Anti-Trust laws anymore??
THC
Posts: 525
I remember from history class that there used to be politicians who represented the people who were against major monopolies....(back in the days of the 1800´s and such..)
and in the guise of competition being good...and that being the part of open markets...and democracy that is helpful....
i have to wonder why there seems to be no fuss anymore when major...major industries...join together...to basically form monopolies...
is there no such thing as anti-trust laws anymore?? or have all our courts...and politicians been bought out by the corporations...at our expense?
and in the guise of competition being good...and that being the part of open markets...and democracy that is helpful....
i have to wonder why there seems to be no fuss anymore when major...major industries...join together...to basically form monopolies...
is there no such thing as anti-trust laws anymore?? or have all our courts...and politicians been bought out by the corporations...at our expense?
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
-Big Fish
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If you're worried about monoplies, it's best to consider not how to stop them, but rather what creates them in the first place.
interesting quote...
i am more just talking about ...at one point in history...it was generally preceived as a bad idea...(from my memory it was around the time of the industrial revolution) now, its like that line of thinking never even existed. almost every industry is a monopoly. we pay whatever they tell us to pay for almost everything we buy...gas, electricity, phones, credit cards....and on and on
there is no such thing as competition anymore really...no room...
govt used to only use monopoly for industries of scale..where there was no other option...now its privitized monopolies...
-Big Fish
Well bill gates worked with smart people in the early 80s at xerox, they created a new operating system for photocopiers, bill gates saw that he could run home PCs with it stole it and called it his own. How we continue to let a corporation found on such corrupt beginings be so entrenched in our lives is a testament to how little the public cares about monopolies or antitrust laws at this time.
— Socrates
I can think of few industries that are currently "monopolies" in and of themselves. In the US, there is no oil monopoly, there is no electricity monopoly, there is no phone monopoly and there is no credit card monopoly. The idea that there is "no such thing as competition anymore" is ludicrous. I doubt at any time in American history have the public had such versatile fungible income. For every dollar in your pocket, there is probably more places than ever before for that money to go and with it, not to go.
The anti-trust heyday of the late 1800s stemmed from the protectionist policies that ruled the day and those policies proved very damaging not only for the US economy but for pretty much every other economy that tried them.
In many ways, US localities do suffer from "privitized monopolies" that come at the hands of governmental protectionism or regulation that demand an uncompetitive marketplace. As more and more power is concentrated at the federal level, no one should be surprised as corporations also concentrate in order to better leverage a concentrated power circle. And, from the influence of that circle, as the cost of doing business increases and profit margins decrease, so will competition.
LOL...
Bill Gates didn't "steal" technology from Xerox (a place he never worked) any more than Xerox "stole" technology from Nicéphore Niépce, the father of modern photography.
Bill Gates was a smart guy and delivered exactly what the market was desperate for -- a computer operating system (DOS) independent from expensive proprietary hardware. I'm all for complaining about the shortcomings of Microsoft software, but pretending that Bill Gates is "corrupt" or that Microsoft is even a monopoly is downright fantasy.
Regardless, Microsoft is a pretty shitty example to pick as Microsoft was declared a monopoly by the Justice Department and the EU and has been robbed of billions in fines that have done nothing to improve the marketplace.
and i suppose you think that if microsoft and yahoo merged...that would not quell competition in the slightest... aye?
and i am sure there are 15 other phone companies and cable companies you could call up today and switch your service if you wanted???....and stores accepting all 500 types of credit cards that are easily acceptable and available around the country.
-Big Fish
I can think of two industries in my home province that used to be government controlled and have been privatized...
The liquor industry was privatized in the mid 90's and we went from having some of the cheapest liquor in the country to the most expensive. The government also lost out on half a billion in tax income, despite increased sales and prices.
Second is the electricity industry....in the six months following privatization, the price of electricity in my province increased 500%, which prompted the government to come up with a bail-out rebate program that has cost the province billions.
Are government monopolies always such a bad thing? I think I know your answer to this
Microsoft and yahoo merging is competition -- against google. You seem to be assuming that any merger is somehow a strike against competition. That isn't the case. Two companies typically merge in order to gain a competitive advantage within a competitive marketplace. Furthermore, bad mergers (i.e. DaimlerChrylser) often help spur competition by making the merged companies vulnerable.
15? I don't know. I certainly could use AT&T, Sprint, Cricket, Vonage, T-Mobile, Alltel, Suncom, Virgin, Skype, ITP, Lingo, or BellSouth. That's 12. I'm fairly sure there are more that I'm not thinking of.
I can't think of a store that accepts one credit card. Certainly MasterCard and VISA have a huge lock on that market. However, most places accept at least 4 types of cards. Furthermore, with the emergence of services like PayPal, MasterCard and VISA do have competition.
Your standard for monopoly seems a bit skewed. A monopoly is a single entity completely dominating a market, not "less than 15" or "less than 500" entities operating in a market.
