would you support ending all monopolies?

[BoberFett]

If its so wasteful and expensive, then companies will not do it. What you would likely end up seeing, is a company that builds and maintains those last lines and leases out space to companies. Newegg does not make the vast majority of their products, they are just the retailer. The whole system of electric from producer to consumer is profitable. If its not profitable, then I would say you were right.

Every stage would have a value. UPS does not make a graphics card, but they do allow Nvidia to ship them to a retailer. The retailer does not make the graphics card, but it allows the gpu that Nvidia made to be sold to a customer. So if it can work for graphics cards, why would it not work for electric?

Company A makes the electricity. Company B builds and maintains an electrical network. Company C is the sales interface from the customer. Company C tells company A how much it needs, Company A puts out that much power, and Company B charges either Company A or B to transport it.

This happens everyday for many different industries, so why would it not work with electric, or gas, or internet?

Except that in most cases right now, Company A, B and C are the same company due to local/state monopolies. Rather than do things correctly, states and cities just handed off the last mile to these companies so they would deal with that hassle and expense and gave them a monopoly in return. Now everyone is whining about the monopolies. We took the easy way out in the beginning and now we're crying about the results.

 

[MongGrel]

Damned Commies, we'll never have a Star Trek world at this rate.

:whiste:

 

[realibrad]

Except that in most cases right now, Company A, B and C are the same company due to local/state monopolies. Rather than do things correctly, states and cities just handed off the last mile to these companies so they would deal with that hassle and expense and gave them a monopoly in return. Now everyone is whining about the monopolies. We took the easy way out in the beginning and now we're crying about the results.

And the way you fix it, is by not protecting the monopolies, and letting them break up. There is a crap load of investment dollars out there and nothing to spend it on. You open things like this up, and you will see tons of capital flow in to meet demand.

The Google example shows that the market can sometimes deal with this solution when you open up from monopolies. It shows it in other markets every day by creating efficient structures to meet demand.

Time Warner is a monopoly in many places. It does not want to spend money to increase anything when it does not increase revenue. Google comes in and stirs things up, and suddenly Time Warner finds massive extra BW. All you have to do is let some competition in slowly. If you have a monopoly, then have companies place a bid to compete. You dont have to replace, just allow options.

 

[glenn1]

Hi.

You are a dumbass.

Despite much of our infrastructure in America being under private ownership it is some of the worst in the core countries and possibly even worse than some periphery countries. Just downright terrible for the overall size and power of our country.

Civilizations from thousands of years ago did much more than us from much less technology. They were very innovative and efficient and far less apathetic. This is something that America could only dream of right now.

I gave the infrastructure in America the grade of D-.

The American Society of Civil Engineers was actually much more kind and forgiving than me.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Please tell me you're joking. The "much of the infrastructure" under private ownership is in remarkably better shape than the public infrastructure, exactly because they have a profit motive in keeping it maintained and regulators requiring certain standards. You want to give even more power to governments that either loot taxpayer funds like Detroit or can't even maintain simple things like roads and bridges and we watch them fall down like in Minnesota? With rare exceptions the absolute worst infrastructure in the country is exactly in those cities where the corrupt or incompetent local governments own the monopoly.

 

[norseamd]

we watch them fall down like in Minnesota?

That was under your so named corrupt government of Tim Pawlenty and the fundamentalist Republicans that have moved in here since September 11 and suppressed the old moderate Minnesota Republicans like Erne Carlson.

 

[Sonikku]

Ending monopolies would go against Capitalism. What do you have against Capitalism?

Why do you liberals hate America so much?

 

[Darwin333]

electric, gas, water, cable etc.?

We'd have to rethink the distribution of gas. Like the gas companies can only own the gas but the lines to the homes can only be rented. Water might be a hard one though. I'm interested to see what idea's can be fleshed out if we allow ourselves to think of the possibility.

Thoughts?

I don't know if I would consider government owned water companies a "monopoly" but yes, our founders were very smart to outlaw monopolies. We would we be equally as wise to continue their wisdom.

There are certain, and very specific, instances when it's very difficult to follow that line of thinking but it should never be forgotten so quickly as we do today.

 

[BoberFett]

Ending monopolies would go against Capitalism. What do you have against Capitalism?

Why do you liberals hate America so much?

You are a bigger piece of shit than any actual conservative.

 

[rcpratt]

All attempts to deregulate electric utilities have been utter failures. There are practical reasons that make these kinds of things necessary. A utility can't plan future generation builds that cost more than the company is worth without some certainty of customers in the future.

