Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

[Craig234]

You are SO right Craig!!

I have been watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox and my god they all have the same point of view!!! It is amazing. If I closed my eyes I wouldn't even know which channel I am watching!!!

They have the same bias. How different are newscasts on CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox on corporate issues?

Even when you get one network saying "Dems great Repubs suck!" and another saying "Repubs great Dems suck!", they're both playing the 'distract the voters, don't talk about class issues' game.

But it's a larger issue than a quick chat here and not really the thread topic.

What is really amazing is that 20+ years ago when there were 50+ owners and this great 'diversity of thought' as you claim there was absolutely NO conservative voices any where to be found. Why is that?

Rather than answer, I'll snipe, 'Darwin worked'.

Rather than all the manufactured, subsidized, created audience for the modern 'conservatives' which is really little more than propaganda for the rich combined with attacks on the other side, people then had a little more common sensical view in ways - even while many were more naive in some ways as well. THere was an expectation of the government to serve the people - something like 80%of the public had confidence int he government to serve the people effectively in the 40's to JFK, unlike under 20% today when the monied interests have created a movement to cripple democracy.

It's not just onstructing the government in Congres, as they abuse the filibuster, it's obstructing the whole nation creating dissension among the public, preventing it from protecting its interests.

The government has always, for example, investigated and convicted wrongdoers in scandals - war profiteering, the Great Depression, even the 80's S&L scandal; in the current one, not one conviction.

Not even any fixes, as there were to the earlier scandals.

The right-wing propaganda is working well for its sponsors - our democracy is broken.

 

[lothar]

It has nothing to do with that, but funny enough, there is a reported story about it.

When Olbermann and O'Reilly were going after each other more and more with frequent attacks, they started to attack each others' parent companies, exposing wrongdoing.

So the CEO's of each company talked and said this isn't good for them and agreed to order their own host to back off.

The hosts denied it, but attacks went from a high number up to the meeting to almost zero after. Google it for the report.

Again it's not the issue but since you mentioned it, what the heck. It is a tiny taste of the effect of that 'corporatocracy bias', which is heard far more loudly in simply stories not covered, in 'slant'.

Olbermann and O'Reily going at each others throats and attacking each others parent companies by exposing wrong doing won't lead to more people watching "The News Hour" with Jim Lehrer.

It would only lead to people who were "leaning" towards MSNBC to FOX, and those who were leaning towards FOX to MSNBC after their attacks. The majority diehards won't be changed on both sides regardless. The minority won't start watching BBC or Jim Lehrer because of such spat going on between the companies.

 

[Craig234]

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

This is what you wrote. If you didn't think they were an example of 'monopolies/near monopolies' then why did you use that comparison?

THat was background to the thread toipc. And that's why the phrase 'near monopoly' was used, and explained later. Why 'monopoly like issues' were identified.

Because there ARE some 'monopoly like' issues with the consolidated media ownership - but it's not directly the same as the typical monopoly, as I discussed.

It's different in ways - there's a certain amount of competition, a healthy amount in many ways (500 channels, as Dire Straits counted), yet the corporate ownership has a sitfling effect.

I pointed you to a book, at least to a google, to read a little. If you can't bother that much...?

Diversification of ownership won't solve a thing.

Yes, it would.

If Rupert Murdoch were to diversify/divest his TV operations from his newspapers/Movies and appoint his son as head of it and the new shareholders of the newspapers approve of this(they will because all current stock holders of News Corporation would get equivalent shares in the *new* newspaper and movie companies) it won't change a thing.

That's not diversification. Thousands of independant media owners iis diversification, not his son.

If Obama was to force a breakup of the Rupert Murdoch empire, it won't achieve any effect.
Read up on Carlos Slim Helú of Mexico and how he became the second richest man in the world.
By divesting operations of TelMex(Teléfonos de México) domestic, TelMex international, América Móvil, and appointing all his sons as head of the companies.
Sure legally and on papers they're separate entities, but you'd have to be naive that they actually are just because it says so on a piece of paper.

