Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
strawman based on an illogical extreme. research is more like a military operation, it can be focused and directed (but that is only effective to a certain extent as usually breakthroughs in multiple fields tend to build knowledge allowing breakthroughs in the target field). not to mention i haven't argued for the dismantling of anything. boberfett want to get rid of regulation, maybe you should take it up with him.

actual delivery of medicine is not the same thing. it's inherently diffuse and is an artisanal practice with every situation being slightly different, but often in important ways to the outcome.



as for the financing aspect, if california wants to put everyone on kaiser they can do it and see how it goes. if it goes well, other states can follow. if it turns out to be a disaster, then other states will know better.

WTF are you talking about? I give an example contrary to your assertion that health care should be left up to the states and you have a hissy fit about breakthroughs in multiple fields and some BS about regulations?

Address my points if you can without creating your own strawmen in the process. The CDC works and it wortks very well, but according to you it should have been left up to the states? Please, don't we all need to have the same level of health care, not just the rich states, but all the people. Is this not a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people or do the rich states think they deserve better health care then everyone else?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
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.

I never saw him or anyone state that the government should take over the media as the solution. Congrats on the straw man!
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
CDC is a monopoly is it not? There is just one in the nation.

Moreover, if a State decided they didn't like the CDC's actions, are they allowed the freedom to remove their portion of the funding and start their own CDC?

As you can see I'm making the case that it is monopolistic, unaccountable, and has the power of federal law behind it. The people do not really have a say into, or control over it.

You want this for their health care as well?

But is the CDC working?? YES or NO?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
This thread is now about

strawman+III.jpg
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Incredibly naive. History is full of companies who took a market advantage and used it to leverage their competitors out of business, then used their monopoly position to soak the consumer. Do some reading on John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust.
I have. As much as I despise the Rockefeller family, that doesn't change the fact that he was efficient and he sold good oil at a good price. He did screw over the people who worked for him, but not his customers.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Incredibly naive. History is full of companies who took a market advantage and used it to leverage their competitors out of business, then used their monopoly position to soak the consumer. Do some reading on John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust.

Post backfire!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
CDC is a monopoly is it not? There is just one in the nation.

Moreover, if a State decided they didn't like the CDC's actions, are they allowed the freedom to remove their portion of the funding and start their own CDC?

As you can see I'm making the case that it is monopolistic, unaccountable, and has the power of federal law behind it. The people do not really have a say into, or control over it.

You want this for their health care as well?

You are not very knowledgable abotu the theory of your own country. This falls under "democracy", the people have a say over it through their vote. Ther right to 'petition the governemnt'.

Running a governmet agency is something the right doesn't understand very well (read Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" for how the right believes government is incompetent - and proves it when in charge).

So they just invent that it's a DISASTER compared to anything else, not knowing the evidence.

The CDC works pretty well, and better than the alternatives the right would try under their ideology.

What makes a monopoly especially harmful is the way its insatiale quest for profit removes the effecin cies of the free market competition to improve and discount to a minimally fair profit.

That doesn't apply to the government 'monopolies'. The CDC isn't out to gouge higher profits. But the ignorant right can't get that - or take it to a thread about the government issue.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
take it to a thread about the government issue.

Do you make people bow when they meet you?

Governments can do one thing that corporations cannot. Once they take a thing over they will not give it back. In NY the government is talking about closing state parks, they have stolen our taxes so teachers are being laid off, and why? So they can fund their obscenely run programs. That's who we're supposed to trust. I guess we can ask them to change and they will, right? Yeah. Pull the other one.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
Do you make people bow when they meet you?

Governments can do one thing that corporations cannot. Once they take a thing over they will not give it back. In NY the government is talking about closing state parks, they have stolen our taxes so teachers are being laid off, and why? So they can fund their obscenely run programs. That's who we're supposed to trust. I guess we can ask them to change and they will, right? Yeah. Pull the other one.

Is it worse than Detroit where Private Corps shutdown Factories?
 

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
Monopolies are bad, except when it comes to unions and to government. Right.

There exist natural monopolies, artificial monopolies(cartels), government monopoly, and state sanctioned monopolies. The first may exist(although I find that to be not only rare, but almost always not truly natural), Cartels are hard to maintain, and most people are used to government monopoly. The fourth is undoubtedly the worst, and most monopolies that people claim are natural are really only monopolies because of government power.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Do you make people bow when they meet you?

