For the article itself(which is basically the picture plus a paragraph ):

http://www.mint.com/blog/moneyhack/a-visua...ployment-rates/

The government also didn't do anything for basically 4 years, until FDR was elected. Interesting story though.

Hey now, they totally did something! That something being passing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which exacerbated the situation.

I love how they call this the Great 'Recession'. We've doubles the effects of the early Great Depression and are over 1/2 way to it's height yet this is a 'recession'. Does the gov't expect us to buy there BS?

No, Hoover raised taxes and spending, actually.

He also believed that the economical crisis would end without government help shortly after the stock market crashed, along with the banking system and housing/automobile industry (over supply). It seemed he was wrong big time after a few years of waiting.

If you count "a few years of waiting" as the time frame for judging how successful Hoover and FDR's spending programs were then the New Deal failed "big time" as well.

yeah a year and a half after the stock market crash. His initial response was to balance the budget, raise interest rates and evidently to raise trade barriers (was this attributed to special interests or because of golden fetters?). It was only after massive protest and unrest in the second half of his term that he begun to spend, and it was far too inadequate. FDR came in with 25% unemployment rate, and by 1937 it had decreased to 10%. And remember, FDR enacted the RTAA which forever since has been key to lowering our trade barriers.

Hoover: Angered the public by sitting on his hands too long.

FDR: Actually did something try to reverse the chaos, prevent similar future economical crisis from occurring, and regained public trust.

What about Japan and Italy? Their democratic/republic government didn't do anything, their citizens overthrew their government and replaced it with dictatorship governments.

Imagine if FDR was just like Hoover...

Thanks, 8th grade history textbook!

First off, unemployment did not fall below 14% until after WWII. You can look at a time line located here.

Next I take a excerpt from a UCLA study which determines that FDR prolonged the recession by upwards of 7 years. If not for WWII the depression which turned into a recession around 1937 may have lasted much longer than it did. Matter of fact in 1938 GDP fell by 4.5% and unemployment was 19%.



So I'm not sure where people get this notion that FDR saved the United States. Its also important to note that FDR had some of his top social programs deems unconstitutional. There is no telling how far FDR would have taken his socialist policies if it wasn't for opposition by conservatives and the subsequent entrance of the United States into the war with Japan.

I lol'd. FDR socialist? Yea, don't make me laugh. Going to war with Japan made the economy MORE influenced by government directive which is more "socialist", if you want to call it that. FDR is what prevented the country from going to the actual socialists and communists during the Depression, if anything.

Italy and Japan were dictatorships long before the Great Depression.

Just sayin'

Well, less so with Japan. Kind of. They had some sort of quasi-experimenting going on with parliamentary democracy then their own fascists took over.

Its funny you mention that. Look up the National Industrial Recovery Act which was repealed because it was deemed unconstitutional. It allowed for heavy regulation of private industry which was "devoted to industrial recovery, and authorized the promulgation of industrial codes of fair competition, guaranteed trade union rights, permitted the regulation of working standards, and regulated the price of certain refined petroleum products and their transportation." source

Unions, Cartels and Monopolies would benefit from this legistlation.

And then you have FDR's tax policies



That is the equivalent of making 250k dollars today (sound familiar?)

Lets not forget FDR packing the supreme court



This was an attempt to counter the opposition from the Supreme Court which was mostly Conservative. And Roosevelt also wanted to circumvent the congress to get it done which divided the Democratic party.

And then you have the little gem called the Social Security Act which essentially forces people to pay into a system which could easily be funded by private means aka retirement. This paved the way for Medicare and today's Health Care reform agenda.

You have to remember, these policies led towards modern Socialism in the United States. If you want to get technical here, back in FDR's time you can argue that he was leaning towards Fascism (not Hitler Fascism but Mussolini Fascism)

Today's Socialism does not come in the form of government control over the means of production and allocation of resources. Instead of direct ownership the government can simply regulate and tax private business essentially controlling the means of production. Traditional Socialism doesn't work, it failed in the Soviet Union and it failed in Cuba. Matter of fact.. Raul Castro has proclaimed that they are now a Socialist nation not a communist one.

I know people don't like hearing terms like Socialist and Fascist thrown around, but if you look into history you can see some very compelling arguments in favor of these comparisons. Personally I look at them as a mix of many things. They all share one thing in common, the redistribution of wealth and loss of freedom.

