CapeXit 2

[lexity]

The best reason to secede, is to deprive the undeserving of ill-gotten societal influence.

One for those who believe this is a BS claim, to put into an AI engine :

Let's see what passes for justification for State privilege...

There has never been a monopoly or cartel that could be sustained without government help.

p.s. I will do the same, and put it to AI, to see what it says.

 

[Brian_G]

I would prefer to leave it there. Although these thought exercises about ways to improve the future western cape are interesting, it's a bit too off the path IMO.


Would be nice to see some others' results of that political-economic personal evaluator from Grant... but I guess that's too much like hard work for some

 

[Brian_G]

... but I guess that's too much like hard work for some

Pun intended

 

[lexity]

So..... after some back and forth, refining the question that I put to chatgpt, I received the following response...

[...] if we define “sustainable” as long-term coercive market power, there is no well-documented example of a private coercive monopoly or cartel that survived for decades purely on private mechanisms without any government help.

Full line of questioning, available on request.

 

[vigras rojara]

Pun intended

Seeing as you asked so nicely:

 

[Brian_G]

Seeing as you asked so nicely:

Weird how like-minded we all are... so far anyway.

 

[Brian_G]

Here's that link again

political compass

could be interesting in this thread

The Political Compass

self-test of your position on 2 political dimensions

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Grant]

Hopefully the (earlier) irregular heartbeat factor is as such under control again.

no, significantly worse - very much so - but for a different thread

 

[Grant]

So are the lessons learned through State's intrusion into religion.

Would you prefer Western society to lapse back into coercive religion i.e. the union between Church and State?

The only alternative is to cherish the lessons from the 20th century and earlier. Especially where it represents a conflict of interest for the State to adjudicate on its own effect on society i.e. State education.

oh my !!

 

[Grant]

So..... after some back and forth, refining the question that I put to chatgpt, I received the following response...



Full line of questioning, available on request.

yes please

 

[Brian_G]

So..... after some back and forth, refining the question that I put to chatgpt, I received the following response...

[...] if we define “sustainable” as long-term coercive market power, there is no well-documented example of a private coercive monopoly or cartel that survived for decades purely on private mechanisms without any government help.

Full line of questioning, available on request.

yes please

May be interesting for us to at some stage describe for younger guys here what life was like before the corporate invasion en masse.

 

[lexity]

yes please

Asked of chatgpt:

Q1:
True? Or False?: "There has never been a monopoly or
cartel that could be sustained without government help."

Q2:
How does your answer change when we qualify
'monopolies' or cartels as coercive. So exclude any
monopolies or cartels that the consumers were satisfied
with, in terms of price and quality. Standa[rd] Oil, for example
did not survive through keep[ing] its price artificially high.

Q3:
You say De Beers' coercive cartel was sustained without
'direct' government help. What form of indirect government
help did it receive?

Q4:
Right. The indirect government help is what I would
include under 'government help'. So please revise the list
so that it reflects those monopolies/cartels who were able
to sustain themselves without direct or indirect
government help.

Q5:
Numbers 1 and 2 were short-lived. So, do not meet the
sustainable threshold. Even in the case the government
stepped in to halt their operation, this is not conclusive of
evidence that they would not have collapsed if left to the
market, alone.

 

[ToxicBunny]

What were Number 1 and 2 in reference to "short-lived".

 

[lexity]

What were Number 1 and 2 in reference to "short-lived".

Paste the questions in, in order, to see the results for yourself.

 

[Brian_G]

Paste the questions in, in order, to see the results for yourself.

Don't think it always works like that - (at least seen with Google) sometimes when I revisit the exact page, the bloody thing has altered its answers.
Also often happens if you go into its extended AI mode.

 

[Brian_G]

no, significantly worse - very much so - but for a different thread

Would like a heads-up about that thread please

 

[ToxicBunny]

Paste the questions in, in order, to see the results for yourself.

Yeah doesn't work like that lexy... paste your answers along with the questions.

 

[Grant]

Would like a heads-up about that thread please

Have not posted yet, don't want to litter this thread.

From ecg yesterday

Diagnosis information:
*Lateral Infarct
*Anteroseptal Infarct
*Abnormal ECG

Google is your friend

 

[lexity]

Answers to Q1 - Q5:

Q1:
True? Or False?: "There has never been a monopoly or
cartel that could be sustained without government help."

