Arrh but they would sell far more than required to make more money. They wouldn't sell 3 times more, it's probably going to be 300 times more. Cars are a physical thing that costs money to make, so the analogy fails, digital files are freely duplicable. I'd really like to see them try it and see their sales over six months. I'd bet they'd make stacks more. I spend more per week on music now than I ever did with CDs.
The market (people) has spoken, they are not willing to bear those prices. I won't pay their stupid prices, itunes works because it's cheap and easy, I buy a lot of music for those reasons and I want to support the musicians I like. I will not pay more than $7 for an ebook. I will not pay more than $7 for a movie. They need to give up on their losing game and run with the market. I am willing to pay reasonable prices, they still want to charge like they're supporting physical media creation/distribution and brick and mortar shops. I prefer to buy direct from the artists if it's cheap and easy. They talk about free markets, they have one in the internet and they don't like it! Charge what the market will bear to maximise sales and profits, online the two will be very close.
I get what you're saying, it's from basic economic theory, but the internet is a game changer, the additional cost of a new download is very close to zero, and the marketing isn't really relevant as there is always a market with fans, if shows/movies were available easily and cheaply, then they'd sell vastly more and make vastly more money. They should make a deal with TPB and allow people to buy from there, I've downloaded stuff that you can't actually find anywhere else.
Yes the system milkers really piss me off! I suppose a solution is to have the support there,but expect x hours a week of compulsory community service, if it involves learning skills then all the better. That would reduce the sit around pretending to look for work lifestyle. I'm a volunteer fire-fighter, we have community service people at our brigade and they have to work hard and they learn heaps if they try. If they don't, we wont have them back next week.
My totally wrecked begins at losing your house and living with your kids in your car and goes south from there to what you're talking about, that happens in western cities, without the farming. That's why you hear about homeless people doing anything for $10, they're that desperate. I see whiners all the time, and my response is basically "suck it up cupcake" and get on with it. I do think having an underclass is disgusting and there should always be a way out for those who can/will use the escape we can provide. I have no time for people who will wallow and not help themselves, especially if they have kids, but there needs to be support and help available. I have seen bullshit programs that the participants know are bullshit and are therefore not ecstatic about them and the people running them can't see why. If it's just a way to fudge the numbers and say that they are off unemployment then they'll soon work it out, we need real programs that can provide access to further training/apprenticeships/real work. We apparently have a skills shortage, youth unemployment and an aging population. WTF? Train the youth in the needed skills and they can help support the aging boomers! I don't get why that seems so hard?
"In my 54 years, I've met very few people that worked hard and were unsuccessful" Really? I've seen it quite a few times, and I'm 38. I've seen lives totally wrecked through no fault of their own. I've seen people unemployed for months after graduating from uni with great results, applying for jobs every day.
It may be your age, it's getting harder to get a good position, in the 50s and 60s it was easier to get a good job, if you went to uni, you had an excellent chance of "making it". Working hard and smart is great, the smart part is partly luck, and it's not blaming society to ask for a little help and get it if you have a rough patch. Losers whine? Well maybe, but the difference between the winners and losers is sometimes their bank balance and family/friends who can help them through a rough patch. It's a lot easier not to whine when things go bad it you know that you'll be OK until you're back on your feet. I'm happy for some of my taxes to go to social programs to help people. I'd actually be happier if they spent a bit more in some cases and really helped them out of their position instead of just supplying their basic needs. Teach them to fish etc.
