Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

[BoberFett]

Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

Good riddance, shit stain.

 

[BoberFett]

civil lawsuits and criminal law are retrospective. they really can't make people whole, much as we like to pretend. plus, discovery is a bitch, especially years down the road. further, they vary 50 different ways in 50 different states, and even within states. in these circumstances, up-front inspection on a national level makes sense.

further, compliance with applicable safety statutes should never be a complete defense. violation of applicable safety statues should be a prima facie case or in the very least res ipsa loquitur.

Retrospective yes, but you will never put enough regulation in place to prevent bad behavior by those who either wish to defraud others or don't care about causing others harm. And unless you're omnipotent, and I know I certainly am not, it's impossible to have up front inspection to ensure 100% compliance. And even then, up front inspection is only a part of it. You also need 24/7 compliance monitoring in perpetuity. If everything is up to code today, what's to say that a company doesn't start pumping poison into the water supply tomorrow?

Unless you have infinite funds with which to monitor an infinite number of possible harms the dream of regulation preventing harm is just that, a dream. Honest people will be honest, dishonest people will be dishonest. You don't know which is which until after the fact, which is why retrospective action is the only sensible answer. And it requires real penalties, such as prison for the officers of the company. None of this hand slapping bullshit that we do to companies now. Piling on more and more regulations will improve nothing and only result in us living in Gilliam's Brazil.

 

[Anarchist420]

Didn't have time to read but the first page but there are two reasons monopolies happen:
Either because the alternatives suck, or because the government granted the monopoly (i.e., patents, regulations) or a combo of both.
Big pharma would be forced to lower their prices if it weren't for the state granting them patents.

Regulations can help water and electricity companies.

If someone produces a product that's so good, and they're incredibly efficient, and sell it at good price, then they'll have a monopoly. They shouldn't be trust-busted.

If somewhere sells a lousy product, and sells at a high price, they won't last long.

 

[nobodyknows]

military really only works on a coordinated national level. and because it benefits all if it benefits one, it makes sense for the .gov to do it.

You mean the military works BEST on a coordinated national level. So would health care.

 

[ElFenix]

Retrospective yes, but you will never put enough regulation in place to prevent bad behavior by those who either wish to defraud others or don't care about causing others harm. And unless you're omnipotent, and I know I certainly am not, it's impossible to have up front inspection to ensure 100% compliance. And even then, up front inspection is only a part of it. You also need 24/7 compliance monitoring in perpetuity. If everything is up to code today, what's to say that a company doesn't start pumping poison into the water supply tomorrow?

Unless you have infinite funds with which to monitor an infinite number of possible harms the dream of regulation preventing harm is just that, a dream. Honest people will be honest, dishonest people will be dishonest. You don't know which is which until after the fact, which is why retrospective action is the only sensible answer. And it requires real penalties, such as prison for the officers of the company. None of this hand slapping bullshit that we do to companies now. Piling on more and more regulations will improve nothing and only result in us living in Gilliam's Brazil.

of course you can't prevent all harm. what you've just done is taken a point and gone to an illogical extreme with it.

you need both up front inspection and penalties afterward. exp: a plane falls from the sky because regular maintenance wasn't carried out. with just retrospective civil/criminal actions: you can sue the company that didn't do it but a) that doesn't bring back anyone from the dead; b) it has a chilling effect on air travel in general because people don't trust the airlines quite as much. all the airlines want to be regulated and want to have inspections because those that do proper maintenance don't want to have passenger volume decrease because those that don't have planes fall out of the sky.

and yes, of course that creates barriers to entry. as much as they bitch about it industry likes to be regulated because it prevents disruption and barriers to entry.


but hey lets just toss the building code out the window. no one needs to be told how to build a skyscraper. if it collapses everyone can just sue everyone else.

You mean the military works BEST on a coordinated national level. So would health care.

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.

i don't see why it shouldn't be done on a state level with different regulatory schemes in place to see what works best. you can't do that with, say, a state by state directed military (it's been tried twice), but you really could do it with medicine.

 

[MotF Bane]

You mean the military works BEST on a coordinated national level. So would health care.

No correlation.

 

[Craig234]

Maybe I failed to understand your implications in the first post and other posts, but it really is not important. If you want to discuss how our society uses government to regulate monopolies, you can't ignore that the ability to regulate monopolies is a government monopoly. It isn't the same as a private monopoly, but it is a monopoly and suffers many of the same problems. I am just a little frustrated that you keep trying to brush away the problems with your solution with a "that is a different topic." If your solution to the problem is a progressive government, then problems with government are indeed part of the topic.

Why is it so hard for some people to say explictly they withdraw a false attack like 'intentionally misleading'?

I don't care for having to try to read between the lines and guess maybe it was intended. It sure wasn't so subtle when it was made.

Seems to me it's still an outstanding statement.

 

[blackangst1]

You mean the military works BEST on a coordinated national level. So would health care.

Mushrooms grow best in shit. Therefore, so would lettuce.

 

[nobodyknows]

Mushrooms grow best in shit. Therefore, so would lettuce.

People are not mushrooms, no matter how hard you try to keep them in the dark and feed them shit. Everybody in our society deserves health care just as much as they deserve defense.

