Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[Jhhnn]

The premises of the metaphor do not reflect real life in our current economic system. That's because the shitter owns the yard & charges the rest rent to live in it. He owns lots of yards, makes money from all of 'em collectively so he can buy even more. He'll shit anywhere he wants based on his property rights. All the yards operate on the same principle- most people will never own their own yard. Obviously, they should have no say in who shits where, should they?

The problem of your metaphor is it does not take into account competition. If a world exists where you dont have any other choice, its almost always because governments have set up a monopoly.

Maybe I am wrong. If I am, please show me where a company has been able to stop competition without government backing. All the companies that I have seen try to, have lost that market. Its only been with government help have they been able to keep out competition.

You obfuscate, of course. The only competition taking place is to see who can extract maximum rents to profit investors in our detached & complex system of corporate ownership. The yards are owned by investors several times removed from actual life in what they own. They've never even been there. Their hedge fund owns the company that owns the company that owns the yards, & all they want is money. They all charge what the market will bear. They compete only for investors. That's also true for the mutual funds that own stock & bonds.

Which brings us back around to whether or not people who don't own should have a say, or not, which you neatly attempted to avoid.

It's not like participation in the economy is optional for any of us.

 

[realibrad]

So you are aware of them and yet you need specific examples? Clearly you aren't aware of "them".

So, you are aware of the term, yet you dont list any examples. Clearly you aren't aware of "them".

See how easily a weak argument can be turned around? You could have chosen to list an example, which should be easy if its so easily understood. You choose not to. Corner me with proof, and I will gladly change my mind. If I could change my mind, it would put me on the popular side of the argument.

 

[realibrad]

You obfuscate, of course. The only competition taking place is to see who can extract maximum rents to profit investors in our detached & complex system of corporate ownership. The yards are owned by investors several times removed from actual life in what they own. They've never even been there. Their hedge fund owns the company that owns the company that owns the yards, & all they want is money. They all charge what the market will bear. They compete only for investors. That's also true for the mutual funds that own stock & bonds.

Which brings us back around to whether or not people who don't own should have a say, or not, which you neatly attempted to avoid.

It's not like participation in the economy is optional for any of us.

I avoid nothing.

Can you explain, why corporations who are only competing for investment, also market to consumers? Can you explain why a company like Nokia is losing in the market it used to dominate? Why Sony is losing money? How are these huge companies worth billions and very obvious power, not able to make money?

The worst part about your argument, is that a company only competes for investors. If that were true, then you are assuming that the consumer will always buy. The only things a company is looking for, are people to back their expansion so they can get more of the market. That would totally ignore companies that go out of business as new products come out onto the market. Not to mention the fact that a company would have no reason to innovate other than to maybe lower production costs.

Companies have to sell their goods on the free market, unless they are forced to buy the good.

There are two ways people can have their voice heard. One way is through the economic choices they make. If you don't like that company A uses 20% more energy to make a product that company B also makes, but uses 20% less than company A, then you can choose to not buy from company B.

You can also vote as we live in a democracy. That is a totally different discussion to me. I have been talking about the economy and how that should be set up. If you want a political discussion, then open up a thread about that, and I may very well jump in there too.

People value Football over Hockey in the US. You would not say that fans own the teams, yet that can exercise their will by backing the sport over another. That is why hockey players are not paid as much as NFL players.

Did I miss anything? I dont want you to accuse me of avoiding anything.

 

[ivwshane]

So, you are aware of the term, yet you dont list any examples. Clearly you aren't aware of "them".

See how easily a weak argument can be turned around? You could have chosen to list an example, which should be easy if its so easily understood. You choose not to. Corner me with proof, and I will gladly change my mind. If I could change my mind, it would put me on the popular side of the argument.

Stay retarded

 

[realibrad]

Stay retarded

Looks like I have no other choice. I have offered you an opportunity to show me how I am wrong, and you have twice chosen not to.

 

[ivwshane]

Looks like I have no other choice. I have offered you an opportunity to show me how I am wrong, and you have twice chosen not to.

Not only did I show you but you continue to prove your aren't interested in knowing. Why should I keep wasting my time providing you with links when you don't bother reading them?

 

[realibrad]

Not only did I show you but you continue to prove your aren't interested in knowing. Why should I keep wasting my time providing you with links when you don't bother reading them?