"Bad" implies a standard. If your standard is price to the consumer, then government monopolies are almost always a good thing! "Price to the consumer", however, is a short-sighted and pretty crappy standard.
"Privitization" is typically sold as a way to decrease prices. Unfortunately for blowhard politicians and opportunistic businesspeople, there is no hard link between a good's price and whether or not it is public or private. Prices in a free market are the product of supplies and consumer demand. If your liquor and energy prices have skyrocketed, that has little to do with "public" or "private" ownership.
Plus I don't know about in the US but in Canada there are like a million different types of Mastercards and Visas. Pretty much every bank offers their version of a mastercard, so do a bunch of other places. Each one of those cards offeres different rates, benefits and rewards. My BMO mastercard had way better bonuses than my MBNA card (although I did get a free t-shirt) so I cancelled the MBNA one. If that's not competition I don't know what is.
Absolutely. Mastercard and VISA, however, underwrite these cards and collect fees on their use. There is tons of competition in the credit card branding business (what you're talking about), but not a lot in the credit card processing business (what the previous poster was talking about). Neither business, however, is a monopoly.
Where do you see "2 or 3 large corporations agreeing on prices"?
So whenever goods cost roughly the same amount, you assume that "large corporations are agreeing on prices"?
whenever you have 2 or 3 large corporations on top of an industry they can basically do whatever they want. for all intents and purposes it is a monopoly. and yes, I believe they work together, to charge as much as the market will allow.
I think in most of these cases, like say coke and pepsi, companies have similar production costs, and they both know the minimum price to sell stuff at which they can get people to buy their stuff but still make a profit.
That's like suggesting that "for all intents and purposes", a single guy is married. 2 or 3 large corporations on top of an industry, by definition, is not a monopoly. There are countless firms that have been part of a dominant duopoly or triopoly that have vanished from the competitive marketplace.
Corporations rarely "work together" to determine what to charge. For every 1,000 claims about this, one might be true.
Corporations in a competitive market don't choose their prices -- their prices are chosen for them. Pepsi and Coke don't charge the same amount for a can of soda because they got together and decided to. The charge the same amount for a can of soda because if one increased prices, they'd likely die, and if one decreased prices, they'd undercut their profits without gaining market share.
That's part of it, yes. However, on goods like soda, there are tremendous price pressures that keep competitive pricing inline. For instance, if Coke decreased the price of soda, Pepsi would have to follow. So Coke gains no market share and simply loses profit for both firms. Neither firm could increase prices either without significantly risking share. Pepsi's and Coke's prices are inextricably linked without any likely measure of collusion.
hence the need and motive to work together to determine prices.
LOL...
We already do "work together to determine prices". Just ask yourself how many Pepsis you'd buy at $20 a bottle. Pepsi would love to get $20 a bottle out of you, but you've already worked with Pepsi to determine a price that benefits both you and Pepsi.
it seems they have every reason to work together...and why wouldn't they when profit governs their decisions? They are going to do whatever they have too to maximize their profits.
Prices are determined by cost, to some extent, and by supply and demand. Corporations like Coke and Pepsi-specifically Coke-can export labor to cheap third world countires, literally assissinate any labor activists-keeping cost down- and charge less than any would be competitor. When the competition is eliminated, they can go back to charging whatever they want. Again, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly. The only difference is they have counterparts in the industry doing the same thing.
Why don't they just stick a gun in your face and rob you then?
Corporations do not "do whatever they have too to maximize their profits". That's why pretty much every corporation goes out of business.
Why would a corporation "have every reason to work together" when profit maximization is better served by catering to consumer interests as opposed to thwarting them? If Coke and Pepsi raised the price of a standard bottle of soda to $5, they'd not only erode their market share, but also allow a gaping hole for any new competitor to emerge. Assuming that high prices = big profits is a dumb assumption indeed, even when collusion is involved.
LOL...ok. Coke does not "assissinate" labor activists, just because someone somewhere claims they do. Coke certainly does export labor to cheaper nations, just as they should. Do you think Coke should man their bottling lines with PHds? Finally, Coke would absolutely love to be a monopoly. Yet for all the omnipotence you're attempting to assign to them, they've completely failed at that task.
because the people have decided that is illegal, and coke, as a corporation, can't hold a gun. maximizing profit is a great way to get ahead in the business world, not sure why they would go out of business.
they charge as much as they can get away with-I don't drink coke or pepsi btw, I am not upset over their prices. It just seems fairly obvious to me that these 2 corporations have been on top of the industry for many years, and that there is a reason for that. they stifle competition when it rises and charge what they can when there is no threat.
Coke has a few plants in Mexico, and lately, whenever a Union leader emerged, he/she ended up dead, in almost every case. Granted there is no proof tying the Coca-cola corporation to the murders, but common sense has led me to question the pattern. A labor activist rises within the corporation, they die. Repeat. I question that.
Yet they can kill labor leaders?
They go out of business because they fail to maximize profits. Almost all businesses that have ever existed have gone out of business because, in most cases, they fail to serve their markets.
