Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

[Jaskalas]

Who will protect the people from the government?

Government monopoly is good, or so it would seem.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Same problem, different master. Power needs to be taken away from the government, ANY government, and given to the private sector. aka the people. Government monolithic power abuse is just as damaging to the population as corporate. Moreso in some cases.

 

[Rainsford]

Same problem, different master. Power needs to be taken away from the government, ANY government, and given to the private sector. aka the people. Government monolithic power abuse is just as damaging to the population as corporate. Moreso in some cases.

"The people"? The private sector is WAY less representative than government, because it's often controlled by a very small number of individuals over whom the average person has absolutely no control.

Government at least gives us a vote. If you don't like the bastards, vote 'em out. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but time and time again the government switches direction because the people are sick of what it's currently doing. In theory we can vote in the corporate world with our wallets, but that doesn't seem to work as well as we might hope.

The other problem is that government at least pays lip service to (and I'm sure some politicians actually believe in) the idea that government exists to serve the people. Corporations exist ONLY to make a profit. If they can do that by absolutely screwing over the people, they'll do it in a heartbeat. They aren't evil, but profit is king, and if a company is nice, it's only because there is no profit in being otherwise.

Personally, I think absolute faith in the market is worse than absolute faith in the government. The government isn't perfect, but at least it's an institution created with the basic idea of helping people. The market exists to make money for some people. Of course it should be preserved, but only because it's a way to generate wealth. It is not now, and never has been an alternative to the government.

 

[BoberFett]

Government creates monopolies.

 

[Matthiasa]

Not all monopolies or oligopolies are bad. They tend to be formed when market certain market conditions are met, such as high economies of scale and a heavy upfront capital investment requirement to name a few. In those cases breaking them up or restricting their expansion can actually increase costs to consumes.

What they charge is never the most they can, just optimized price in which they make the most money. That is of course a price in most instances lower then would otherwise be charged in a market with more companies competing.

Examples of such in operating systems, power companies, even the so called evil telecommunications companies. Its just how it works, the first is due to easy of consumer use so that software just works and doesn't have to be ported to 100's of different operating systems which takes time and money. The other two be examples of such to the high capital costs. Power plants cost billions of dollars to create but once completed cost almost nothing to run. The other example also has similar issues in that it is very capital intensive to set up the required networks.

The are of course numerous other examples that are more relevant, but I really don't feel like going into them right now.

 

[blackangst1]

"The people"? The private sector is WAY less representative than government, because it's often controlled by a very small number of individuals over whom the average person has absolutely no control.

Government at least gives us a vote. If you don't like the bastards, vote 'em out. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but time and time again the government switches direction because the people are sick of what it's currently doing. In theory we can vote in the corporate world with our wallets, but that doesn't seem to work as well as we might hope.

The other problem is that government at least pays lip service to (and I'm sure some politicians actually believe in) the idea that government exists to serve the people. Corporations exist ONLY to make a profit. If they can do that by absolutely screwing over the people, they'll do it in a heartbeat. They aren't evil, but profit is king, and if a company is nice, it's only because there is no profit in being otherwise.

Personally, I think absolute faith in the market is worse than absolute faith in the government. The government isn't perfect, but at least it's an institution created with the basic idea of helping people. The market exists to make money for some people. Of course it should be preserved, but only because it's a way to generate wealth. It is not now, and never has been an alternative to the government.

Oh really? Then why is it an average joe rarely, if ever, gets elected? Why is it unless a candadate is well funded they cant get elected on their merits? Talk about where only a few rich benefit...

Of course corporations exist to make a profit. Hello Captain Obvious! Im curious why that is a bad thing?

I would argue government itself exists to serve itself, not the people. You seem to have a naive view that politicians are there to actually do whats in the best interest of the people. LOL! They're there to stay elected. I know you arent that stupid.