What did you show me? I saw the term robber baron, and a link to a videos. Those videos might contain something, or they might not. Im not going to watch random videos and hope to stumble upon what you are talking about.

Give me an example of where a company held monopoly power and kept it with out the government helping them. The link to the definition did say this though...

accruing high levels of government influence

I wonder why the robber barons needed government influence?

Im not saying robber barons did not do terrible things. I am saying they did not keep out competition without government help.

Don't give me this weak argument of a link that defines what a robber baron is, and say that is proof.

 

[OverVolt]

He didn't inherit his billions. He knows his shit. People really do need to cut back. I personally love my hot showers and baths, so thats out. I'm cool with driving a Nissan instead of an audi or BMW though. People are on an unsustainable spending trajectory currently.

 

[ivwshane]

What did you show me? I saw the term robber baron, and a link to a videos. Those videos might contain something, or they might not. Im not going to watch random videos and hope to stumble upon what you are talking about.

Give me an example of where a company held monopoly power and kept it with out the government helping them. The link to the definition did say this though...



I wonder why the robber barons needed government influence?

Im not saying robber barons did not do terrible things. I am saying they did not keep out competition without government help.

Don't give me this weak argument of a link that defines what a robber baron is, and say that is proof.

So the list of 20+ people who were called robber barons under the heading, "List of businessmen who were labeled as robber barons", isn't good enough for you? Feel free to pick anyone of them to show how they couldn't acheive their success without the government.

 

[realibrad]

So the list of 20+ people who were called robber barons under the heading, "List of businessmen who were labeled as robber barons", isn't good enough for you? Feel free to pick anyone of them to show how they couldn't acheive their success without the government.

So, I started with John Jacob Astor, the first person on the list, and I got this.

Astor's business rebounded in 1817 after the U.S. Congress passed a protectionist law that barred foreign fur traders from U.S. territories.

The American Fur Company was founded in 1808 by John Jacob Astor, a German immigrant to the United States.[1] Under his leadership, the company grew to monopolize the fur trade in the United States by 1830, and became one of the largest and wealthiest businesses in the country.

So I ask to you, did you look up anyone? Do you really understand anything about these people?

I am not saying the people were nice and super cool. They did some awful things and should not be looked to as people.

 

[ivwshane]

So, I started with John Jacob Astor, the first person on the list, and I got this.





So I ask to you, did you look up anyone? Do you really understand anything about these people?

I am not saying the people were nice and super cool. They did some awful things and should not be looked to as people.

Lol! Well I guess you read at least one. The very next guy, Andrew Carnegie should sound familiar to you.

 

[realibrad]

Lol! Well I guess you read at least one. The very next guy, Andrew Carnegie should sound familiar to you.

Sorry wrong again as Carnegie was not a monopoly.

Carnegie is considered to have been a monopoly by just about everyone that is a teacher up until about college. Carnegie did control almost all of the US market, but only because others did not want steel at the time. That is, until Mr. Rockefeller threw his hat into the ring. See, Carnegie had a lot of power in the steel world. He got it through a couple of means. First was his efficiency in production. This allowed Carnegie to produce a product much cheaper than any other company. Why would anyone want to buy the same product but from a more expensive supplier? Next was Carnegie's ability to scale his company. Everyone wanted steel, and Carnegie had the best product at the lowest price. He was able to meet demand by growing his company to be able to produce as much as the market wanted. Next, he realized he could further reduce costs by owning the suppliers for steel. This further made his steel cheaper, and thus out compete the others in the market.

Your argument will be, "well duh, he had a VERTICAL MONOPOLY". The answer to that would be no. This is where Mr. Rockefeller comes in. Rockefeller bought a sweet ass thing called the Mesabi mines. Rockefeller starts selling iron ore to Carnegie's competitors. Wait, competitors? Oh dear boy, that is right, competitors. Had Rockefeller wanted, he could have directly gone after Carnegie. Why did Rockefeller not? He simply could not be bothered to start up another company. The steel industry was becoming more competitive as other firms were closing in on Carnegie.