All else being equal? WTF? I really hate this attitude, lots of people "try", lots of people work really hard and many still struggle. There seems to be a large minority who believe that you can achieve anything if you try (good to not be locked into your position in life, but it often doesn't workout), so if you are struggling or god forbid somehow fail, then it's all your own fault and you have "chosen" to be unemployed/homeless/whatever. Increasingly if your parents are poorer, then you will probably be stuck at a lower socio-economic level as it is becoming harder to move to another level. Personal responsibility is great, I think we need more of it, but compassion and a fair go are needed too. No one chooses a hard terrible life, but sometimes it happens, and society should provide a way out of this cycle. If you lack compassion, then remember it's cheaper for your taxes if they don't need to be spent on welfare/private security/more insurance. Also the more people who have good jobs, the more people who can buy goods and services, and society functions better. Stepping around homeless people should make you sad and guilty, there should be a way out for those people. People who think like that act like it's some sort of in this life karma, you get the position you choose/work for. Crap. Some people have it easier, some much harder, we as a society are better off it most people are functioning members of society, so we should have systems in place to help people to get education, jobs and somewhere safe to stay until they can provide for themselves. " the more you put in the greater your possibility of a positive result. This is a distinction that seems lost on more and more people." It's not lost on me, I agree with responsibility, I agree that you have to work, but recognise that some start way behind others, and the "possibility" of a positive result is just that, a possibility, it doesn't workout for all so there have to be systems so that they can try again/something else.
Yes the manned planes are currently superior, but when they have air to air capability, how many of them can your plane handle? 10? 20? How about 100? The T34 was inferior to the best German tanks, but it was good enough (and cheap enough) and there were shitloads of them......
I thought it might be encountering resistant strains as bacteria will exchange genetic material. So can we artificially bring it into competition with resistant bacteria and see how it responds? I would think (IANAI) that they would be good to work with as they produce chemicals that are tolerated by most people, we should try to make use of their adaptability for our ends. Do different types of bacteria use chemicals against each other when competing? Can we use these as drugs?
I was wondering about this recently, if we "borrowed" penicillin's bacterial fighting chemicals, and are now facing rising resistance, then the penicillins are being exposed to the resistant bacteria, so are they being overwhelmed or are they adapting and can we borrow another lot of new antibiotics from them?
Exactly, I like this too, but I hate the ribbon. I have pointed this out to numerous people, I still find the ribbon slower and too big, I use keyboard shortcuts when I can. MS should offer the new interface, but not mandate it, let us choose rubbon/toolbars and "metro"/desktop+start button. Bloody win8 takes more time and clicks to do what I want and I cannot see any speed increase on the same hardware aside from the fast boot which is just a jazzy hibernate.....
457 is just our H1B, plenty of people want the jobs, even in remote areas, but 457s are cheaper, so they make it artificially hard/unattractive to Australians, then say they cant find people and use 457s.....
Even the homeless and destitute in the US enjoy a standard of living far above that of the average human even a century ago.
Crap, homeless, hungry and freezing is the same anywhere and anywhen.
The middle class lives better than most historical kings and emperors.
They may do, but we're running out of them.,......
Nah, I don't care if you made it this year or already had billions. No one needs personal billions. Spend it and get it back into circulation or have it taxed back to get it into circulation. The 1% don't need 99% of the wealth and the other 99% certainly need it.
"even the worst of use have it better than the average man"--Crap. In living memory society and people were better off and then what you are saying was closer to being true. Now it's getting worse each year for the "average man" and better for the 1%. This is not desirable for the majority and I don't believe it to be sustainable. The wealthy want to pay crap but demand high prices. Banks like their own employees to be casual with crap conditions and security, but they want to lend to permanent full time workers. You cant have it both ways forever.
Yes it bothers me, I just can't see a working alternative. The "invisible hand" is blocked by opaque decision making and info.
Gov't makes that problem worse, because it is the primary blocker of the "invisible hand".
If you can't see a working alternative, you need to realize the status quo is another option. You want to expand gov't power when it's been demonstrated that gov't is part of the problem - that is an irrational position.
Is your position that the current system is working or that any available alternative is worse. I don't think it's working particularly well.
Agreed. But the attempt should be made. There has to be someone you can appeal too. The courts don't cut it, the current US system is might (money) is right.
You want to regulate "influence"? Who is the mind-reading omnipresent omniscient individual you're going to put into power to "do something"? And having given him such absolute power, how do you plan to keep him from abusing it?
An omniscient, benevolent being would be handy. Perhaps tighter laws regarding anticompetitive behaviour and a modification to the legal process that prevents large entities endlessly delaying and appealing until the smaller party runs out of money. I don't want to encourage trolls or "no risk-no cost" actions like DCMA takedowns.....