Personally, I think absolute faith in the market is worse than absolute faith in the government. The government isn't perfect, but at least it's an institution created with the basic idea of helping people. The market exists to make money for some people. Of course it should be preserved, but only because it's a way to generate wealth. It is not now, and never has been an alternative to the government

I agree. But there are very few who have "absolute faith" in either. Government has its place for sure. But so does business. And again thanks for the obviuous statement of why business exists. Sure, there are those politicians who really go into office to help and serve the people. Just as there are those companies who go into business to do the same; however, the majority of businesses go into business with the idea of getting bigger and increasing revenue. Unfortunately too many liberals think thats a wrong motive for doing business. Its not.

 

[ebaycj]

How exactly is that a monopoly?
5 different(and completely unrelated) corporations controlling a 90% market share is a monopoly?

It's an OLIGOPOLY, and it's pretty much the same thing.

See: US Cell Phone Industry vs. (rest-of-world) Cell Phone Industry.
or
See: US Broadband vs. (rest-of-developed-world) Broadband, (with broadband signifying combined TV/Data/Voice services to the home).


In both cases, we pay 2-3x as much (or more), and get "old" technology in return.

 

[blackangst1]

It's an OLIGOPOLY, and it's pretty much the same thing.

See: US Cell Phone Industry vs. (rest-of-world) Cell Phone Industry.
or
See: US Broadband vs. (rest-of-developed-world) Broadband, (with broadband signifying combined TV/Data/Voice services to the home).


In both cases, we pay 2-3x as much (or more), and get "old" technology in return.

Kind of like countries where cell phone technology is cutting edge...like Philippines (2 providers, SMART and Globe), Taiwan (3 providers, Taiwan Cell, Chunghwa, and FarEast tone), or Japan (3 main providers, Softbank, Willcom, and NTT)...


like that you mean?

 

[ebaycj]

Kind of like countries where cell phone technology is cutting edge...like Philippines (2 providers, SMART and Globe), Taiwan (3 providers, Taiwan Cell, Chunghwa, and FarEast tone), or Japan (3 main providers, Softbank, Willcom, and NTT)...


like that you mean?

The real test is an even comparison of services provided per dollar. Monopolies / Oligopolies are only bad when they actually make use of their Monopoly / Oligopoly power to screw their customers into paying more for services.

See: Government regulated power monopolies / government regulated h2o monopolies / etc....

 

[Matthiasa]

Some people using other countries for examples fail at realizing just how much larger the US is in land area then all of their examples. Any country that is off similar size to the US tends to be just as slow and expensive due to how much it costs for the networks.

 

[Craig234]

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.

Thanks for the good post after so many incredibly bad ones to the thread.

In the 80's, a top media comm entator wrote a book about the crisis of how the diversity of owneership of media had gone fro many thousands of owners and voices to only 50 owning most things.

It was considered a big danger, Now it's from 50 to 5.

When we're talking about the media, five is a huge lack of diversity. And all five are effectively one voice as far as the 'big corporate agenda' is concerned. They have much in common - it's one voice largely.

The solution here may not be 'breakup' like Standard Oil, but rather returning (once again) to the laws pre-Reagan which limited media ownership by companies - not allowing meda media companies.

As bad as monopoly is in economic activities - like standard oil or AT&T before they were broken up - media, the basis for citizens to get information, is especially dangerous.

I wrote how the one danger monopolies worry most about is the government standing up to htem on behalf of hte people - owning the media is a good way to prevent that.

 

[Craig234]

Government monopoly is good, or so it would seem.

Any idiot who talks about "government monopoly" should go make their own thread and pollute somewhere else.

Get back to me when the government has a monopoly on fast food, on clothing, on groceries, on music, on electronics, on movies or books.

You say the government is a monopoly - apparently the government has a terrible monopoly on police (as opposed to security guards and pivate security), on criminal courts, on the FBI, on the FCC, close to it on education as opposed to private that would do so much better with all children, close to it on prisons which do so much better when private, the FDA, the USGS, the military apart from the 'privatized' forces that have outnumbered military in current wars for much higher cost, the state department.

The issues with real monopoly are nothing to do with this nonsense. However, as I said, when monopoly is too powerful, it creates an increasing relationship with the government. Then you have an issue.