So simply put, Carnegie was the dominant company, because they had a better product. They were not the only company in the industry, and others were able to enter the market and compete. The main reason Carnegie was able to keep back other companies, was by producing a product cheaper than any other company. At no point did Carnegie control the entire market, and he was losing more control until he eventually retired.

So, that makes me two for two. You have yet to give me a specific example. You have simply given vague descriptions of something. I will not do your research again. If you have a valid example with facts to back you up, I will respond to you. If you want to be lazy and feel you are right, then go right ahead. Just know that so far, you have looked like a fool on this topic.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! Keep going down the list! Pretty soon you'll realize just how bullshit your argument is once you've finished making excuses for every single one. All you've done so far is justify their monopoly which totally negated your claim that the free market leads to competition. Competition is simply a stop along the way towards a monopoly.

Funny how you mentioned Rockefeller.

 

[realibrad]

Lol! Keep going down the list! Pretty soon you'll realize just how bullshit your argument is once you've finished making excuses for every single one. All you've done so far is justify their monopoly which totally negated your claim that the free market leads to competition. Competition is simply a stop along the way towards a monopoly.

Funny how you mentioned Rockefeller.

How about you do some work for a change. I gave the challenge and did the work on two people. All you did was google robber baron and post a link to Wikipedia. In no way did you show anything. If I am as wrong as you believe me to be then it should be easy for you to give a specific example and explain what happened. So far you have not gotten close to an example.

List a name. Explain how it is a monopoly. It's just that easy. If you have more than one post that too.

Ill make you a deal. For every name and explanation you post, ill research and respond. You can even pm me if you don't want it to be public. So step up.

 

[ivwshane]

How about you do some work for a change. I gave the challenge and did the work on two people. All you did was google robber baron and post a link to Wikipedia. In no way did you show anything. If I am as wrong as you believe me to be then it should be easy for you to give a specific example and explain what happened. So far you have not gotten close to an example.

List a name. Explain how it is a monopoly. It's just that easy. If you have more than one post that too.

Ill make you a deal. For every name and explanation you post, ill research and respond. You can even pm me if you don't want it to be public. So step up.

Well, you mentioned Rockefeller so how about him? He had 91% market share of the oil industry and used his marker share to control prices. He was willing to take a loss in order to drive out competition. Competition that either couldn't compete and closed up shop, causing lost jobs and creating even less competition.

Speaking of competition, since you seam to think that the free market is this magical place. Are you familiar with any of the recent antitrust cases of the last 20 years? LCD, price fixing? Apple and e-books? Flash memory? DRAM?

Hell! I'm quite sure you are well aware of OPEC and it's influence on the global oil market! Competition at it's finest!

The examples are numerous and while a good deal of them where helped by government not all of them were and it's pretty naïve to even think that no examples exist where the government wasn't involved.

I gave you the simplest of links to do the research yourself, including videos for you to watch and see real historical examples. I can lead you to water but I can't force you to drink it.


Oh and by "research" you mean you'll do a quick google search for any counter view (as you did earlier), while not giving credit to the paper you are using and without verifying the validity of the source and the consensus conclusion of historical facts by their peers.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well, you mentioned Rockefeller so how about him? He had 91% market share of the oil industry and used his marker share to control prices. He was willing to take a loss in order to drive out competition. Competition that either couldn't compete and closed up shop, causing lost jobs and creating even less competition.

Speaking of competition, since you seam to think that the free market is this magical place. Are you familiar with any of the recent antitrust cases of the last 20 years? LCD, price fixing? Apple and e-books? Flash memory? DRAM?

Hell! I'm quite sure you are well aware of OPEC and it's influence on the global oil market! Competition at it's finest!

The examples are numerous and while a good deal of them where helped by government not all of them were and it's pretty naïve to even think that no examples exist where the government wasn't involved.

I gave you the simplest of links to do the research yourself, including videos for you to watch and see real historical examples. I can lead you to water but I can't force you to drink it.


Oh and by "research" you mean you'll do a quick google search for any counter view (as you did earlier), while not giving credit to the paper you are using and without verifying the validity of the source and the consensus conclusion of historical facts by their peers.

He's given you a trick question. It is rare that a company would have a true and total monopoly, with 100% of a market. The real issue is oligopolies, where some small number of companies effectively control a market together, often collaborating to control prices and territories. The effect on consumers is largely the same, but there is an illusion of choice that keeps "regulators" at bay.

