so they don't have to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me. And then, when your own property values dive, and you can't afford to live there, because you now live in a ghost town, and you don't have any workers for your cymbal factory, I'll be happy.
In other words, we all can play "what if" in such a way that it looks stupid.
And yes, I do love the Free Market. It allows for the most efficient use of capital and resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies are only temporary. They eventually die under their own weight. We (people in general) tend to look for quick and easy solutions so they aren't tolerated very well, when you can vote them out of business. But once you can vote a Monopoly out of business, you can vote any business out of business.
I call this the rule of unintended consequences. My best example is the rise of Linux in the era of Microsoft Monopoly. The Microsoft Monopoly created the need for an alternative (Linux) and Linus found a