Too bad, so sad, but keep showing us what a-holes you tightie-rightie trust fund babies really are. I'll go so far as predict a backlash from the voters if some kind of health care initiative isn't reached that will fill in the gaps that exist in the current health care system. It's only a matter of time until the current system blows up in our/your face and drags the whole system down with it. Everyone knows this.

 

[nobodyknows]

No correlation.

^^^ no vision or common sense ^^^

 

[blackangst1]

People are not mushrooms, no matter how hard you try to keep them in the dark and feed them shit. Everybody in our society deserves health care just as much as they deserve defense.

Too bad, so sad, but keep showing us what a-holes you tightie-rightie trust fund babies really are. I'll go so far as predict a backlash from the voters if some kind of health care initiative isn't reached that will fill in the gaps that exist in the current health care system. It's only a matter of time until the current system blows up in our/your face and drags the whole system down with it. Everyone knows this.

rofl

Lots of people dont know, but you for sure dont Prophetic username, sir.

 

[daishi5]

Why is it so hard for some people to say explictly they withdraw a false attack like 'intentionally misleading'?

I don't care for having to try to read between the lines and guess maybe it was intended. It sure wasn't so subtle when it was made.

Seems to me it's still an outstanding statement.

Your right, I went to far with the assumption of it being an intentional attempt to mislead. I do wish to discuss monopoly regulation more in depth, but I need some time to look some stuff up again.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

i don't see why it shouldn't be done on a state level with different regulatory schemes in place to see what works best. you can't do that with, say, a state by state directed military (it's been tried twice), but you really could do it with medicine.

Is every state different? Of course, but the common element is people. We all get sick with the same ailments. Shall we dismantle the Centers for Diesease Control also and every state will have their own? Does that also make sense??

 

[nobodyknows]

rofl

Lots of people dont know, but you for sure dont Prophetic username, sir.

LOL, I don't know much but I sure as hell know a lot more then a punk like you, sir.

 

[blackangst1]

LOL, I don't know much but I sure as hell know a lot more then a punk like you, sir.

AAwwww you making me cry. I thought you silly liberals were all about treating people fairly.

*sniff sniff*

 

[MotF Bane]

Mushrooms grow best in shit. Therefore, so would lettuce.

The same sort of reasoning he used, well chosen.

 

[Craig234]

Your right, I went to far with the assumption of it being an intentional attempt to mislead. I do wish to discuss monopoly regulation more in depth, but I need some time to look some stuff up again.

Thanks. We can pick up the discussion of monopoly regulation, but the idea of 'governemnt as monopoly' is IMO a right-wing ideological red herring that derails the discussion of private monopoly.

We don't confuse the discussion of football players' stats and issues like steroids by saying 'the referees cause points to be scored or lost too and are no different than the players'.

The government's basic role in the issue of private monopoly is pretty simple in that it's either representing the public and regulating, or not representing the public and serving private power to enjoy monopoly.

There's more to it when you get into the specifics like patents and copyrights versus traditional monopolies but the basic issue is about the private sector. The OP has been pretty much lost in the thread.

The fact we can have anyone say 'we need private monopoly to protect us from the government' shows how bad the public ignorance can be. It's like saying we need the mafia to protect us from the FBI.

 

[nobodyknows]

AAwwww you making me cry. I thought you silly liberals were all about treating people fairly.

*sniff sniff*

Who said I was a liberal? I'm a Demopcrat and as such I have no problem with seeing some GOP blood flowing in the streets. In fact I can hardly wait, maybe I'll start the blood letting myself?? Buwhahaha

 

[nobodyknows]

The same sort of reasoning he used, well chosen.

Idiots of a feather

 

[BoberFett]

but hey lets just toss the building code out the window. no one needs to be told how to build a skyscraper. if it collapses everyone can just sue everyone else.

You don't think companies building skyscrapers have a vested interest in keeping the skyscraper standing?

And do you really think it's regulations and not engineers that keep them standing?

 

[ElFenix]

You don't think companies building skyscrapers have a vested interest in keeping the skyscraper standing?

And do you really think it's regulations and not engineers that keep them standing?

who do you think wrote the regulations?


a houston favorite: slime in the ice machine! who is going to sue over that? without inspections, who is going to know about it?

 

[ElFenix]

Is every state different? Of course, but the common element is people. We all get sick with the same ailments. Shall we dismantle the Centers for Diesease Control also and every state will have their own? Does that also make sense??

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.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...If someone produces a product that's so good, and they're incredibly efficient, and sell it at good price, then they'll have a monopoly. They shouldn't be trust-busted.
If somewhere sells a lousy product, and sells at a high price, they won't last long.

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.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is every state different? Of course, but the common element is people. We all get sick with the same ailments. Shall we dismantle the Centers for Diesease Control also and every state will have their own? Does that also make sense??

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?

 

[MotF Bane]

Who said I was a liberal? I'm a Demopcrat and as such I have no problem with seeing some GOP blood flowing in the streets. In fact I can hardly wait, maybe I'll start the blood letting myself?? Buwhahaha

Quoted for posterity.