His other point, that such oligopolies result from government meddling is equally misleading, reversing cause and effect. This goes back to my earlier comments about the powerful rigging the system. Once an interest is sufficiently powerful, it almost invariably seeks to corrupt government to reinforce its power. Any examples you give will usually have some elements of government protection, bought and paid for by the powerful interests owning the companies involved.

 

[ivwshane]

He's given you a trick question. It is rare that a company would have a true and total monopoly, with 100% of a market. The real issue is oligopolies, where some small number of companies effectively control a market together, often collaborating to control prices and territories. The effect on consumers is largely the same, but there is an illusion of choice that keeps "regulators" at bay.

His other point, that such oligopolies result from government meddling is equally misleading, reversing cause and effect. This goes back to my earlier comments about the powerful rigging the system. Once an interest is sufficiently powerful, it almost invariably seeks to corrupt government to reinforce its power. Any examples you give will usually have some elements of government protection, bought and paid for by the powerful interests owning the companies involved.

Possibly, but he'd have to use the most limited definition of monopoly to play that trick. The definition of monopoly also includes the ability to control the manipulation of prices.

 

[realibrad]

Well, you mentioned Rockefeller so how about him? He had 91% market share of the oil industry and used his marker share to control prices. He was willing to take a loss in order to drive out competition. Competition that either couldn't compete and closed up shop, causing lost jobs and creating even less competition.

So Rockefeller huh.

http://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil

Turns out, some who studied Standard Oil did not feel it was a Monopoly.

John McGee, who studied the Standard Oil case in unprecedented depth, reporting his results in two seminal Journal of Law and Economics articles, contrasted its role as the legendary "archetype of predatory monopoly" in the public imagination with the evidence, and determined that "Standard Oil did not use predatory price cutting to acquire or keep monopoly power."

and

McGee also went further than the specific evidence in the Standard Oil case to show that even if a firm intended to monopolize an industry, the predatory pricing "story" as a means of achieving it was riddled with logical holes. (That is, predatory pricing costs the supposed predator far more than it costs the prey, who can further expand the cost difference by temporarily shutting down. Unless the predator is allowed to buy up a victim driven to bankruptcy, others can buy up those assets cheaply, thus allowing them to again compete with the predator and reenter effective competition. Without the ability to prevent entry once monopoly pricing is attempted, the monopoly payoff disappears. Because it requires monopoly power to finance predation, predation cannot be the source of monopoly power.)

See, a Monopoly is supposed to keep prices higher then would otherwise happen. Standard oil in its lifetime had reduced the price of its product by 80%. It innovated and it was the reason things got cheaper. The main detractors of Stand Oil where its competitors. Again, do some research on the topic. Don't just look up names of people, and take short excerpts from Wikipedia.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1911 that antitrust law required Standard Oil to be broken into smaller, independent companies. Among the "baby Standards" that still exist are ExxonMobil and Chevron. Some have speculated that if not for that court ruling, Standard Oil could have possibly been worth more than $1 trillion today.[41] Whether the breakup of Standard Oil was beneficial is a matter of some controversy.[42] Some economists believe that Standard Oil was not a monopoly, and also argue that the intense free market competition resulted in cheaper oil prices and more diverse petroleum products; in 1890, Rep. William Mason, arguing in favor of the Sherman Antitrust Act, said: "trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to people of this country by the trusts which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprise"

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

The reason Standard Oil was labeled a Monopoly, is because other people felt it was unfair that Standard Oil drove them out of business because they were putting out a better product.

Ill respond to your other points later, as well as Bow's. I should be able to answer all of it today.

 

[realibrad]

Speaking of competition, since you seam to think that the free market is this magical place. Are you familiar with any of the recent antitrust cases of the last 20 years? LCD, price fixing? Apple and e-books? Flash memory? DRAM?

Hell! I'm quite sure you are well aware of OPEC and it's influence on the global oil market! Competition at it's finest!

I gave you the simplest of links to do the research yourself, including videos for you to watch and see real historical examples. I can lead you to water but I can't force you to drink it.


Oh and by "research" you mean you'll do a quick google search for any counter view (as you did earlier), while not giving credit to the paper you are using and without verifying the validity of the source and the consensus conclusion of historical facts by their peers.