Please, do get technical. In what specific ways where FDR was becoming an Italian Fascist?


Also, what happens when redistribution of wealth goes in the opposite direction, making the rich richer and poor poorer? Is that still socialism-fascism? Is it a perfectly acceptable trend?

Those figures are of course misleading to our present point of view, as those numbers don't include people working temporary jobs. This article explains a lot of discrepancies, and it's also known that if unemployment of today were to be measured in the same way, we'd be above 15%. I guess it's just the devil in calculating data, and trying to paint your ideological opponents in a worse light.

As for the UCLA study, it has come under wide criticism as to greatly attributing blame to the labor market and unionization. 1937 and 1938 were also unsurprisingly the years where fiscal stimulus was decreased to attempt for a balanced budget, which in this instance was anti-cyclical rather than pro-cyclical. And of course, the reason why we never fully got out of the depression under Roosevelt until WW2 is that he never initiated a large enough stimulus until the gigantic stimulus known as WW2 came along. Keynesian economics was not fully implemented during this period, and whenever Keynes actually did meet Roosevelt, they were rather unimpressed with each other.

WWII got us out of the Great Depression. That simple.

Keynesian economics.. Keynes was be rolling in his grave if he knew how politicians abused his economic philosophy. You can't spend your way out of a recession without accumulating massive debt. And the simple fact that the ACLU study has come under wide criticism only bolsters its credibility. If anyone wants to understand how dangerous Roosevelt and many other liberal politicians have been to our economy over the last 100 years just look up Milton Friedman. Government intervention of any form often prolongs the time it takes for recovery, the giant stimulus package know as WWII was simply the incentive for Americans to work and save. Not to mention with a global war and the United States mainland safe and secure the United States became a major source of resources and trade.

People always like to use the huge spending numbers to justify the recovery. And today, you are seeing over 1 trillion dollars worth of stimulus with minimal job creation. So by that logic, the United States should spend nearly 6 trillion. After all, that would be around 40% of GDP as was spend during WWII.

Lets face some facts here. Keynesian was wrong, implemented today at the scale it was during WWII the United States would be be totally devastated and buried in debt.

Its sad when you realize that another World War would completely destroy the United States today. We are nothing more than a consumer nation which is in debt by trillions of dollars to China, Japan and Europe.

So please explain again how we can spend our way out of a recession? And lets just say we can.. how in the world can we pay off our debt when deficits are projected to be over 1 trillion for the next 10 years? Our current system is unsustainable and nobody is willing to admit it.

and what did WWII involve?

was it by any chance largescale government spending?

Again, back then we spend over 40% of our GDP on "stimulus"

That money jump started the manufacturing industry in the United States for military preparations and production during WWII.

People were also told to ration food, supplies, resources, you name it. The United States essentially worked to provide food and shelter for the average American. There was no car buying, joyriding, wasteful spending etc..

Americans saved every last cent they had. People didn't have huge credit card debt, car loans, and home loans to take care of. They lived in close knit extended families. The entire nation was essentially put on reserve notice.

WWII was not "cash for clunkers" it wasn't GM bailouts.. everything was different. And back then the United States actually exported goods, today we import nearly everything. There was also a massive influx of gold and money being pushed into the United States. After all, 1/4 of the world was under fire.. Europe, South Africa, Russia..

WWII cannot be compared to any modern stimulus package. The reason why we are in a recession is because the entire world (besides China, Japan, South America) has been spending themselves into massive debt through entitlement programs and social spending.

The United States went into a recession and half the world followed. Why? Because all we do is gobble up resources, goods, most countries rely on the United States for exports.

You want to see a big joke.. when the United States turns into most of Europe. While you guys are battling Muslims we will be trying to support our massive debts and entitlement programs that most European nations have taken for granted for the last 50 years. And the United States is just getting started, only we haven't been smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others, we are jumping head first into our own economic disaster and the rest of the world can prepare to grab their ankles for China when they become the next world power.

While I'm not going to speak for the legislation you cited because A) I just can't be bothered to, out of laziness and B.) I don't know enough about those specific things you brought up. What I can say is this, skirting presidential authority and constitutionality was pretty run of the mill for FDR. The guy broke tradition by being elected more than twice, and while I won't defend the illegality of a lot of what he did, I would say that atleast in regards to the war it was damn well justified. Of course, this was also the congress that would have been perfectly content to stay uninvolved in the whole affair until Japan dragged you guys into the war feet kicking and arms flailing.

