tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post2393616450680719362..comments2024-03-29T07:18:14.271-05:00Comments on The Grumpy Economist: Monopoly in historyJohn H. Cochranehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-51854214952447638172019-03-21T22:24:04.897-05:002019-03-21T22:24:04.897-05:00Yes, this ties into a thesis of mine, which is the...Yes, this ties into a thesis of mine, which is the triggering event for the spectacular economic growth that started in Europe circa eighteenth century was not the industrial revolution, cheap energy or the agricultural revolution. Rather it was the concept of private property increasingly adopted in law and societal custom. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-88203427617461839032019-03-21T01:08:13.394-05:002019-03-21T01:08:13.394-05:00This stuff used to be the core curriculum of econ ...This stuff used to be the core curriculum of econ history and English constitutional law; the granting of 'Monopolies' was a celebrated issue in the lead up to the English Civil War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_MonopoliesPyrmonternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-18017057412163861302019-03-20T15:23:03.591-05:002019-03-20T15:23:03.591-05:00Yep, legal monopolies were granted by monarchies t...Yep, legal monopolies were granted by monarchies to "friends" in return for a huge chunk of the revenue. The formalization of a functioning patent system in England really got the industrial revolution going. There was zero IP protection back then. Lots of clever people hiding in the woodwork, but afraid to share knowledge and get ripped off. <br /><br />Legal monopolies provide the incentive for innovation. But, one in a while you get outliers like Salk, who just gave away the polio vaccine. Zero interest in making a buck. All in all, when not abused, the patent system is a great way to share knowledge and improve upon it. Helps markets, too. Mykel G. Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128735421035292909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-57896838484811366392019-03-19T22:29:31.126-05:002019-03-19T22:29:31.126-05:00Defensively "help their bottom line," ye...Defensively "help their bottom line," yes. In Washington, DC, the socialists and predators are swarming over any possible tax victims. It is no surprise they spend a lot in Washington, DC, on defense.Joe Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291560283071288527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-55142687740355961672019-03-19T18:04:54.883-05:002019-03-19T18:04:54.883-05:00Akin to monopolies, corporate/gov cronies seek ren...Akin to monopolies, corporate/gov cronies seek rents hoping to gain a competitive advantage by lobbying for specific regulations that limits competition. Since 2009, General Electric spent around $134 million lobbying, AT&T spent $91.2 million and Boeing spent $90.3 million. Would for-profit corporations spend so much to influence government if it didn’t help their bottom line?David Seltzernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-81739975985970860462019-03-19T16:38:38.347-05:002019-03-19T16:38:38.347-05:00In the time of James I of England (James VI of Sco...In the time of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), the control exerted by the guilds of London did not extend beyond the walls of London. Immigrant tradesmen from France and the Lowlands set up shop outside the walls of London and practiced their trade without interference from the London guilds. Thus it was that workers in silk who relocated from France in order to practice their protestant religion, were able to transform was its now East London into a thriving economic zone, serving the wealthy classes of London with domestically produced silks and other fabrics that previously had to be imported from continental europe at high cost. Not all industry was tightly controlled, though the guilds maintained a closed-shop environment in the City of London.<br /><br />An interesting use of Royal patents was made by James I of England. In order to encourage the immigration of skilled labour from France whichi was then in throws of religious upheaval between catholics and protestants, James I issued a Royal patent establishing the right of foreign protestants to establish a church in their faith (Calvinist) outside the walls of the City of London. The church was known as "La Patent", and the issuance of the Royal patent connected thereto gave encouragement to the Huguenot protestants to move from catholic France to England, bringing their trades and professional skills to the London area.<br /><br />Not all Royal patents were useless. Some were important to the establishment of industry and the encouragement of immigration by skilled tradesmen and professionals that contributed to economic growth. Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-73133522036079260202019-03-19T15:23:35.333-05:002019-03-19T15:23:35.333-05:00"A pattern with deep roots" indeed. It g..."A pattern with deep roots" indeed. It goes back to clientalism and feudalism before that. We hope a modern Rule of Law society would have ended "patronage" but it is always there. Sen. Mendez is my poster boy. He just traded favors with his old friend, and the jury and Senate have agreed. But it was certainly favoring in a corrupt way, against the ideal of "merit" et al.<br />Joe Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15119712576012191219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-42717135235836423882019-03-19T09:42:07.126-05:002019-03-19T09:42:07.126-05:00John, I like your blog posts but I think that thes...John, I like your blog posts but I think that these royal "monopolies" were more equivalent to patent protection than you're letting on. I'm a bit removed from my days studying economic history in undergrad so unfortunately I can't refer you to specific source material.<br /><br />Given the limited reach of the 16th century England's courts, a time-limited Royal monopoly functioned as what we would call a 'patent.' Copying, counterfeiting, and state-sponsored industrial espionage were all extremely pervasive in early modern economies. Entrepreneurs would not have wanted to make a capital investment in a new technology unless they were assured that there would be a return.<br /><br />By the early 19th century English courts had advanced enough that 'patents' became a viable option---the courts could actually enforce them throughout the country. Eli Howe died rich, but he probably wouldn't have had without the strong (for the era) patent protection provided by American Federal courts. <br /><br />Incidentally, "monopoly," copyright, and trademark protections were not as prevalent in early modern China. Who innovated more? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com