Anti-Trust laws anymore??

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

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.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

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.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Why don't they just stick a gun in your face and rob you then?

because the people have decided that is illegal, and coke, as a corporation, can't hold a gun.

Corporations do not "do whatever they have too to maximize their profits". That's why pretty much every corporation goes out of business.

maximizing profit is a great way to get ahead in the business world, not sure why they would go 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.

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.

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.

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.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

because the people have decided that is illegal, and coke, as a corporation, can't hold a gun.

Yet they can kill labor leaders?

maximizing profit is a great way to get ahead in the business world, not sure why they would go out of business.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THC

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

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)

DriftingByTheStorm

farfromglorified wrote:

The reason Coke & Pepsi are on top is because they are the best run businesses in their market

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.

farfromglorified

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

www.conspiracyplanet.com

...

Seriously?

DriftingByTheStorm

farfromglorified wrote:

...

Seriously?

i think it was originaly from rense.com
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.

farfromglorified

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

i think it was originaly from rense.com
if that increases its "viability".
:rolleyes:

It scares me that you think that.

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.

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.

Kel Varnsen

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

That is sort of what I was trying to say but not as well as you did. I think you are exactly right though.

DriftingByTheStorm

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Cute diatribe.

FFG wrote:

...highly questionnable material from agenda-driven sources

what makes a "conspiracy" site any more "highly questionable" than say CNN.
And what makes CNN any less "agenda-driven" than conspiracycrackwhore.com ?

You dressed up your rhetoric nice and sexy, FFG, but at the end of the day, you simply told me what i already knew.

You dismissed the argument based on your assumptions about a source. Your own uninformed and biased assumption about what a certain information source is or isn't was the sole rational for this entire argument.


Get back to me when you want to start arguing over what is and what is not fact, instead of what is and what isn't an acceptable source for facts.

Kel Varnsen

THC wrote:

different TYPES of mastercards and visa....are competition...

sorry...but i do not think you know what competition is my friend...

I have two mastercards. I have one offered from The Hudson's Bay comany. It has a higher interest rate, but sometimes it gives me discounts at The Bay. I have another one from The Bank of Montreal. The Bank of Montreal one has much better bonuses and a lower rate. When I use the HBC one they make money off of it and when I used the BMO one they make money. So when I decide to use the one that is better for me as the end user how is that not competition? If there wasn't cometition between cards the cashiers at The Bay wouldn't give a shit which card I use, in reality they always ask you if you will be using their card.

farfromglorified

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Cute diatribe.



what makes a "conspiracy" site any more "highly questionable" than say CNN.
And what makes CNN any less "agenda-driven" than conspiracycrackwhore.com ?

You dressed up your rhetoric nice and sexy, FFG, but at the end of the day, you simply told me what i already knew.

You dismissed the argument based on your assumptions about a source. Your own uninformed and biased assumption about what a certain information source is or isn't was the sole rational for this entire argument.


Get back to me when you want to start arguing over what is and what is not fact, instead of what is and what isn't an acceptable source for facts.

You still don't understand it. This isn't about your sources, primarily. This is primarily about the message you are communicating.

DriftingByTheStorm

farfromglorified wrote:

You still don't understand it. This isn't about your sources, primarily. This is primarily about the message you are communicating.

Show me in my original post, what "message" i was "communicating"?

So far, all i see is that you checked the source for the link, and got pissy.

So, what is this hidden message i communicated in my original post?

ONE MORE FOR YOU:

various wrote:

To keep the Burmeese Generals in check, --by the 60's they were a bunch of very uppity millionaires,-- the CIA expanded to buying poppy from Hmong villagers in Laos which they refined right there in VietNam in Pepsi factories. (You saw it in the Mel Gibson movie, Air America. I know you didn't believe it. It was beyond imagination but it happened.) Parenthetically, today, "Free Burma" activists at American colleges wonder why Pepsi keeps doing biz in such a nasty country. They want a trade blocade and Pepsi won't cooperate. Heck, Pepsi RUNS the drug machine in Asia. During the Nixon years, Pepsi bottling companies were used for refining the tar into powder. Go see AIR AMERICA. It's all there. PEPSI, bold as brass.