I have to comment specifically on one thing. You make yourself look unknowledgeable by even hinting at a link between FDR and any kind of fascism, socialism or any other loaded and incorrect term. You saying "they share one thing in common", that's a load of crock. If that were the case, it would simply be said of ANY and ALL forms of government. Guess we're all fascists or socialists eh? What a self-serving argument. You've ignored the very fundamentals that separate the many forms of socialism and communism from fascism and our own systems. FDR's policies did not lead to any kind of "modern socialism" in the States for socialism has never existed in the States. FDR was a social liberal/modern liberal. Now unless you're being a cheeky !@#$%^& and are calling social liberals socialists, you're just wrong.

I hope you're clinging to the wiggle room that "a lot" gives you.

Yea, a lot. Twas vague on purpose, because I don't know exactly how much of his efforts regarding the Germans and Japanese were unconstitutional. Frankly, in this case, they were justified. If you want to start that argument, make a thread for it AJ.

lawd oh lawd.



Actually, Keynes would be rolling in his grave by the sheer number of people who misrepresent and miscomprehend ideas that he stood for. The New Deal was actually fairly limited in scope in comparison to what would have been needed to recover the economy. And of course, one of the fundamental principles of Keynesian economics is deficit spending during bad times, while using the surplus to pay off debts during the good times. It's not Keynes' fault that politicians often forget the latter. Milton Friedman argued that economic downturns could best be solved by a manipulation of the money supply, either by printing money, lowering interest rates, selling bonds or changing the discount rate. This for the most part works very well, and has worked well between the last depression and our current situation. The problem is when, in order for a recovery to happen, interest rates (the main tool of monetary policy) would need to be negative in order to have positive output, and that's simply not possible. Thus, significant fiscal stimulus is what is required.



So far, with only ~23% of GDP spent during the first 3 quarters, and that increase in GDP should sustain for the next year and a half; the administration expects over 1 million jobs to have been saved or created during this period both directly and indirectly. Only time will tell for better estimates to its actual effects, but the jury is pretty much in and solid: the stimulus is boosting the economy. We're not exactly asking for a WW2 sized stimulus, as that's not really needed, and I don't know why you're creating this strawman.



Again, I don't know what's up with your "spending WW2's size stimulus is bad" strawman, but whatever. It's meaningless. And by the way, fiscally the US is in MUCH better shape than Japan (120% GDP debt) and Europe (where most of the biger players are generally above our level). And poor China is following us down our downward depreciation, and now complaining that about the lowering dollar, as their return on their bond investments will not be they same. I say: suckers.



I'm not exactly sure about your narrative of over-generalizations, but basically what happened is that the war increased the demand for goods and services and brought our nation to full employment.



It's actually funny that you mention GM bailouts, as before WWII, Ford was on the brink of bankruptcy and possible liquidation as a result of poor quality; demand from the government changed that and thus they emerged from the war as a powerful corporation. Additionally, with our depreciated dollar, and making inroads into some economies (China, India, for example) with a bigger consumer base, we are actually curbing our trade deficit. This would be even more profound if not for China following us down on our depreciation (China's yuan is pegged to the dollar, is artificially low, and they continue to make it artificially low).



This is a little bit lulz, because again, Japan is one of the most indebted countries in the world (and get this, it's often attributed to a lack of fiscal stimulus during the 1990s! leading to a deflationary spiral... exactly what we tried to avoid this time around with low interest rates and a fiscal stimulus). South America is also another funny example, as they have notoriously been in debt for decades, and only recently have they begun to shed a large portion of it, and despite that, they are still similarly indebted to the same extent as the US. And it may interest you additionally to hear that China had a 1 trillion fiscal stimulus in primarily infrastructure, larger than ours despite being a smaller economy.



Is this serious? Muslim-baiting... China paranoia... is there really any point to this?

I honestly suggest you do a little bit of reading up about macroeconomics, the great depression and the current recession. Vary your sources, as it doesn't seem you stray far from your general prejudiced assumptions.

Now lets compare this to FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act which was deemed unconstitutional.