A1:

That statement—"There has never been a monopoly or cartel that could be sustained
without government help"—is false.
Here’s why, carefully breaking it down:
1. Historical examples of private monopolies/cartels:
• Standard Oil in the late 19th and early 20th century became a dominant
monopoly largely through business practices like rebates, predatory pricing, and
vertical integration. While the government later broke it up with antitrust law, the
monopoly existed and operated without direct government enforcement to
sustain it initially.
• De Beers diamond company maintained a global diamond cartel for decades
by controlling supply, pricing, and distribution. For much of the 20th century, this
was done largely privately, not through government support.
• The British East India Company did benefit from government charters, but
many industrial monopolies in the U.S. and Europe were established purely
through market dominance, not sustained by ongoing government intervention.
2. Cartels:
Many international commodity cartels—like OPEC (though it has some quasi-
governmental elements in member states)—coordinate production and prices across
companies without needing one government to sustain them. While enforcement may
rely on internal agreements rather than law, the cartels are “sustained” privately.
3. Caveat:
• Government support certainly helps monopolies or cartels last longer (e.g.,
tariffs, legal protections), but the claim that none could ever exist without
government help is historically inaccurate. Private economic power alone has
sometimes been enough.
Conclusion: False. Some monopolies and cartels have been sustained by private
market power alone, at least for significant periods.
If you want, I can make a short list of the top 5 most famous monopolies/cartels that
thrived without government backing, with years and details. It’s kind of fascinating. Do
you want me to do that?

 

[lexity]

Q2:
How does your answer change when we qualify
'monopolies' or cartels as coercive. So exclude any
monopolies or cartels that the consumers were satisfied
with, in terms of price and quality. Standa[rd] Oil, for example
did not survive through keep[ing] its price artificially high.

A2:


Ah, that’s a very important refinement! Now we’re talking about coercive monopolies or
cartels—meaning those that succeed by restricting competition and raising prices or
lowering quality against consumer interests. That does change the analysis. Let’s go
carefully:
Step 1: Define coercive
A coercive monopoly or cartel is one that:
1. Restricts output or limits competition, and
2. Charges higher prices or reduces quality,
3. Consumers would prefer to avoid if they could.
So, monopolies that simply dominate because they’re efficient or provide low prices (like
early Standard Oil in its early efficiency-driven phase) don’t count.
Step 2: Historical examples
• Standard Oil: As you noted, it didn’t sustain itself by coercively keeping prices high. It
actually lowered prices in many markets to drive competitors out—so by the coercive
definition, it wasn’t truly coercive for consumers.
• De Beers: Now this is a better candidate. De Beers restricted diamond supply to
maintain artificially high prices for decades. Consumers were paying more than they
would in a competitive market. This is a coercive cartel sustained without direct
government help, at least for large parts of the 20th century.
• Railroad monopolies in the U.S.: In some regions, they charged high rates to ship
goods without alternatives. Initially, some railroads operated with limited or no
government enforcement, but many later faced antitrust or regulatory intervention.
• OPEC: Though technically a cartel of governments, it coerces prices globally and
clearly impacts consumers. So it counts as coercive, but it’s government-based, not
purely private.
Step 3: Analysis
When we restrict to coercive monopolies/cartels:
• Purely private coercive monopolies that sustain themselves for decades without
government help are much rarer.
• In most cases, coercion (artificially high prices) is fragile in a competitive market.
Without some legal or regulatory backing, new competitors eventually enter and
undercut prices.
So, the statement:
"There has never been a monopoly or cartel that could be sustained without government
help"
…is more defensible under the coercive definition, but still not absolutely true,
because:
• De Beers is a counterexample: a coercive cartel sustained privately for decades.
Refined conclusion
• Original claim (all monopolies/cartels): False.
• Coercive-only definition: Mostly true, but not 100%; rare counterexamples exist
(e.g., De Beers).
If you like, I can make a timeline showing the longest-lasting coercive monopolies/
cartels and whether they needed government support, which really clarifies the
“almost always need government help” pattern. It’s eye-opening.
Do you want me to make that timeline?