Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/13-1

I've written about some monopolies/near monopolies, like the control of 90% of the media by now five major corporations, reportedly.

One thing citizens of all political orientations shoulbe be able to understand is that monopoly is the achilles heel of capitalism - the inevitable result, if not prevented by outside force, read government.

I've said excessively concentrated wealth is one of our biggest dangers - one of the reasons is that it enables monopoly. That includes creating the political support for it, as the link above discusses.

Monopoly in turn is a natural partner for fascism. Monopoly fears government restraint, leading it to want the political influence to prevent such restraint; as a monopoly, it has the finiancial power to get that political influence, if the democracy is one where money is allowed to dominate, as ours is - now more than ever. It's a natural partnership - where politicians can get a big advantage to election by the support of the monopoly, and that spport can get the monopoly protection from opposition by the government. It's a natural partnership - and naturally compatible with fascism.

What better way for this dirty alliance to protect itself from the masses than to appeal to patriotism, to use nationalism, to neutralize its opponents? Advocates for reform are now disloyal.

It's one of many reasons to reign in concentration of wealth, reign in the role of money in politics, to reign in monopoly and 'too big to fail' - and 'too big to stand up to by citizens or politicians'.

It's a lot easier to fix these things now than after they get worse.

The Republicans aren't in a position to do it. The corporatist Democrats aren't in a position to do it. The Libertarian, the tea party, aren't in a position to do it. That leaves the Progressives.

We're at a point few citizens are aware of much of any of this consolidation of wealth and power going on - just a few symptoms, as their wealth is drained, and they are given propaganda who to blame.
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
That leaves the Progressives.
They are not in a position to do it, either because of:
few citicens are aware of much of any of this consolidation of wealth and power going on

And we can debate all day about minutiae but we need only look at this recession to find good evidence for the problems you've identified (government excessively influenced by corporations). There have been woefully few charges laid upon those who worked in an industry blamed in great part for this problem. And that industry has claimed to be so screwed it has received many billions of dollars and yet it still remains significantly intact without having a powerful government coming in and changing its direction. Any semi-sane entity with the power that the government wields would have hacked and shredded up the status quo in banking already. It's been two mother fvcking years. It won't happen, not with the teeth it needs.

Is it already too late? Ten years from how will the country be governed? Because I see it substantially governed now by corporate interests and their money. People are stupid, always have been, but there is much less now to protect us from ourselves. To simply dismiss that we can always vote what we want presumes a level of involvement that simply has never existed, hence the need to protect us from ourselves.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
We need monopolies to keep the government in check.

Wow. That might be the most wrongheaded thing I've seen in the forum this year. You just don't get it, do you, that power is power - that monopoly and government are not some 'yin/yang'.

You should really read up on the issues, the history of abuse of power - for one easy to read bit, read Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection" for the history of the East India company and the British rulers.

Private interests can dominate the people. The government can barely exist, letting them do it; it can be allied with them, helping them do it; or it can represent the public, preventing their doing it.

Private power has never and will never protect the public from the government. If the government isn't serving the people, it's allied with the private power - or it is the private power.

You have clearly fallen victim to the ideology that the private power poses no threat to you, only the government. And that's dangerous.

The government powers aren't going away. They'll be wielded on behalf of the people, or on behalf of concentrated interests against the people. We know your pick.
 
Last edited:

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
We get our electricity from monopolies. We get our fresh water from monopolies.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Who will protect the people from the government?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
We get our electricity from monopolies. We get our fresh water from monopolies.

Hence their being some of the most regulated industries - and when they buy their way out of that regulation, we get Bush's #1 donor, energy company Enron.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Who will protect the people from the government?

No you don't get it. The government having a monopoly on health care, and ultimate control based on law and backed by people who can take your property, livelihood, and liberty is a good thing. It's not like they have any real power they can abuse.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
How exactly is that a monopoly?
5 different(and completely unrelated) corporations controlling a 90% market share is a monopoly?

Maybe the progressives have a different meaning of monopoly that the rest of the world?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Maybe the progressives have a different meaning of monopoly that the rest of the world?


To be fair, a monopoly has long been recognized as sometimes being more than one corporation. Five is pushing it though.

A more legitimate way of phrasing things would be to ask if large corporate entities have substantial influence on how news is allowed to be presented, and how one can determine if it's so.

Now that would be a less confrontational way of approaching things, something which wouldn't occur to some posters.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Here is the problem with "progressives" - yes there poses a threat to the country if just a few entities control most of the media we access.

"Progressives" say the problem is big evil corporations, and the solution is to have the government take control of the media (let's leave out the "minor" detail of this creating an even _greater_ monopoly)

The real problem is that we citizens do not value media. We are not willing to *pay* for news, for journalism, any more. Unless *that* changes, there will *always* be a problem, no matter how well a system the "progressives" devise. Giving control to the government is hardly ever the answer, because someone along the way _will_ abuse that power, abuse it even more than corporations do.
 
Last edited:

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
How are progressives in a position to deal with this? Did they somehow gain a majority in Congress last night?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Here is the problem with "progressives" - yes there poses a threat to the country if just a few entities control most of the media we access.

"Progressives" say the problem is big evil corporations, and the solution is to have the government take control of the media (let's leave out the "minor" detail of this creating an even _greater_ monopoly)

I don't think that Progressives support a government takeover and/or control of media. Oligopolies are just as dangerous as monopolies with the added bonus of giving citizens the illusion of choice. If anything, the more reasonable solution would be to take a page out of T. Roosevelt's book and split up the media conglomerates like we should be doing with the big banking/investment firms. This would give citizens much more choice and allow them to take a much larger role in shaping modern political discourse.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Government is the biggest monopoly. :D

Agreed, we need to take power away from the Federal Government and put it back in the hands of the States and the local governments. The Feds are the most dangerous monopoly we have.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Seriously, the guberment can force any number of media outlets out there into the market.

But we are free people. We can choose to listen or not listen to anyone we want. The guberment can pour billions into running Air America 2.0, but if no one chooses to listen to that crap, then what "progress" have we made?

Well, what we have done is taken money away from whomever the "progressives" decide has too much power, and given it to, that's right, "progressives"! Isn't that their whole goal?
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I don't think that Progressives support a government takeover and/or control of media.

Some do. And if not done extremely carefully, some one will come along and abuse the power that "progressives" set up. Think of Hugo Chavez, someone who Craig repeatedly praises, and wishes America was headed by a guy like him.