FDR's attempt to stack the Supreme Court was also a move to push the law in his favor. This is the Supreme Court of the United States, they determine the constitutionality of all laws. This is not some minor interference it was a direct power grab. And you want to claim that this is not fascist in nature?

And lets return to your issue with Socialism. As I stated before.. there is a new form of Socialism. I like to call it the socialism that works. Its a sustainable socialism that only require the government to gain control over the private market. Capitalism without a truly free market can coexist with modern socialism. It provides a source of taxation.



This is the form of Socialism which has become prevalent in much of Europe. And its been increasing in the United States. Again.. Social Security, Medicare, these are examples of social programs which which are imposed on everyone whether they are sustainable or not. Its a perfect example of the government using taxation and regulation to control private industry as well as the individual.

There are fascist and socialist aspects to FDR.. I am not cherry picking I am pointing out substantial evidence to back it up.

That's wrong right off the bat by saying there is no concise definition of what constitutes fascism. I can think of a few things that are widely agreed on. So what you're essentially saying is that interventionism is fascist because the fascists liked to favour corporations too? That's ridiculous. Hey, I hear the fascists favoured a large military too. Does that mean America is fascist?

That's ridiculous, again. You can't bend and twist the definition of socialism to fit your own likings. True capitalism without a truly free market has never existed and likely never will, so unless you're arguing that anything short of Ayn Rand's wet dream isn't capitalism you've got no leg to stand on here.

Social programs and government regulations are not socialism. To say so is just asinine. In your own quotes it says the Third Way explicitly rejected state socialism. Guess what? The third way is neither fully capitalist nor fully socialist. But following your logic, if it's not socialism it's socialism. That's what I'm getting out of this.

Ironically, one of the key fundamentals of economics is that government intervention and regulation is needed when and where the free market fails. An economy without government regulation would likely collapse.

inb4 being called a Socialist for pointing out government intervention is necessary.

We don't have a free market, we have a regulated form of Capitalism. Why do you think big companies have lobbyists?

And furthermore, why do you think the housing market collapsed in 2008? It had to do with government regulation.

Sub prime mortgages were the direct result of government intervention. In a truly free market, banks would be foolish to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them, especially with nearly 0 money required for down payments. Yet that is exactly what happened. The government pressured banks to accept loans from low income families and those who had little or no credit and may only be able to afford payment in the short term.

And look who lost their @#$% (if not for the bailouts) banks.

Again.. tell me where a truly free market will fail at the scale it did during the great depression or the current recession which started in 2007 and hit the United States hard in 2009.

The housing crisis is due to 2 things--

The repeal of Glass-Sterman (right?), which allowed normal banks to start becoming investment banks, leading to far less safety and for banks to give out WAY more loans
and that people thought that investing in real estate was a really good idea, creating a bubble. This happens all the god damn time, even way back in the 1600's.

And yet on the flipside that evil regulated capitalism hasn't been as bad to Canada. We didn't lose a single bank in the Depression and we haven't lost one now.

Sounds like someone is a bit nostalgic for the good ol' days. It sounds like your argument is that you have to deficit-spend like WWII or else it's totally pointless, and other government interventions are just going to be prolong the downturn, and thus we shouldn't do anything, but that simply isn't the case. The stimulus is definitely saving jobs at the state and local government level and has a whole bunch of infrastructure programs that are directly employing people. Knowing exactly how many jobs were saved by the stimulus is impossible to know, but we can look at the uptick in GDP and see that a huge chunk of it is related directly and indirectly to government spending. And we're not feeling the full effects yet. It takes time for the shock to be felt through the whole economy.

True, we're not back to where we were, and this stimulus project alone isn't anywhere near enough to get us back to full employment. That doesn't mean it isn't working, it just means it ain't big enough, but it's still helping. Same thing happened in the 1930s. FDR ran deficits that, as a % of GDP, were actually SMALLER than what we are running right now. The economy was picking up, GDP was increasing and unemployment was going down, but the economy was just SO depressed that he wasn't spending enough to get the system right. A drop of 15% in the unemployment back then puts you at 10%, still way too high. WWII-level deficit spending was NOT necessary to end the depression, but a bigger deficit was needed.