What if Theodore Roosevelt had taken huge campaign donations from Standard Oil and DEFENDED them as a monopoly? THAT'S the problem when it happens.

But we have ideologues here saying that Roosevelt doing just that, SUPPORTING monopolyt so that 'Standard Oil can protect the public from the government', makes sense. They're derailing the thread IMO.

 

[BoberFett]

Thanks for the good post after so many incredibly bad ones to the thread.

You are a piece of shit Craig. You are the reason people hate liberals.

 

[Rainsford]

Oh really? Then why is it an average joe rarely, if ever, gets elected? Why is it unless a candadate is well funded they cant get elected on their merits? Talk about where only a few rich benefit...

Of course corporations exist to make a profit. Hello Captain Obvious! Im curious why that is a bad thing?

I would argue government itself exists to serve itself, not the people. You seem to have a naive view that politicians are there to actually do whats in the best interest of the people. LOL! They're there to stay elected. I know you arent that stupid.



I agree. But there are very few who have "absolute faith" in either. Government has its place for sure. But so does business. And again thanks for the obviuous statement of why business exists. Sure, there are those politicians who really go into office to help and serve the people. Just as there are those companies who go into business to do the same; however, the majority of businesses go into business with the idea of getting bigger and increasing revenue. Unfortunately too many liberals think thats a wrong motive for doing business. Its not.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think "increasing revenue" is a bad motive for doing business. I think it's a bad way to run a country, or help the people who live there. Business has its place, it's making money. It is not an alternative to government.

Now as for my "naive" view of government...of course I'm not blind to the faults of politicians and the political system as a whole. But here's the thing, government's purpose is at least in theory to help the voters. And while no government is perfect at doing this, that puts government lightyears ahead of the business community that doesn't even PRETEND to be helping people.

The alternative to bad government is better government, not handing more control over to private industry.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now as for my "naive" view of government...of course I'm not blind to the faults of politicians and the political system as a whole. But here's the thing, government's purpose is at least in theory to help the voters. And while no government is perfect at doing this, that puts government lightyears ahead of the business community that doesn't even PRETEND to be helping people

The problem is that while corporations are a problem, government isn't a good solution being in practice more concerned about party than anything else.

You also bring up an interesting point in that theoretically one can vote out those who have a POV or policy which is lacking. That person could also start a business, hire reporters and compete directly with the Big 5 (whoever they are) and put them out for business or at least force them to produce a better product.

Yes, in theory both what you say and my non serious proposal are possible. In practice? I don't think so.

The best that can be done is for the public to be aware of the bias of news outlets and more important, conformation bias which is ruinous.

 

[Rainsford]

The problem is that while corporations are a problem, government isn't a good solution being in practice more concerned about party than anything else.

You also bring up an interesting point in that theoretically one can vote out those who have a POV or policy which is lacking. That person could also start a business, hire reporters and compete directly with the Big 5 (whoever they are) and put them out for business or at least force them to produce a better product.

Yes, in theory both what you say and my non serious proposal are possible. In practice? I don't think so.

The best that can be done is for the public to be aware of the bias of news outlets and more important, conformation bias which is ruinous.

I suppose the real point I'm trying to make is that I don't see business and government as two ends of a sliding scale, where more of one gives us less of the other. They exist in separate spheres to do separate things. Of course there is some overlap, but that overlap is about accomplishing different goals. The real problems come in when you have both entities trying to accomplish the SAME goal. Government should never try to do what business can be doing, it's a supplement. I don't want the government growing my food for me, but I don't mind if they make sure my food I buy from a business isn't going to kill me.

A big reason I'm a liberal is that I think the job of government is to do the things businesses can't or won't do. Or in other words, to do the things that need to be done but aren't economically desirable to do. Providing health care and education for poor people, for example, isn't something you're going to get rich doing, so assuming the free market will take care of it is silly. On the other hand, there is no need to have government employed doctors actually PROVIDING the health care, since private sector doctors are very well trained and do a great job.