You repeat your confusion about diversification and family members. That's not diversification.

 

[Craig234]

Olbermann and O'Reily going at each others throats and attacking each others parent companies by exposing wrong doing won't lead to more people watching "The News Hour" with Jim Lehrer.

It would only lead to people who were "leaning" towards MSNBC to FOX, and those who were leaning towards FOX to MSNBC after their attacks. The majority diehards won't be changed on both sides regardless. The minority won't start watching BBC or Jim Lehrer because of such spat going on between the companies.

"It has nothing to do what that", I wrote.

You have severe reading comprhension problems.

 

[lothar]

It has nothing to do with that, but funny enough, there is a reported story about it.

When Olbermann and O'Reilly were going after each other more and more with frequent attacks, they started to attack each others' parent companies, exposing wrongdoing.

So the CEO's of each company talked and said this isn't good for them and agreed to order their own host to back off.

The hosts denied it, but attacks went from a high number up to the meeting to almost zero after. Google it for the report.

Again it's not the issue but since you mentioned it, what the heck. It is a tiny taste of the effect of that 'corporatocracy bias', which is heard far more loudly in simply stories not covered, in 'slant'.

You seem to suffer from severe reading comprehension problems yourself.

 

[nobodyknows]

Sounds like a great reason to oppose single payer government run healthcare.

Thanks Craig

And fire depts, police depts, municipal utlities, etc, etrc, etc.

 

[lothar]

You repeat your confusion about diversification and family members. That's not diversification.

So if I give control to my best friend(s) or somedude I trust that isn't a family member, then that fits your definition of diversification?

 

[Craig234]

You seem to suffer from severe reading comprehension problems yourself.

You're being a nitwit. The fact I told an anecdote because you happened to name the exact people in it, saying before and after the anecdote it's not the issue, and you can't understand that...

I'm not going to pad the thread further with pointint out your nonsense at this time. IF you go make SOME effort to look at Ben Bagdikian's commentary and say something relevant, maybe it'll be better.

 

[MikeMike]

Craig man, honestly, i find a FEW of your posts intriguing, but dear god, do you believe what you are writing for real?

 

[ebaycj]

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.

Bullshit.

There's a reason Brazil and India aren't laying down new POTS service.. It's way cheaper to just have everyone use cell phones.

Cell phone bills are more expensive and the infrastructure is less expensive than land lines.

Explain that.

 

[ebaycj]

The point is, you were wrong in thinking



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.

We lag behind in value (services provided per dollar). Also, hardware.

For example, where else are you billed (a) for incoming calls, and (b) for incoming texts, and (c) 0.20 per text, and (d) 0.20 per minute overage. Nowhere else, that's where.

Billing for incoming calls and incoming texts = Cell phone companies doubling their profits by double billing their customers.

 

[ebaycj]

Wait healthcare isn't a business?

It shouldn't be.

 

[Genx87]

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

Tis a good question. Wonder what his stance is on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft controlling 99% of the console market? Or how about AMD and Intel controlling 95% of the CPU market?

Other than that, Monopolies are obviously not good for an open and free market.

I havent read this thread but my guess is Craig wont get his own point. And advocate the ultimate monopoly of govt.

 

[Genx87]

"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.

You have as much power to influence these corporations with your wallet. And 99% of the time you will achieve more than petitioning your corrupt public official. Stop watching TV, stop buying from Walmart, stop eating McDonalds. Watch those corporations change or die off. You wont get that in big govt. Nothing dies in big govt.

 

[Jaskalas]

You have as much power to influence these corporations with your wallet. And 99% of the time you will achieve more than petitioning your corrupt public official. Stop watching TV, stop buying from Walmart, stop eating McDonalds. Watch those corporations change or die off. You wont get that in big govt. Nothing dies in big govt.

