Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

[sandorski]

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!

Fail

 

[txrandom]

Is government taking control of healthcare a monopoly?

 

[blackangst1]

Is government taking control of healthcare a monopoly?

Welfare != taking control. Now, if it was single payer, then yes. But I dont see us going single payer for a long, long time. Overreaching in say so as to private business? Perhaps. But no where near a monopoly.

 

[sandorski]

Is government taking control of healthcare a monopoly?

No.

 

[Craig234]

Is government taking control of healthcare a monopoly?

Since you missed it the first time, cut and paste:

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

 

[txrandom]

Since you missed it the first time, cut and paste:

Just answer the question and don't beat around the bush.

 

[Craig234]

Just answer the question and don't beat around the bush.

It's a different type of 'monopoly' unrelated to this thread. Go start your own if you want to discuss it.

 

[txrandom]

It's a different type of 'monopoly' unrelated to this thread. Go start your own if you want to discuss it.

Nope, your title talks about monopolies that aren't good for the public. I think government controlled healthcare isn't good for the public.

 

[Craig234]

Nope, your title talks about monopolies that aren't good for the public. I think government controlled healthcare isn't good for the public.

The thread is about private monopoly in the US as the word is commonly understood. Not your ideology about te government, not about people who play too much about the Parker Brother's gam, not about the way Jimi Hendrix had a monopoly on his sound, not about the Soviet Union's communist monopoly, not about married partners having a 'monopoly' on sex with one another, despite it being Valientine's Day.

If you have some tangent about the government, make your own thread. Don't derail my thread with it.

 

[MotF Bane]

It's a different type of 'monopoly' unrelated to this thread. Go start your own if you want to discuss it.

Nope, it's a type of monopoly too. You left the thread title open to all monopolies.

 

[sandorski]

Nope, it's a type of monopoly too. You left the thread title open to all monopolies.

Fail. Threads clearly about Business Monopoly, the very same type of Monopoly as is used whenever the term Monopoly is used in discussing matters related to Society.

 

[blackangst1]

The thread is about private monopoly in the US as the word is commonly understood. Not your ideology about te government, not about people who play too much about the Parker Brother's gam, not about the way Jimi Hendrix had a monopoly on his sound, not about the Soviet Union's communist monopoly, not about married partners having a 'monopoly' on sex with one another, despite it being Valientine's Day.

If you have some tangent about the government, make your own thread. Don't derail my thread with it.

You hijack threads with your polluted ideology all the damn time. Dont like your own medicine huh?

 

[txrandom]

Fail. Threads clearly about Business Monopoly, the very same type of Monopoly as is used whenever the term Monopoly is used in discussing matters related to Society.

Wait healthcare isn't a business?

 

[sandorski]

Wait healthcare isn't a business?

Only in the US, pretty much. Besides, HC Reform isn't close to do anything near turning HC into Single Payer, nevermind anything close to a monopoly.

 

[Craig234]

Wait healthcare isn't a business?

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?

 

[lothar]

Colluding oligopoly = monopoly for all intents and purposes.

Colluding oligopoly = monopoly for all intents and purposes.

Prove to me that they are.
So you're saying Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, the NBC execs, and others are all colluding with each other doing backroom deals for the purpose of stifling competition?

What absurd claim are you and Craig234 going to suggest?
That Bill O'Reily, Larry King and Keith Olberman are all secretly colluding with each other doing backroom deals to stifel competition?
Rush Limbaugh, and the executives at Air America are all secretly colluding with each other doing backroom deals to stifel competition?

That argument makes zero sense.

 

[lothar]

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.

Prove to me that the media companies are doing that.
So you're saying Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, the NBC execs, and others are all colluding with each other doing backroom deals for the purpose of stifling competition?

What absurd claim are you and Craig234 going to suggest?
That Bill O'Reily, Larry King and Keith Olberman are all secretly colluding with each other doing backroom deals to stifel competition?
Rush Limbaugh, and the executives at Air America are all secretly colluding with each other doing backroom deals to stifel competition?
That argument makes zero sense.

Also, broadband is a government created monopoly.
Comcast pays mayors of cities and towns millions to prevent their competitors like Verizon FiOS from coming to town through implementation of absurd rules, regulations, ordinances, and negotiations.
That is a government created monopoly because they accepted cash from a corporation which kills competition.

 

[lothar]

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.

Get back to me when Rupert Murdoch has a monopoly on fast food, on clothing, on groceries, on music, on electronics, on movies or books.
Get back to me when Rush Limbaugh has a monopoly on fast food, on clothing, on groceries, on music, on electronics, on movies or books.

See how that works?

 

[Craig234]

Prove to me that the media companies are doing that.
So you're saying Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, the NBC execs, and others are all colluding with each other doing backroom deals for the purpose of stifling competition?

Read what I already wrote, how many times do you think I should repeat it for you?

The media situation is another one - it's not a monopoly, exactly, it's a lack of diversificatrion of ownership.

Go read the book I mentioned by media expert Ben Bernake for the reasons why this is bad for democracy, since you don't know (or at least google for the summary on the web).

And to repeat this again, having 90% of the media controlled by 5 of the biggest corporations creates a massive pro-corporate bias and restriction for the anti-corporatocracy voices to get heard.

What absurd claim are you and Craig234 going to suggest?
That Bill O'Reily, Larry King and Keith Olberman are all secretly colluding with each other doing backroom deals to stifel competition?
Rush Limbaugh, and the executives at Air America are all secretly colluding with each other doing backroom deals to stifel competition?
That argument makes zero sense.

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'.

How many stories about the issue with the 'concentration of wealth', about reframing the society from 'left right' popcorn battles the media loves to report to 'a few rich against everyone else' divisions do you see?

Also, broadband is a government created monopoly.
Comcast pays mayors of cities and towns millions to prevent their competitors like Verizon FiOS from coming to town through implementation of absurd rules, regulations, ordinances, and negotiations.
That is a government created monopoly because they accepted cash from a corporation which kills competition.

You migjht have a good point about broadband. As I said, powerful interests control the government to protect them instead of the public. Getting rid of the government would increase that.

 

[Craig234]

Get back to me when Rupert Murdoch has a monopoly on fast food, on clothing, on groceries, on music, on electronics, on movies or books.
Get back to me when Rush Limbaugh has a monopoly on fast food, on clothing, on groceries, on music, on electronics, on movies or books.

See how that works?

No, I see a big lack of reading comprehension and very big ignorance, too big to bother trying to correct.

 

[ProfJohn]

Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

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

Thanks Craig

 

[MikeMike]

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.

ah, good old Regulation... hey, let's make artificially high barriers to entry, because the government knows whats best for us.

troll thread is troll

 

[Craig234]

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

Thanks Craig

Since you missed it the first two times - maybe a few more will be enough for our bad readers:

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

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

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!!!

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?

 

[lothar]

Read what I already wrote, how many times do you think I should repeat it for you?

The media situation is another one - it's not a monopoly, exactly, it's a lack of diversificatrion of ownership.

Go read the book I mentioned by media expert Ben Bernake for the reasons why this is bad for democracy, since you don't know (or at least google for the summary on the web).

And to repeat this again, having 90% of the media controlled by 5 of the biggest corporations creates a massive pro-corporate bias and restriction for the anti-corporatocracy voices to get heard.

"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?

Diversification of ownership won't solve a thing.
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.

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.