 

[realibrad]

All attempts to deregulate electric utilities have been utter failures. There are practical reasons that make these kinds of things necessary. A utility can't plan future generation builds that cost more than the company is worth without some certainty of customers in the future.

All attempts to deregulate electric utilities has had nothing to do with deregulation. I can say my cat is white, but that does not make my cat white.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

electric, gas, water, cable etc.?

We'd have to rethink the distribution of gas. Like the gas companies can only own the gas but the lines to the homes can only be rented. Water might be a hard one though. I'm interested to see what idea's can be fleshed out if we allow ourselves to think of the possibility.

Thoughts?

Most utilities are highly regulated by the government. The last thing you need to worry about as far as monopolies are utilities... You have your head up somewhere.

What you need to be looking more towards are below examples of monopolies, oligopolies, etc.... You don't need a pure monopoly in order for company execs to collaborate with eachother on pricing.

-Airliners - Coordinating with eachother to say "Ok you get this airport, I get that airport. That way, we don't compete and and can jack up rates"

-Cable Companies - This one I can agree with, but with the recent FCC change that may change things for Cable Internet. As far as Cable TV goes... capitalism is doing all the work there. We just got an earnings report for Netflix and it has exploded in users. Cable companies = shitting bricks with the number of cord cutters. Me being one of them.

-Consumer products - Proctor & Gamble / Unilever severely lack competition for very simplistic products for everyday use. They have kicked out the small guys and can charge $20 for 4 razor cartridge refills (that being just one example). Pepsi / Coca-Cola, etc..

-Sporting: NFL, NCAA, etc.. etc..

-Hotels: I have issues here as well. Although there SEEMS to be competition, there really isn't. There are 4 Major chains and yet you can never find a place to rest for under $100.

-Shipping: UPS/Fedex/USPS. Used to be $4.50 to ship a decent sized package priority. Now it's a minimum $10.

 

[bshole]

All all important infrastructure should be socialized. We can maintain private generation of resource, like gas and electricity, but the ability to transport that resource to the public, like the gas and electric lines, needs to be publically owned. This would solve nearly all the problems with such utilities.
Also, the internet needs to be recognized as a important resource.

Agreed, 110%. Thanks for the post.

 

[bshole]

You are a bigger piece of shit than any actual conservative.

DAMN, somebody is full of vinegar today.....

 

[Sonikku]

You are a bigger piece of shit than any actual conservative.

*hugs* :wub:

 

[realibrad]

Most utilities are highly regulated by the government. The last thing you need to worry about as far as monopolies are utilities... You have your head up somewhere.

What you need to be looking more towards are below examples of monopolies, oligopolies, etc.... You don't need a pure monopoly in order for company execs to collaborate with eachother on pricing.

-Airliners - Coordinating with eachother to say "Ok you get this airport, I get that airport. That way, we don't compete and and can jack up rates"

-Cable Companies - This one I can agree with, but with the recent FCC change that may change things for Cable Internet. As far as Cable TV goes... capitalism is doing all the work there. We just got an earnings report for Netflix and it has exploded in users. Cable companies = shitting bricks with the number of cord cutters. Me being one of them.

-Consumer products - Proctor & Gamble / Unilever severely lack competition for very simplistic products for everyday use. They have kicked out the small guys and can charge $20 for 4 razor cartridge refills (that being just one example). Pepsi / Coca-Cola, etc..

-Sporting: NFL, NCAA, etc.. etc..

-Hotels: I have issues here as well. Although there SEEMS to be competition, there really isn't. There are 4 Major chains and yet you can never find a place to rest for under $100.

-Shipping: UPS/Fedex/USPS. Used to be $4.50 to ship a decent sized package priority. Now it's a minimum $10.

Some of your examples have flaws.


Airliners have huge amounts of regulation, and have well known razor thin profit margins. Only recently because of falling fuel prices have you seen larger profits.

Sports are usually nonprofits. The Pro leagues typically have city governments build a stadium for them. The NCAA is monopoly, but that is again enforced by the government .

Shipping is full of small vendors. There are major big players like SPS and Fedex, but again, we see government. Fedex and UPS are not allowed to ship small mail, because the government has protected USPS activity. Much of the price increase you have seen recently comes from fuel, and then government regulation again.

All of the examples you listed have large amounts of government regulation and power enforcement.

 

[norseamd]

So reading this it all makes sense but I think the real problem is the idea of using 1 blade a day which is just outrageous.

How about you guys start considering using the straight blade or just stop shaving?