Ok, so now on to the next part. You have now gone from my challenge to show when a Monopoly that was not backed by government protection to form, to me loving the free market and being blinded. So, even though I have not gotten anywhere close to saying that, I will respond.

Markets are not perfect. Many times, markets give outcomes that at best would be considered bad. The point I would make is that there is not a better system than markets at the moment. I would rather have markets where sometimes things go wrong, than a top down system where choice is eliminated. I do admit there is a very important role government plays in markets. That is the last I am going to comment on markets though. Bow accused me of the same thing, and I explained why that was wrong, and Ill do it once for you.

So, the examples of anti trust cases are mainly foreign. That is much too complicated to get into all of them, if you again simply reference them, and dont explain any facts to back it up. Again, you are being lazy.

I will go into the Apple case, as I think I can explain my stance on markets better there.

Amazon had been pushing down prices on books, and publishers were not happy. Apple came along and said, "would you like to sell books for more through Istore vs Amazon?" The publishers said yes. Apple said, "look, if this is going to work, we all have to work together to raise prices." Everyone agreed and so prices were raised.

Was that good for the market? Its murky, but I lean toward bad and I will assume you do as well. Was it sustainable? Not in the long run. The market would have likely worked it out. The government stepped in and said hey, that type of activity is not good for the market. The government in that case sped up the "correction". The argument could be made that the role of the government was to speed up the correction and reduce the waste from the slow moving market.

There was a cost though, as all the investigation and legal expenses was in the millions. It seems to me to be a worth while expense though.

That being said, Apple did not have a monopoly in the market. It was trying to gain one, and I don't think it would have worked. Its not an example for either of our arguments though, because it was stopped before it really started in terms of monopoly power.


Next is this little gem.

The examples are numerous and while a good deal of them where helped by government not all of them were and it's pretty naïve to even think that no examples exist where the government wasn't involved.

If it so prolific then list some damn examples and explain them. You keep saying things like "OPEC" which is absurd. Or even DRAM market, but no explanation. EXPLAIN!

I will now try and include references as apparently we now need them. Whatever, Ill do it. It is funny though how you did not use any sources. Hell, the best you did was link to a friggin video series from the History channel, as if linking to hours of random videos is somehow a source. If there was a video about monopolies then link to that damn video.

Talking to Bow is a lot more fun, because at least he puts some work into his stuff. So either step up or I am done with you.

 

[realibrad]

He's given you a trick question. It is rare that a company would have a true and total monopoly, with 100% of a market. The real issue is oligopolies, where some small number of companies effectively control a market together, often collaborating to control prices and territories. The effect on consumers is largely the same, but there is an illusion of choice that keeps "regulators" at bay.

His other point, that such oligopolies result from government meddling is equally misleading, reversing cause and effect. This goes back to my earlier comments about the powerful rigging the system. Once an interest is sufficiently powerful, it almost invariably seeks to corrupt government to reinforce its power. Any examples you give will usually have some elements of government protection, bought and paid for by the powerful interests owning the companies involved.

You have some good points, and I would like to address them. I have already posted a wall of text, so It might be easier to do them through PM, but let me know if you would rather I respond in this thread. I think I will likely be done with the other guy soon.

 

[ivwshane]

You have some good points, and I would like to address them. I have already posted a wall of text, so It might be easier to do them through PM, but let me know if you would rather I respond in this thread. I think I will likely be done with the other guy soon.

Let me help you because you don't seem to understand how message boards work.

You said,

The problem of your metaphor is it does not take into account competition. If a world exists where you dont have any other choice, its almost always because governments have set up a monopoly.

Maybe I am wrong. If I am, please show me where a company has been able to stop competition without government backing. All the companies that I have seen try to, have lost that market. Its only been with government help have they been able to keep out competition.

I then told you were wrong and that monopolies have indeed existed without government help. I then provided you with links so you can read up on what you supposedly already know. You ignored the links and asked for examples, after you finally read at least something from the link I provided I then gave you another example which fit all of your criteria. Your response? You posted some garbage that "some economist believe that standard oil was not a monopoly", with zero citation as to who these economists are. I can find scientist that think climate change isn't real, I can find scientist that believe in god, that doesn't mean they are right nor does it mean it's the correct position.