A Pepsi Co. chairman was Nixon's most excellent pal ever since days when Nixon was White House Case Officer on Cuba during the Eisenhower administration. Nixon broke champagne bottles at Pepsi plant openings regularly after he and Ike left Washington until he returned to DC as president, with a decade between posts giving him time to do some serious bonding with Pepsi. In that time, Dick also ran around with his Cuban-exile crew who worked for the CIA, doing the worst kinds of mischief: murdering Che Guevara, downing commercial Cuban planes and killing JFK.

DriftingByTheStorm

What message does THIS send, FFG?
oh wait, i know, something in the name "Palast" probably implies i am a conspiracy theorist.

the guardian uk wrote:

A Marxist threat to cola sales? Pepsi demands a US coup. Goodbye Allende. Hello Pinochet
By Gregory Palast
guardian.co.uk

Sunday November 8, 1998


'It is the firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup... Please review all your present and possibly new activities to include propaganda, black operations, surfacing of intelligence or disinformation, personal contacts, or anything else your imagination can conjure...'
'Eyes only, restricted handling, secret' message. To US station chief, Santiago. From CIA headquarters. 16 October 1970.

You would be wrong to assume this plan for mayhem was another manifestation of the Cold War between the 'free world' and communism. Much more was at stake: Pepsi-Cola's market share and other matters closer to the heart of corporate America.

In exclusive interviews with The Observer last week, the former US Ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, told the story in - and behind - these and other top secret CIA, State Department and White House cables recently released by the National Security Archives. Korry filled in gaps in the story by describing cables still classified, and disclosing information censored in papers now available under the US Freedom of Information Act.

Korry, who served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, told how US companies, from cola to copper, using the CIA as an international debt collection agency and investment security force.

Indeed, the October 1970 plot against Chile's President-elect Salvador Allende, using CIA 'sub-machine guns and ammo', was the direct result of a plea for action a month earlier by Donald Kendall, chairman of PepsiCo, in two telephone calls to the company's former lawyer, President Richard Nixon.

Kendall arranged for the owner of the company's Chilean bottling operation to meet National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger on September 15. Hours later, Nixon called in his CIA chief, Richard Helms, and, according to Helms's handwritten notes, ordered the CIA to prevent Allende's inauguration.

But this is only half the story, according to Korry. He claims the US conspiracy against Allende's election did not begin with Nixon, but originated - and read no further if you cherish the myth of Camelot - with John Kennedy.

In 1963, Allende was heading towards victory in Chile's presidential election. Kennedy decided his political creation, Eduardo Frei, the late father of Chile's current President, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, could win the election by buying it. Kennedy left it to his brother, Bobby, the Attorney-General, to put the plan into action.

The Kennedys cajoled US multinationals into pouring $2 billion into Chile, a nation of only 8 million people. This was not benign investment, but what Korry calls 'a mutually corrupting' web of business deals, many questionable, for which the US government would arrange guarantees and insurance.

In return, the American-based firms kicked back millions of dollars to pay for well over half of Frei's successful election campaign. By the end of this process, Americans had gobbled up more than 85 per cent of Chile's hard-currency earning industries.

The US government, the guarantor of these investments, committed extraordinary monetary, intelligence and political resources to protect them. Several business-friendly US government front organisations and operatives were sent into Chile -including the American Institute for Free Labor Development, infamous for sabotaging militant trade unions.

Then, in 1970, US investments, both financial and political, faced unexpected jeopardy. A split between Chile's centre and right-wing parties permitted an alliance of communists, socialists and radicals - uniting behind the socialist Allende - to finish the presidential election 1 per cent ahead of his nearest rival.

That October, Korry, a hardened anti-communist, hatched an off-the-wall scheme to block Allende's inauguration and return Frei to power. To promote his own bloodless intrigues, the ambassador claims he 'back-channeled' a message to Washington warning against military actions that might lead to 'another Bay of Pigs' fiasco. (Korry retains a copy of this still-classified cable.)