Governments can do one thing that corporations cannot. Once they take a thing over they will not give it back. In NY the government is talking about closing state parks, they have stolen our taxes so teachers are being laid off, and why? So they can fund their obscenely run programs. That's who we're supposed to trust. I guess we can ask them to change and they will, right? Yeah. Pull the other one.

Just one thing? :awe:
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Xe or blackwater is a business, that provides services like the U.S. military. They don't sell products they provide a service. The government has a monopoly on military force, if they did not have and enforce this monopoly, then companies could hire Xe to protect their interests in foreign countries. The governments actions that prevent companies from using Xe to advance their aims militarily does make them a monopoly (in this case at the very least a semi-good monopoly). In fact, in the past the United States has conducted military actions that were primarily for the benefit of businesses in the US.

In ancient roman times, the fire departments were a business. In several third world countries, the courts are almost a business, where the citizen who brings the largest gift almost always win the decision.

The government provides services, business provide services. The services the government should provide are those services that would be ill served by private entities, but the government does provide services. For example, you mentioned the EPA. We could let private companies perform the services of the EPA, it would be a disaster, but we could do it.

Government monopolies have different problems then private monopolies, but the fact is that the government does indeed have a monopoly on several different services. In England, the government used to grant government monopolies on things like salt and gunpowder through their power to regulate. They were in the business of regulating and creating monopolies, if a person gave the government enough money, they could buy monopoly status. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Our government is currently providing the service of regulating monopolies, and if someone can spend enough money on bribes they can "buy" regulatory actions that help the company. (I am from Illinois, our state government is very deep in the business of regulation for bribes)

The reason this is important is because Craig started off the discussion by stating that monopolies are bad for the people. He also makes several false implications, that monopolies are the inevitable result of capitalism, that concentration of wealth leads to monopolies, that government is always needed to prevent monopolies through regulation. It is important to realize that the government is just another form of monopoly, because it makes it clear that the argument is not about how to stop monopolies, but about how to best organize the private and public sector. Craig is hiding his actual argument, behind a false "monopolies are bad" statement. He is smearing the entire private sector as a bad evil corporate machine that is going to generate evil monopolies that will destroy our lives if we do not place the progressive democrats in power to protect us.

He has several good points, and his intentions are good, but he assumes the government monopolies are good by definition because they are the government, while business monopolies are bad by definition because they are businesses. Illinois provides examples of how the government monopoly can be bad (licenses for bribes). It would be interesting to have a good debate about how monopolies, oligopolies and the government should be setup, but he is so vague and intentionally misleading that it would not be productive.

If Illinois had a California-esque "recall" clause for elected officials, it would be a different story.

I'm from IL.

I'm with Craig on this one. I'll take a Monopoly that I can vote out, over a Monopoly that I can't.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
WTF are you talking about? I give an example contrary to your assertion that health care should be left up to the states and you have a hissy fit about breakthroughs in multiple fields and some BS about regulations?

Address my points if you can without creating your own strawmen in the process. The CDC works and it wortks very well, but according to you it should have been left up to the states? Please, don't we all need to have the same level of health care, not just the rich states, but all the people. Is this not a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people or do the rich states think they deserve better health care then everyone else?

i've been talking about delivery of medical care this whole time. particularly how it is paid for. that's been the big national discussion for the last X months. have you been under a rock or something?

hey, i know, let's take a look on my first post on the subjection of medical care in this thread:
no where near as much benefit would be had. delivering medical care is done on a very distributed basis and doesn't need the large direction of funds and manpower all working toward clear goals in the same way as a military expedition.

holy crap what do you know, i talked about delivery of care. not r&d or statistics gathering or epidemiology, which is most of the CDC's business.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
If govt regulates the monopolies, then who regulates govt, the biggest monopoly of them all?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
You are not very knowledgable abotu the theory of your own country. This falls under "democracy", the people have a say over it through their vote. Ther right to 'petition the governemnt'.

Running a governmet agency is something the right doesn't understand very well (read Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" for how the right believes government is incompetent - and proves it when in charge).

So they just invent that it's a DISASTER compared to anything else, not knowing the evidence.