"Almost done with this guy", lol! Kid you never even started

 

[realibrad]

Let me help you because you don't seem to understand how message boards work.

You said,



I then told you were wrong and that monopolies have indeed existed without government help. I then provided you with links so you can read up on what you supposedly already know. You ignored the links and asked for examples, after you finally read at least something from the link I provided I then gave you another example which fit all of your criteria. Your response? You posted some garbage that "some economist believe that standard oil was not a monopoly", with zero citation as to who these economists are. I can find scientist that think climate change isn't real, I can find scientist that believe in god, that doesn't mean they are right nor does it mean it's the correct position.


"Almost done with this guy", lol! Kid you never even started

Wait, just so my kid brain understands. I ask for an example when a company was able to set up a monopoly without government help, and you give names from a Wikipedia list of Robber Barons and that is you providing proof I am wrong?

Also, I give a citation of an economist back on post #268. His name was John McGee. He did research on the topic. Look, if you are not going to read anything, then fine. I'm going to respond to Bow as he at least makes far more effort to be understood and establish points.

I asked for when companies have been able to set up monopolies, and you give me a list of robber barons without any description as to the relevance. I showed how the first was backed by the government, the 2nd and 3rd were not monopolies. A company that has a better product at a cheaper price is not a monopoly, its a better company.

So unless your next post has anything worth responding to, we are done.

 

[johnwick]

edit I have no idea why I can't get the link to work,.. hijacking Bowfinger's post (thank you Bowfinger);




And, why do we need to live with far less?


Ah, yes! In order to "win" back the job that use to give an American $15/hr, but is now giving an Indian, Philapino or Polish person $6/hr, the Americans need to 'reinvent' their whole system of life, to be able to live off of a $6 or less salary!

Wait, does that mean that the cost of living will be adjusted as well?

Doubtful.

Well, how about we follow his whole system of life?


,.. ah. Yes, another case of do as I say, not as I do.

At some point he's right.

 

[realibrad]

He's given you a trick question. It is rare that a company would have a true and total monopoly, with 100% of a market. The real issue is oligopolies, where some small number of companies effectively control a market together, often collaborating to control prices and territories. The effect on consumers is largely the same, but there is an illusion of choice that keeps "regulators" at bay.

I would disagree with the trick question part. I also don't think its trivial that a company would not have 100% of the market either.

It is true that the economy is not in a vacuum. Governments very often break up companies or activities that they consider monopolistic. My stance is far easier to defend.

I think the best point you have is oligopolies. They tend to form in much the same way as trade unions. Companies band together to to improve their situation at the depriment of others. This can happen when the barriers to entry are high enough to dissuade others from entering the market as the profits would not be worth the time, as the investment could be better spent other places.

That being said, it would mean that the firms already in that market are at a very low profit margin. There is always investment, and it looks for the highest return. If the returns are that low, it means the profits must also be low. Ultimately it means that there is not enough demand to warrant investment into that market with the current returns. That really just means that the market does not really care about that issue, more than other issues.

His other point, that such oligopolies result from government meddling is equally misleading, reversing cause and effect. This goes back to my earlier comments about the powerful rigging the system. Once an interest is sufficiently powerful, it almost invariably seeks to corrupt government to reinforce its power. Any examples you give will usually have some elements of government protection, bought and paid for by the powerful interests owning the companies involved.

This goes back to my statement about not operating in a vacuum. I agree with your logic that a company that has power will want to keep that power. The part after that is where we differ. I think a company can come to dominate a market because it offers a better product/service at a price point. I think you might agree that is not a problem. So google dominating search ads is not really a problem, as its a win win for customers and consumers. It would only be a problem if it were doing something other than competing with a better product that there would be an issue.

If a company is seeking government protections, its because it wants to be isolated from competition.

Normally, we see more and more disruption to established markets as time goes on. Technology and innovation makes it harder to keep power. IBM, Yahoo, and GM are all examples of what happens when competition comes in. All 3 used to "control" their markets. For IBM and Yahoo, it was almost overnight they lost their power.

Ill grant you that firms can dominate a market, and that markets may not be perfect in their speed, but long run they head in the right direction. Governments can help speed things up, but more often than not are used as a tool of companies to protect profits.