So, even back then, WWII level spending was not needed. We SURE don't need it today, because the economy is nowhere near as bad as it was in the 30s. It could conceivably get that bad, but if it does, we're not talking about a $6 trillion deficit. And a lot of our deficit will be inflated, too, with another sharp recession maybe 10-15 years from now to kill the inflation expectations.

As for how we can spend ourselves out of a recession, it's actually quite simple. Demand-Recessions occur when the private sector is trying to save more money than it can actually reasonably do, throwing the economy out of whack as everyone STOPS spending money. The government offsets this by DISsaving.

And if another World War happened today...well...depends, what are the sides? But the relevant part isn't the debt. Believe me, it ain't the debt. If need be, we just default or print a crap ton of money. The problem with a modern war is that the American economy is not suited for a war in the way it was back in WWII. Our economy is much more information and service-based these days. But that can be worked around, and though it would take a while for the American war machine to get moving, anyone who isn't China would get steam-rolled.



You sound like you're saying that the problem is that Americans just spend too much damn money, and the good thing about WWII as stimulus is that we were able to sacrifice. Don't try that line of argument, it makes no sense. The whole reason we work in an economy in the first place is to spend. I like being able to drive around on Saturday night, I like being able to have sugar in my coffee, I like being able to have rope to tie stuff around my house. That's why I am looking for a job. Obviously, spending beyond your means is REALLY bad, but how the hell does that make sacrificing FOR A WAR good?

WWII was a terrible outcome from an economic standpoint. Did it end the Great Depression? Yes. But only because the retarded way we define economic progress. Drafting 10% of your population to go fight someone halfway around the world is stupid. Spending one-third of your income on guns is stupid. Getting 400,000 of your men killed in battle is stupid. Having such high spending and inflation that you need to give people ration cards to hold down prices so people all get some stuff is stupid.

War is bad, bad, bad. Bombs do not feed people, they kill people. I will take bailouts and cash for clunkers any day of the week as a stimulus before I support invading some random country just because we need our economy to work.



Glass-Steagall gets wayyyyy too much attention. IMO, trying to separate investment banks and commercial banks is not productive and is another example of how US financial regulation is kinda retarded. Universal banks are used pretty much everywhere in the world and they are pretty workable concepts, and even in the US the big universal banks have held up reasonably well, whereas the stand-alone investment banks got crushed (except GS and MS, GS having pulled off a miracle and off-loading pretty much all their crappy subprime stuff prior to the meltdown).

Much better ways to regulate the financial system are out there. Step 1, higher capital requirements for investment banks. Step 2, regulate the shadow banking sector. There's a whole bunch of financial mechanisms out there that do bank-ish activities but aren't banks (think Hedge Funds)

Are you arguing against yourself?

If a market that is less free than Ayn Rand's view, but still has strong elements of capitalism, it can be called Capitalist, going by what you said.

Likewise, certain actions, even in a Capitalist society, can be deemed socialist or fascist.

Attempting to in effect nationalize private corporations IS socialism, however you twist it.

No, it's not.

Nationalizing said corporation with the intent to keep it nationalized and to put it into the hands of the workers is socialist.
Nationalizing it in order to privatize it in the future and make sure it doesn't go bankrupt is intervention, which is done in any capitalist society after 1910.

Err...no, it's not. "However you twist it" is exactly what you SHOULDN'T be doing. Unless it is appropriated by a labour union or some group of workers, it isn't socialist. It's a government take over. It's utterly mind boggling how people ignorantly equate government ownership with socialism when they are immersed in an environment where they should long have learned otherwise.

And I'm not sure I know what you mean. How as I arguing against myself? I wasn't arguing that something that doesn't have strong capitalist elements isn't capitalist. He seemed to be coming from the view that anything to the left of laissez-faire is socialism, which is just plain wrong. Which is what the "left of Ayn Rand's wet dream" was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."

"Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production."



Fair enough.

And yet you are still missing one key factor, the government (atleast the American government) has never nationalized for the sake of the public or the workers. It's always been in the interests of the powerful. What's the term? Corporate welfare? I'd love to see how you can demonstrate the nationalization of recent time has been expressly for the purpose of the proletariat. I'll eat my shoes.

The National Industrial Recovery Act wanted to control companies that were still doing well in the interests of the workers and the markets.

The Social Security Act was aimed at the poor elderly.

Medicare was aimed at the poor elderly.