Well you could probably also find pumice rocks for free. Can you buy a saftey razor that has a blade you can grind and maintain?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/ive-always-wondered/why-are-razor-blades-so-expensive

 

[sm625]

I would start with ending medical monopolies. It is legal to buy most any product in one location and sell it in another location. But if you try to buy Sovaldi in a third world country for $900 and sell it over here where it is $83,000 then it is a crime. That needs to stop. The worst that should happen is you pay a tax on the import. But that tax obviously isnt going to be 6000%.

 

[BoberFett]

DAMN, somebody is full of vinegar today.....

I get tired of that fucktards over the top parody posts.

 

[IGBT]

the US government is the biggest monopoly of all..yes they should get out of the monopoly business.

 

[DCal430]

We should end private monopolies in most areas. Municipalization of private electric and natural gas companies should be a priority. We need to remove corporate greed from these areas.

 

[trenchfoot]

I tend to favor those monopolies that are designed to protect the consumer from those monopolies that are designed to turn our pockets inside out and indenture us into a permanent source of easy money.

If only we could keep those benevolent monopolies from being corrupted from the inside out and turned into convenient tools of those very monopolies they are meant to protect us from.

 

[BoberFett]

I tend to favor those monopolies that are designed to protect the consumer from those monopolies that are designed to turn our pockets inside out and indenture us into a permanent source of easy money.

If only we could keep those benevolent monopolies from being corrupted from the inside out and turned into convenient tools of those very monopolies they are meant to protect us from.

Hence the problem. The right hates government, the left hates capitalists, but really the problem is power. Power corrupts, regardless of which entity holds it. Both sides seem to forget that.

 

[realibrad]

I tend to favor those monopolies that are designed to protect the consumer from those monopolies that are designed to turn our pockets inside out and indenture us into a permanent source of easy money.

If only we could keep those benevolent monopolies from being corrupted from the inside out and turned into convenient tools of those very monopolies they are meant to protect us from.

If a monopoly forms because it offers the best product, then we win. If the monopoly stays because it holds down the market we lose.

People are selfish and greedy, so when they can use monopoly power to make money, they will. Monopolies have power over markets, and all you want is to have a bigger power to have power over the monopolies. But, when happens when that bigger power gets corrupted? At some point, you have a Dragon Ball Z complex where you always need a bigger badder thing to protect you. The problem is that is linear. We set up a 3 part government to have everyone watching everyone. By creating a government monopoly, who watches the watcher? Why not let the monopolies compete to stay in power?

 

[trenchfoot]

Hence the problem. The right hates government, the left hates capitalists, but really the problem is power. Power corrupts, regardless of which entity holds it. Both sides seem to forget that.

Agreed in the sense that if we allow certain factions (like a couple of opposing political parties for example) to remain in power, the longer they have control the more corrupt they will become, to the point where their authority and the process to assign them that authority has now been completely usurped by those that were never meant to wield that authority. As a result, the only difference between these two thoroughly corrupted political entities is the foundation ideology each represents.

If a monopoly forms because it offers the best product, then we win. If the monopoly stays because it holds down the market we lose.

People are selfish and greedy, so when they can use monopoly power to make money, they will. Monopolies have power over markets, and all you want is to have a bigger power to have power over the monopolies. But, when happens when that bigger power gets corrupted? At some point, you have a Dragon Ball Z complex where you always need a bigger badder thing to protect you. The problem is that is linear. We set up a 3 part government to have everyone watching everyone. By creating a government monopoly, who watches the watcher? Why not let the monopolies compete to stay in power?

IMO, the creation of monopolies is a direct result and ultimate goal of a capitalist society, with the ultimate goal being who eventually ends up becoming the omnipotent monopoly in control of all the other competing monopolies...you know, something more commonly known as a plutocracy, a somewhat modern day version of the monarchy our forefathers came to America to escape from.

 

[realibrad]

IMO, the creation of monopolies is a direct result and ultimate goal of a capitalist society, with the ultimate goal being who eventually ends up becoming the omnipotent monopoly in control of all the other competing monopolies...you know, something more commonly known as a plutocracy, a somewhat modern day version of the monarchy our forefathers came to America to escape from.

The goal of a capitalist society is not to form monopolies. The goal of a company is to make money in any system. A company will try and form a monopoly in any system, because they can make more money. No system stops that desire. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism, is Socialism forms government monopolies to tell companies what to do. Capitalism says that agents can act in their own interests, so long as they dont infringe on others rights. In Socialism, the state can infringe on rights.

I dont understand why people believe the goal of capitalism is the powerful to control the weak, but it sure seems popular.