I'd rather be "gouged" on my consumer goods than to be subject to the thought police. I can buy from another company - the thought police are resisted with violence.
My limited understanding is that there was no effective competition. I believe that Standard was thought to be so powerful that they could effectively shutdown whole sections of countries.
Read the wikipedia article - not that it should be treated as an authority, but it gives a broad enough overview and does have sources.
I will.
At the time of its breakup, Standard Oil had 60~65% of the national refining capacity. That does make it a powerful company, but again, prices were DROPPING (if this is monopoly abuse, let's have MORE of it). 40~45% of capacity is not "ineffective competition".
Furthermore, "shutting down" sections of the country means not selling product. That is giving away market share to the competition, and is something that undermines any "monopoly" power a company might have. There's short term harm, but feedback forces mitigate long term damage and discourage the short term harm from happening at all.
Interesting.
It's not that I think companies are angels; it's that your cure is worse than the problem. Rule of law and free markets are preferable to any type of top-down centralized micro-management by gov't entities.
Difficult, will change with situation, matter for courts/regulator.
You're writing a blank check to the entity with a monopoly on force - the government. You hate monopolies, but that doesn't bother you?
Yes it bothers me, I just can't see a working alternative. The "invisible hand" is blocked by opaque decision making and info.
No that's OK, but you shouldn't be able to force a supplier to charge more for a new competitor or force a vendor to use your product.
Force rising to the level of violence is a crime. Force that is not violence is more accurately described as "influence", and measuring abuse there is difficult and extremely vulnerable to corruption.
Agreed. But the attempt should be made. There has to be someone you can appeal too. The courts don't cut it, the current US system is might (money) is right.
What's your opinion on Bell's breakup?
You dodged the question on Standard Oil. Why was its breakup as a "monopoly" a good thing when its existence had benefited customers (lower prices, [i]Standard[/i]ized oil) and there was plenty of market competition at the time of the decision?
My limited understanding is that there was no effective competition. I believe that Standard was thought to be so powerful that they could effectively shutdown whole sections of countries.
As for Bell, I don't have much of an opinion - gov't granted a monopoly and then took it back. The loss of the monopoly seems to have improved customer options and prices, though some will still mourn Bell's R&D labs.
That is a rub, large companies can have great "blue sky" labs.
You need to define what it means to be guilty of "abuse of monopoly", because that can be very subjective.
Difficult, will change with situation, matter for courts/regulator.
You list "pressuring suppliers and vendors" as an ill that needs to be fixed, but this ties into the need to to define "abuse". Businesses have and should continue to have the freedom to control their pricing, just like I have the freedom to sell an item at cost to a friend but sell it for profit to a stranger.
No that's OK, but you shouldn't be able to force a supplier to charge more for a new competitor or force a vendor to use your product.
Outright corruption - This is a crime, but does not need any new rules for enforcement.
1. For that time period, oil prices continually fell due to Standard Oil's innovation in oil refining and transportation. Lower prices indicate lack of monopoly pricing, meaning no harm was done to consumers.
2. When Supreme Court made its ruling, Standard Oil had 150 competitors. Note that "monopoly" means "single seller", and is typically used to describe a situation where there are no competitors.
If anything, Standard Oil is an excellent example of badly applied gov't regulation. What was the actual benefit to consumers? What was the cost to consumers? Government used taxpayer money to fund a lawsuit that harmed Standard Oil; but Standard Oil wasn't doing anything that harmed consumers. That's abuse of government power, which is a type of corruption that increases the cost of business (translating to higher prices).
Maybe an independent NGO with enough clout to enforce rulings? Have to watch the watchers though...
Ruling on what though?
"You have too much market share, give me money"?
No, more the nasty stuff that they can get done for, abuse of monopoly, pressuring suppliers and vendors, outright corruption into government oversight etc. I think it's good that they broke up standard oil, we're better off. They should have broken up MS, but MS got to them and they were found guilty, but allowed to continue and pay the "fines" in their own stuff, strengthening their position!
Outside of criminal activities (that cause direct harm; ex: careless toxic waste dispoal), everything else is and should be fair game.