The reason Coke & Pepsi are on top is because they are the best run businesses in their market (and there's plenty of evidence for that), not because of made up collusion for which there is no evidence.
LOL...it doesn't sound like you "question" it. Rather, it sounds like you've simply assigned an answer. Unfortunately, you're likely quite wrong. When union leaders wind up dead, the corporations they're fighting are not usually the prime suspect. Rather, their competitors for labor are. There's a reason why few people believe the trucking companies killed Jimmy Hoffa, and there's plenty of groups in S America who have a greater interest in seeing union leaders there killed than does Coca Cola.
different TYPES of mastercards and visa....are competition...
sorry...but i do not think you know what competition is my friend...
and to the other guy...yes...my def. of monopolies does include two or three companies running an entire multi billion dollar industry.
2 or 3 companies fighting for outright control of the internet does mean monopoly to me.
try to find more then one or two cable companies in a city. try to find more then one or two options for electricity....
i have traveled a lot over the years...and in each city...you have a choice of one or two cable companies...(whos prices i have seen rise exponentially over the years..) and MAYBE two options for electricity...(whos prices have also gone up drastically over the years)
-Big Fish
I'm sure the fact that Pepsi's CEO (Kendall) had huge ties to Nixon didn't hurt it's position either.
In fact, both Coke AND Pepsi have historicaly had fairly substantial ties to the CIA.
One of the main reasons for the CIA action (slaughter) in Chile was because of the "inconvenience" that a nationalized economy would have posed to Pepsi.
At one point (late 50's) Coke's ties to the CIA were so great that Coca-Cola was actually refered to by CIA agents themselves as CIA-Cola. (i got that from a book i was reading, and if my memory wasn't shot, i'd cite the source)
Here is just one link getting in to some of it:
Coca-Cola, Cocaine, the CIA, Bush, etc...
Look.
I'm not levying any specific charges (or maybe i am)
i'm just saying it is silly to pretend that Coke and Pepsi rose to prominence soley based on the whims of the market, and their own prodigal skills in their industry ...
CLEARLY, THEY WERE AIDED BY A POWER STRUCTURE MUCH LARGER THAN MERE MARKET FORCES, YES?
And for the rest of this nonsense about Monopoly, No Monopoly ...
the term DUOPOLY comes to mind. Whats the diff, anyhow?
:(
The biggest problem the world faces is OIL and MONEY.
Unfortunately those two industries have really consolidated in to one industry, the BANK-OIL INDUSTRY, and it IS RUN BY VERY DEEP COLLUSION.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
...
Seriously?
if that increases its "viability".
:rolleyes:
[edit: actual source: http://www.skolnicksreport.com/cocaccc.html]
What the fuck is with people around here who won't accept ANY information unless it is branded CNN, NBC, ABC, etc etc etc?
Seriously.
Think for your fucking self, and either accept or disbelieve what you read.
But enough of this "oh, i don't even have to entertain that information, because it comes from a website that says 'so and so' ..."
Seriously.
Who is the one with the problem here?
I thought you were about this shit, FFG.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It scares me that you think that.
Let me explain something to you Drifting that might help you understand why people laugh at your sources. You can tell me to fuck off or to get a clue and I won't be offended. You can also try listening and thinking about it. I'm not too concerned either way.
When people chide you for your sources, the sources themselves and the validity of those sources is really a secondary issue. People who believe CNN, MSNBC, Wikipedia, or any other online source to be infallible gospel are just as stupid as those who invoke conspiracyofthemoment.com as a primary source. Dismissing or embracing a source soley based on its track record, be it good or bad, is unwise.
That said, what I think you're missing is that the primary umbrage I, and others, take with you is not your sources per se, but rather what your sources say about you. Let me explain.
When two people debate, regardless of the issue or how far apart they are on the issue, they share a core assumption. That assumption, in a nutshell, is that there is reality and that there is fantasy. If I claim that giraffes have short necks and you claim that giraffes have long necks, we, despite our disagreement, are tacitly agreeing that giraffes have necks of a certain length. One of us might be correct, both of us might be wrong, or both of us might be partly correct. Regardless, we both agree that the nature of reality dictate that giraffes do not have whatever size necks we wish to assign to them on a given day.
When people use as their primary sources highly questionnable material from agenda-driven sources, they are attacking this tacit agreement regarding the nature of reality. Instead of submitting themselves to the infallibility of fact, they demand that their own opinions supercede those facts, and that nature is whatever convenience they require in a given moment.
This is why people dismiss your arguments, including the occassional truth and insight therein. You show little signs of being an honest observer and a slave to reality.
Your final statement sums up your viewpoint. You seem to believe that, just because we may share a high-level economic, moral, or sociological viewpoint, that I too should embrace anything that can be construed to fit my purposes. I am sorry, but I refuse to pretend that reality is whatever I deem it to be regardless of the basic standards of logic, reason, and evidence.
"Think for yourself" is very apropos. Thinking is the act of applying fact and logic to reality, not the act of inventing reality via opinion and imagination.