Further, it was Roosevelt's DoJ that prosecuted Alcoa, a market monopoly(i.e. not coercive) that oversaw the price of Aluminum drop from over $500 a pound to $.20 a pound, simply for being a monopoly - which was apparently bad for the working class.

Are monopolies not bad most of the time anyways? Also, if you asked a socialist they would say all those moves are concessions by the ruling class to preserve their rule. Social Security and Medicare are both social spending programs, they're social safety nets. They preserve the status-quo (a capitalist system) by satisfying those who suffer in the system. As a socialist would argue, not myself.

Monopolies can be bad. They are not inherently bad.

A company that uses its influence to stifle competition is a coercive monopoly, and is bad.
A company that continues to beat out competition due to a better product or prices is a market monopoly, and not definitively bad.



Sounds on par with Skull and Bones conspiracy theories.

Absolutely not. Monopolies are good. They are just not as good as markets.

EDIT: barring political influences, of course

That goes against everything, what little it is, that I know of in economics. I thought that outside of things like power utilities (which are due to physical restraints) that monopolies tended to be bad.

Monopolies are good if you do not care about high prices, lack of innovation and the quality of the product or service being sketchy at best. Imagine an internet that would have stopped at Yahoo! lol Or only having the IPhone to choose from when purchasing a cellphone. Especially when it was around 500 dollars.

The conventional wisdom is wrong. Monopolies are not bad. They work exactly like other companies: they make a product that people want and they sell it at a higher price than they made it for. A monopoly cannot make a profit by screwing people over.

What monopolies are is inefficient. They aren't as good at improving welfare as truly competitive markets. And if a market BECOMES a monopoly, overall welfare may go down. May, though, it's hardly clear-cut.



Question: if there is a cure for cancer, would you say people are worse off with a monopoly selling it than having NO cure for cancer? Basically that.


EDIT: Okay, these words don't exactly have clear-cut definitions, but the point I am trying to convey is that monopolies are value-additive.

and so since noone in practice ever remembers the latter (no politician ever uses surpluses to pay of the debt, but rather to buy new supporters) can we like communism, rule it as a great in principle and failed in practice policy... kthnxbai.

So it was a semantic difference from what I was saying. A semantic difference with a big impact.

I guess you could say that if I am reading you correctly

Well, I always thought of them as bad in the sense that they aren't the preferred way to do things if possible. That they are bad because, as you said, they are inefficient. Just to point out though, a monopoly can make money while screwing people over. Case and point, Toronto Maple Leafs fans. They, to my knowledge, are the most profitable team in the NHL. They have ridiculously loyal fans who buy incredibly expensive tickets to see a team that has underperformed for over 40 years. That, and they're the only NHL team in Southern Ontario. That is much to the chagrin of my home town.

Monopolies can also prosper in environments where competition can't. For example, a monopoly/cartel may be necessary for an industry such as mining to be profitable, if those further up the production chain are in a significantly more powerful position (eg. the introduction of competition in a number of African mining operations was very destructive). Or it may be necessary for a developing country to develop effective monopolies and build them up before switching to an export-led economy if they want domestic industry to survive and bring benefit to the country (eg. South Korea). Or there may be a natural monopoly (don't want every train service building its own set of rails or every water company putting in its own pipes). And then there are many more areas you can go into when you start speaking of highly regulated or nationalised monopolies.

From a consumer standpoint when dealing with products and services that are not exactly new or exclusive, monopolies are bad.

If I invent a time machine, and nobody else can duplicate it, then I can sell it for any price I want. And if I charge a price that people don't agree with, someone will end up discovering how I made it and reproduce their own. I can sue them.. but eventually I will have to lower my prices to remove the incentive to steal.

Same goes for a cure for cancer, I can charge whatever I want, but sooner or later someone will come up with their own cure. I can choose to share my discovery, I can keep it secret, I should even be able to destroy it. But like all things, there are consequences for every action.

The only way a monopoly can exist for any extended period of time is if its being protected by force. Whether that is through the law, or through the government, all monopolies will crumble as long as someone else is allowed to compete.

This is why monopolies are dangerous if they are allowed to exist, not because others cannot provide the same or similar product of service but because others are forced out of competition.

The monopoly itself is harmless, you just end up getting ripped off. But the means in which one is able to exist is the real danger.