I would agree that we need a ref - but the government is not a perfect ref, and often times will behave as a player.
Agreed. It is disturbing how often they leave gov to work in the private sector in areas where they managed.....
Because of that, I'm less willing to delegate authority to the government - when they're as likely to make things worse as to fix things, there's 0 net gain to involve them.
Maybe an independent NGO with enough clout to enforce rulings? Have to watch the watchers though...
I just wrote a multi-paragraph reply, but a lameness error stopped it.
Short form:
I like free markets, they're just vulnerable when big companies game the system and use influence. It needs a "ref" to step in and call foul.
Why don't you go buy stocks in those companies with amazing % profit on investment, then? Get your cut of all that money.
I do.
I'm not saying that every market good will have the cheapest possible price; I'm merely observing the reality that there are opposing forces in a free market that create a very good negative feedback loop that acts against "excessive profits". ("excessive" profits attract competition)
I know these forces exist, but they do not apply in most real markets, for the reasons I stated.
Established markets may not have constantly decreasing prices, but that's because they've reached an equilibrium where the the "normal profit" is close to 0. (economic term which includes the opportunity costs)
Hahaha. Joke.
That the price doesn't change much doesn't mean that the economic forces of competition aren't there.
Agreed, but they are stifled, think there's real competition in fuel?
Oligopolies have an incentive to cheat,
Agreed.
so that limits the "rent" of any of those types of markets.
?
It takes government intervention to create a monopoly or break the market feedback loops that naturally exist.
Monopoly is the end result of effective market competition in most free markets without regulation. The feedback loops exist, but you assume no collusion and ignore barriers to entry, market distortion and outright corruption. Look at MS, their money and legal power/influence exerts a force like gravity that distorts everything around them. The normal rules don't apply once you are really big, you're too big to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Arrh but they would sell far more than required to make more money. They wouldn't sell 3 times more, it's probably going to be 300 times more. Cars are a physical thing that costs money to make, so the analogy fails, digital files are freely duplicable. I'd really like to see them try it and see their sales over six months. I'd bet they'd make stacks more. I spend more per week on music now than I ever did with CDs.
+1 insightful
The market (people) has spoken, they are not willing to bear those prices. I won't pay their stupid prices, itunes works because it's cheap and easy, I buy a lot of music for those reasons and I want to support the musicians I like. I will not pay more than $7 for an ebook. I will not pay more than $7 for a movie. They need to give up on their losing game and run with the market. I am willing to pay reasonable prices, they still want to charge like they're supporting physical media creation/distribution and brick and mortar shops. I prefer to buy direct from the artists if it's cheap and easy. They talk about free markets, they have one in the internet and they don't like it! Charge what the market will bear to maximise sales and profits, online the two will be very close.
I get what you're saying, it's from basic economic theory, but the internet is a game changer, the additional cost of a new download is very close to zero, and the marketing isn't really relevant as there is always a market with fans, if shows/movies were available easily and cheaply, then they'd sell vastly more and make vastly more money. They should make a deal with TPB and allow people to buy from there, I've downloaded stuff that you can't actually find anywhere else.
Yes the system milkers really piss me off! I suppose a solution is to have the support there ,but expect x hours a week of compulsory community service, if it involves learning skills then all the better. That would reduce the sit around pretending to look for work lifestyle. I'm a volunteer fire-fighter, we have community service people at our brigade and they have to work hard and they learn heaps if they try. If they don't, we wont have them back next week.
My totally wrecked begins at losing your house and living with your kids in your car and goes south from there to what you're talking about, that happens in western cities, without the farming. That's why you hear about homeless people doing anything for $10, they're that desperate. I see whiners all the time, and my response is basically "suck it up cupcake" and get on with it. I do think having an underclass is disgusting and there should always be a way out for those who can/will use the escape we can provide. I have no time for people who will wallow and not help themselves, especially if they have kids, but there needs to be support and help available. I have seen bullshit programs that the participants know are bullshit and are therefore not ecstatic about them and the people running them can't see why. If it's just a way to fudge the numbers and say that they are off unemployment then they'll soon work it out, we need real programs that can provide access to further training/apprenticeships/real work. We apparently have a skills shortage, youth unemployment and an aging population. WTF? Train the youth in the needed skills and they can help support the aging boomers! I don't get why that seems so hard?