The CDC works pretty well, and better than the alternatives the right would try under their ideology.

What makes a monopoly especially harmful is the way its insatiale quest for profit removes the effecin cies of the free market competition to improve and discount to a minimally fair profit.

That doesn't apply to the government 'monopolies'. The CDC isn't out to gouge higher profits. But the ignorant right can't get that - or take it to a thread about the government issue.

Actually, not surprisingly, you are practicing revisionist history. The CDC runs the way it does BECAUSE of the right, and because of the vision of someone you progressives hate: industrialist John Rockefeller, and the CEO of Coca Cola. Free enterprise at work! Dont let facts get in the way though ;)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Do you make people bow when they meet you?

Governments can do one thing that corporations cannot. Once they take a thing over they will not give it back. In NY the government is talking about closing state parks, they have stolen our taxes so teachers are being laid off, and why? So they can fund their obscenely run programs. That's who we're supposed to trust. I guess we can ask them to change and they will, right? Yeah. Pull the other one.
Governments can also make you use (or at least pay for) their product or service whether you wish it or not. And they can legally use armed force and imprisonment if you fail to please them. In fact, governments can do lots of things that corporations cannot - include create monopolies at will and enforce them as long as they wish.

It's cute when you argue with him like he's a real person though.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
If govt regulates the monopolies, then who regulates govt, the biggest monopoly of them all?

The government is always looking out for your best interest. There is no need to regulate it. All hail the government!
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Bureaucrats don't care about votes and politicians once voted in rarely ever get voted out.

the only way harris county commissioners leave office is draped in a sheet or in handcuffs.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,736
10,044
136
I'm with Craig on this one. I'll take a Monopoly that I can vote out, over a Monopoly that I can't.

What monopoly can you vote out? Do try to explain this one.

For the vast majority of voters, Democrats or Republicans are evil incarnate and you'll vote Democrat or Republican to stop the other side.

On a poll people want smaller government, but when it comes time to vote for it there is literally no power to do what they want. The ballot is stacked with the two incumbent parties who only care to empower themselves.

Where is this imaginary power you think voters have to "vote out" a monopoly?


Not only can you not vote out such monopolies, they have the power of law behind them. Worse still, government is supposed to be a watchdog to protect the people from monopolies. It'll never protect us from itself, from its OWN monopolies. Those go unchecked, with the power of law, without a watchdog. Yet THIS is what you want? :hmm:
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
What monopoly can you vote out? Do try to explain this one.

For the vast majority of voters, Democrats or Republicans are evil incarnate and you'll vote Democrat or Republican to stop the other side.

On a poll people want smaller government, but when it comes time to vote for it there is literally no power to do what they want. The ballot is stacked with the two incumbent parties who only care to empower themselves.

Where is this imaginary power you think voters have to "vote out" a monopoly?


Not only can you not vote out such monopolies, they have the power of law behind them. Worse still, government is supposed to be a watchdog to protect the people from monopolies. It'll never protect us from itself, from its OWN monopolies. Those go unchecked, with the power of law, without a watchdog. Yet THIS is what you want? :hmm:


I have to disagree here. We DO have the power to vote out monopolies, if by that you mean particular government institutions or programs, by voting for candidates who support disbanding those programs. The reason we lack de facto power is because we have made ourselves powerless because we do not send clear messages to our elected officials.

The most salient example is that everyone worries over the deficit and wants "fiscally responsible government," and lots of people say in polls that they want "smaller government," but every *particular* thing an elected official would do to address those concerns is also politically unpopular. That is our fault. In a democracy, politicians doing what they can to get re-elected is the nature of the beast, and everyone ought to be aware of that. Accordingly, if we support something like fiscal responsibility or smaller government, we need to send a clear message that we not only support such things *in theory*, but that we also support the sacrifices that have to be made to make those things happen. Saying you want "smaller government" is nothing but a slogan, but saying you want the government to *cut Medicare* to save on the defict, for example, and that an elected official who pursues that course of action will be re-elected - that is a true exercise of power.

In short, we have the power. We just choose not to exercise it in a coherent manner. We send mixed messages to our elected officials, and accordingly, nothing gets done. There is a difference between having no power, and having power that we don't know how to use. The notion that the problem is caused by evil republicans or evil democrats is a deflection of responsibility. It's a copout.

- wolf