 

[dmcowen674]

How exactly is that a monopoly?
5 different(and completely unrelated) corporations controlling a 90% market share is a monopoly?

Collusion = monopoly

 

[sandorski]

Corporate Monopoly as a counter balance for Government? Fuckin stupid idea.

The People are the counter balance to Government. Corporations do not have your best interest in mind. Only their own interest and if history has shown anything it is that they are willing to Kill you if there's enough Profit in it.

If Government isn't operating in your Interest, that's your own damned fault.

 

[blackangst1]

The real test is an even comparison of services provided per dollar. Monopolies / Oligopolies are only bad when they actually make use of their Monopoly / Oligopoly power to screw their customers into paying more for services.

See: Government regulated power monopolies / government regulated h2o monopolies / etc....

The point is, you were wrong in thinking

See: US Cell Phone Industry vs. (rest-of-world) Cell Phone Industry.

Very bad example. The rest of the world doesnt have choice like we do in the USA. It has NOTHING to do with oligopolies. We have about the free-est cell phone market on the planet.

And Im not sure what you mean when you say we lag behind. You must be talking about hardware.

 

[blackangst1]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think "increasing revenue" is a bad motive for doing business. I think it's a bad way to run a country, or help the people who live there. Business has its place, it's making money. It is not an alternative to government.

Now as for my "naive" view of government...of course I'm not blind to the faults of politicians and the political system as a whole. But here's the thing, government's purpose is at least in theory to help the voters. And while no government is perfect at doing this, that puts government lightyears ahead of the business community that doesn't even PRETEND to be helping people.

The alternative to bad government is better government, not handing more control over to private industry.

Fair enough-I misunderstood. While I agree with your statement "government's purpose is at least in theory to help the voters", without including the statement "and also to make sure business can thrive, grow, and compete globally" it is an untrue statement. Unless we agree to disagree about the role of government.

 

[piasabird]

The fallacy is that most Democrats get all kind of funding from corporations. However, after O'Bammah gets done, trying to blame all of the world's ills on corporations, I dont see how any Corporation can support the leftist facists.

 

[Rainsford]

The fallacy is that most Democrats get all kind of funding from corporations. However, after O'Bammah gets done, trying to blame all of the world's ills on corporations, I dont see how any Corporation can support the leftist facists.

Right...except that's the fallacy in the argument that the left is anti-corporation. Democrats get all sorts of corporate funding, and propaganda aside, President Obama (and most liberals) DON'T blame corporations for all the world's ills.

After all, while some conservatives are trying to sell this as a sudden change, the fact is that conservatives have ALWAYS called liberals anti-corporate socialists. Yet liberals still have yet to take an axe to corporations or turn the US into a communist country...and they still get support from left leaning companies.

I wonder why...

 

[Rainsford]

Fair enough-I misunderstood. While I agree with your statement "government's purpose is at least in theory to help the voters", without including the statement "and also to make sure business can thrive, grow, and compete globally" it is an untrue statement. Unless we agree to disagree about the role of government.

Sure, I'd agree with that. After all, businesses are owned by voters, and they employ voters. Their economic success is vital to the economic success of the country as a whole.

I think the WAY government helps businesses is more what they don't do than what they do. Businesses generally have the resources necessary to do things on their own, and they are pretty good at it. Government's job is to stay out of the way to the extent possible, while not neglecting the other government responsibilities.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure, I'd agree with that. After all, businesses are owned by voters, and they employ voters. Their economic success is vital to the economic success of the country as a whole.

I think the WAY government helps businesses is more what they don't do than what they do. Businesses generally have the resources necessary to do things on their own, and they are pretty good at it. Government's job is to stay out of the way to the extent possible, while not neglecting the other government responsibilities.

And on that I would agree also.

 

[MotF Bane]

Who will protect the people from the government?

Nobody needs to. The government is absolutely benevolent, and will never ever abuse its power. It doesn't even have any power, instead, you should give it some. And some more, and a little more after that!