"In my 54 years, I've met very few people that worked hard and were unsuccessful" Really? I've seen it quite a few times, and I'm 38. I've seen lives totally wrecked through no fault of their own. I've seen people unemployed for months after graduating from uni with great results, applying for jobs every day. It may be your age, it's getting harder to get a good position, in the 50s and 60s it was easier to get a good job, if you went to uni, you had an excellent chance of "making it". Working hard and smart is great, the smart part is partly luck, and it's not blaming society to ask for a little help and get it if you have a rough patch. Losers whine? Well maybe, but the difference between the winners and losers is sometimes their bank balance and family/friends who can help them through a rough patch. It's a lot easier not to whine when things go bad it you know that you'll be OK until you're back on your feet. I'm happy for some of my taxes to go to social programs to help people. I'd actually be happier if they spent a bit more in some cases and really helped them out of their position instead of just supplying their basic needs. Teach them to fish etc.
All else being equal? WTF? I really hate this attitude, lots of people "try", lots of people work really hard and many still struggle. There seems to be a large minority who believe that you can achieve anything if you try (good to not be locked into your position in life, but it often doesn't workout), so if you are struggling or god forbid somehow fail, then it's all your own fault and you have "chosen" to be unemployed/homeless/whatever. Increasingly if your parents are poorer, then you will probably be stuck at a lower socio-economic level as it is becoming harder to move to another level. Personal responsibility is great, I think we need more of it, but compassion and a fair go are needed too. No one chooses a hard terrible life, but sometimes it happens, and society should provide a way out of this cycle. If you lack compassion, then remember it's cheaper for your taxes if they don't need to be spent on welfare/private security/more insurance. Also the more people who have good jobs, the more people who can buy goods and services, and society functions better. Stepping around homeless people should make you sad and guilty, there should be a way out for those people. People who think like that act like it's some sort of in this life karma, you get the position you choose/work for. Crap. Some people have it easier, some much harder, we as a society are better off it most people are functioning members of society, so we should have systems in place to help people to get education, jobs and somewhere safe to stay until they can provide for themselves. " the more you put in the greater your possibility of a positive result. This is a distinction that seems lost on more and more people." It's not lost on me, I agree with responsibility, I agree that you have to work, but recognise that some start way behind others, and the "possibility" of a positive result is just that, a possibility, it doesn't workout for all so there have to be systems so that they can try again/something else.
Yes the manned planes are currently superior, but when they have air to air capability, how many of them can your plane handle? 10? 20? How about 100? The T34 was inferior to the best German tanks, but it was good enough (and cheap enough) and there were shitloads of them......
This is normal MS behaviour, every time they look slightly better, things like this remind me that they are MS and they cannot be trusted.
I thought it might be encountering resistant strains as bacteria will exchange genetic material. So can we artificially bring it into competition with resistant bacteria and see how it responds? I would think (IANAI) that they would be good to work with as they produce chemicals that are tolerated by most people, we should try to make use of their adaptability for our ends. Do different types of bacteria use chemicals against each other when competing? Can we use these as drugs?
I was wondering about this recently, if we "borrowed" penicillin's bacterial fighting chemicals, and are now facing rising resistance, then the penicillins are being exposed to the resistant bacteria, so are they being overwhelmed or are they adapting and can we borrow another lot of new antibiotics from them?
Frank exchange of views
Exactly, I like this too, but I hate the ribbon. I have pointed this out to numerous people, I still find the ribbon slower and too big, I use keyboard shortcuts when I can. MS should offer the new interface, but not mandate it, let us choose rubbon/toolbars and "metro"/desktop+start button. Bloody win8 takes more time and clicks to do what I want and I cannot see any speed increase on the same hardware aside from the fast boot which is just a jazzy hibernate.....
457 is just our H1B, plenty of people want the jobs, even in remote areas, but 457s are cheaper, so they make it artificially hard/unattractive to Australians, then say they cant find people and use 457s.....
posting to fix mistaken moderation....