But Korry's prescient message only angered Kissinger, who had already authorised the Pepsi-instigated coup, scheduled for the following week. Kissinger ordered Korry to fly in secret to Washington that weekend for a dressing-down. Still not knowing about the CIA plan, Korry told Kissinger in a White House corridor that 'only a madman' would plot with Chile's ultra-right generals.

As if on cue, Kissinger opened the door to the Oval Office to introduce Nixon. Nixon - who described his ambassador as 'soft in the head' - did agree that, tactically, a coup could not yet succeed. A last-minute cable to the CIA to delay action was too late: the conspirators kidnapped and killed Chile's pro- democracy Armed Forces Chief, Rene Schneider. Public revulsion at this crime assured Allende's confirmation by Chile's Congress.

Even if the US president's sense of realpolitik may have disposed him to a modus vivendi with Allende - Korry's alternative if his Frei gambit failed - Nixon faced intense pressure from his political donors in business who were panicked by Allende's plans to nationalise their operations.

In particular, the president was aware that the owner of Chile's phone company, ITT Corporation, was illegally channelling funds into Republican Party coffers. Nixon could not ignore ITT - and ITT wanted blood. An ITT board member, ex-CIA director John McCone, pledged Kissinger $1 million in support of CIA action to prevent Allende from taking office.

Separately, Anaconda Copper and other multinationals, under the aegis of David Rockefeller's Business Group for Latin America, offered $500,000 to buy influence with Chilean congressmen to reject confirmation of Allende's victory. But Korry wouldn't play. While he knew nothing of the ITT demands on the CIA, he got wind of, and vetoed, the cash for payoffs from Anaconda and the other firms.

Korry, speaking last week from his home in Charlotte, North Carolina, disclosed that he even turned in to the Chilean authorities an army major who planned to assassinate Allende - unaware the officer was linked to the CIA plotters.

Once Allende took office, Korry sought accommodation with the new government, conceding that expropriations of the telephone and copper concessions (actually begun under Frei) were necessary to disentangle Chile from seven decades of 'incestuous and corrupting' dependency.

US corporations didn't see it that way. While pretending to bargain in good faith, they pushed the White House to impose a clandestine embargo on Chile's economy. But in case all schemes failed, ITT, claims Korry, paid $500,000 to someone referred to in their intercepted cables as 'The Fat Man'. Korry identified him as Jacobo Schaulsohn, Allende's ally on a committee set up to compensate firms whose property had been expropriated.

It was not money well spent. In 1971, when Allende learned of the corporate machinations against his government, he refused the compensation. It was this - the Chilean leader's failure to pay, not his perceived allegiance to the hammer and sickle - that sealed his fate.

The State Department pulled Korry out of Santiago in October 1971. On his return to the US, he advised the government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation to deny Anaconda Copper and ITT compensation for their seized property. Korry argued that, like someone who burns down their own home, ITT could not claim against insurance for an expropriation the company had itself provoked by violating Chilean law.

Confidentially, he recommended criminal charges against ITT's top brass, including, implicitly, chief executive Harold Geneen, for falsifying the insurance claims and lying to Congress.

Given powerful evidence against the companies, OPIC at first refused them compensation, and the Justice Department indicted two mid-level ITT operatives for perjury. But ultimately, the companies received their money and the executives went free on the grounds that they were working with the full co-operation of the CIA - and higher.

In September 1970 in a secret cable to the US Secretary of State, ambassador Korry quotes Jean Genet: 'Even if my hands were full of truths, I wouldn't open it for others.' Why open his hand now? At 77, one supposes there is a desire to correct history. He says only that it is important to take out of the shadows what he calls - optimistically - the last case of US 'dollar diplomacy'.

signed,
your friendly and much maligned nut,
drifting

Kann

farfromglorified wrote:

So whenever goods cost roughly the same amount, you assume that "large corporations are agreeing on prices"?

What about the corporations that do agree on price?
A few years ago here we used to have 3 mobile telephone providers with more or less the same price. After 4-5 years of price stagnation, a price collusion was proven by a justice decision, these providers were fined and since then the prices have dropped.
I can't see where this decision lies within a "liberal market" (liberal as in almost free market), but I think the court decision was right. I can't see the link with your quote from Adam Smith either. What laws should be abandonned to stop thes types of practise?