That is a great point. Moreover, government is in place with the power to safe guard and protect us from monopolies. However, it'll never protect us from itself due to conflict of interest. If our watchdog becomes the monopoly then who is going to protect us from THAT?

A monopoly with the force of law behind it is the worst kind.

 

[BigDH01]

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.

Is this an admission that limited choice is a Pareto superior alternative to efficient free markets (at least in some markets)?

 

[BoberFett]

And fire depts, police depts, municipal utlities, etc, etrc, etc.

Are your fire and police departments federal? Are your utilities federal?

Tell you what, if your city wants universal health care, go for it.

 

[ElFenix]

And fire depts, police depts, municipal utlities, etc, etrc, etc.

and each municipality/district/etc. is competing for my taxpayer dollars against each other. people commonly move to or from certain areas based on .gov services (particularly schools).

 

[Acanthus]

You can bitchslap a monopoly without taking it over.

See: AT&T, Microsoft (in appeal), Intel (pending investigations), etc.

 

[daishi5]

Not if the government is really running it, it's not. There are very different interests at play if it's being run by the government or for-profit corporations.

But we don't have a private monopoly on healthcare in this country today, so it's not relevant to the thread, either, other than if you have some speculation about if the private sector did have a monopoly on it.

Now the drug companies are another matter, with more 'monopoly-like' issues - and if you can't tell the difference between the government researching a drug and a big pharma company, how ignorant is that?

Monopolies are regulated by the government, government regulation of monopolies is a monopoly in and of itself.

 

[palehorse]

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.

I'm sure you'll get to those in due time.

You say the government is a monopoly - apparently the government has a terrible monopoly on police (as opposed to security guards and private 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.

First, physical protection of the people is one of the Government's only constitutionally mandated functions -- ie. Fed police, FBI, military, justice system, etc.

The regulation of education, food, cars, drugs, TV, airwaves, etc. is all well above and beyond what is mandated or even necessary. Each and every one of the regulatory bodies that was created to address any one of those things has become corrupt, bloated, over-bearing, and perhaps worst of all, over-reaching.

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 monopoly so that 'Standard Oil can protect the public from the government', makes sense. They're derailing the thread IMO.

We already have legal mechanisms in place to prevent monopolies and to break them up wherever they surface. What do you feel is missing from those current laws and processes?

Does this post actually have to do with monopolies, or is it simply an attack on concentrated wealth? Or whatever threshold you have determined as "excessive wealth"?

 

[soccerballtux]

..

 

[Craig234]

Monopolies are regulated by the government, government regulation of monopolies is a monopoly in and of itself.

Certain things belong in the 'competitive free market' and are subject to monopoly. Regulation isn't one.

And we have 'free competition' for the government, not monopoly: it's called elections. Different people and parties compete for who the people want to compete. They're not perfect - fix them.

What's especially broken about them is the deep pockets of the corporatocracy the thread is about.

Since you missed it the first three times, cut and paste again:

[Anyone] 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 monopoly so that 'Standard Oil can protect the public from the government', makes sense. They're derailing the thread IMO.

 

[Craig234]

You can bitchslap a monopoly without taking it over.

See: AT&T, Microsoft (in appeal), Intel (pending investigations), etc.

Who said anything about taking them over? That's not the fix. Regulation is. 'Not too big' is. Forcing real competition, diversity of owenrship, is. The corporatocracy dominating government threats regulation.

This is why the Bush administration - not that many Democrats hands are clean but it's a clear example - had 'pay to play' priorities and appointed hundreds of industry representatives as regulators.

They made the government serve the corporatocracy, not the people.

 

[Fern]

Talk of monopolies is silly.

There aren't any (but the one that I've heard of - Unimin)

Media monopoly? Bwuhahaha. Ever heard of the internet, magazines, foreign press, talk radio (and not just the national like Limbaugh, there are tons of local shows)?

Microsoft is a monopoly? Oh, FFS get a Mac, or switch to one of the many flavors of Linux.

This thread topic seems to fit my sig.

Fern