Even the homeless and destitute in the US enjoy a standard of living far above that of the average human even a century ago. Crap, homeless, hungry and freezing is the same anywhere and anywhen. The middle class lives better than most historical kings and emperors. They may do, but we're running out of them.,......
Nah, I don't care if you made it this year or already had billions. No one needs personal billions. Spend it and get it back into circulation or have it taxed back to get it into circulation. The 1% don't need 99% of the wealth and the other 99% certainly need it. "even the worst of use have it better than the average man"--Crap. In living memory society and people were better off and then what you are saying was closer to being true. Now it's getting worse each year for the "average man" and better for the 1%. This is not desirable for the majority and I don't believe it to be sustainable. The wealthy want to pay crap but demand high prices. Banks like their own employees to be casual with crap conditions and security, but they want to lend to permanent full time workers. You cant have it both ways forever.
Yes it bothers me, I just can't see a working alternative. The "invisible hand" is blocked by opaque decision making and info.
Gov't makes that problem worse, because it is the primary blocker of the "invisible hand".
If you can't see a working alternative, you need to realize the status quo is another option. You want to expand gov't power when it's been demonstrated that gov't is part of the problem - that is an irrational position.
Is your position that the current system is working or that any available alternative is worse. I don't think it's working particularly well.
Agreed. But the attempt should be made. There has to be someone you can appeal too. The courts don't cut it, the current US system is might (money) is right.
You want to regulate "influence"? Who is the mind-reading omnipresent omniscient individual you're going to put into power to "do something"? And having given him such absolute power, how do you plan to keep him from abusing it? An omniscient, benevolent being would be handy. Perhaps tighter laws regarding anticompetitive behaviour and a modification to the legal process that prevents large entities endlessly delaying and appealing until the smaller party runs out of money. I don't want to encourage trolls or "no risk-no cost" actions like DCMA takedowns.....
I'd rather be "gouged" on my consumer goods than to be subject to the thought police. I can buy from another company - the thought police are resisted with violence.
My limited understanding is that there was no effective competition. I believe that Standard was thought to be so powerful that they could effectively shutdown whole sections of countries.
Read the wikipedia article - not that it should be treated as an authority, but it gives a broad enough overview and does have sources. I will.
At the time of its breakup, Standard Oil had 60~65% of the national refining capacity. That does make it a powerful company, but again, prices were DROPPING (if this is monopoly abuse, let's have MORE of it). 40~45% of capacity is not "ineffective competition".
Furthermore, "shutting down" sections of the country means not selling product. That is giving away market share to the competition, and is something that undermines any "monopoly" power a company might have. There's short term harm, but feedback forces mitigate long term damage and discourage the short term harm from happening at all. Interesting.
It's not that I think companies are angels; it's that your cure is worse than the problem. Rule of law and free markets are preferable to any type of top-down centralized micro-management by gov't entities.
Do we have any examples of really free markets?
Difficult, will change with situation, matter for courts/regulator.
You're writing a blank check to the entity with a monopoly on force - the government. You hate monopolies, but that doesn't bother you?
Yes it bothers me, I just can't see a working alternative. The "invisible hand" is blocked by opaque decision making and info.
No that's OK, but you shouldn't be able to force a supplier to charge more for a new competitor or force a vendor to use your product.
Force rising to the level of violence is a crime. Force that is not violence is more accurately described as "influence", and measuring abuse there is difficult and extremely vulnerable to corruption.
Agreed. But the attempt should be made. There has to be someone you can appeal too. The courts don't cut it, the current US system is might (money) is right.
What's your opinion on Bell's breakup?
You dodged the question on Standard Oil. Why was its breakup as a "monopoly" a good thing when its existence had benefited customers (lower prices, [i]Standard[/i]ized oil) and there was plenty of market competition at the time of the decision? My limited understanding is that there was no effective competition. I believe that Standard was thought to be so powerful that they could effectively shutdown whole sections of countries.
As for Bell, I don't have much of an opinion - gov't granted a monopoly and then took it back. The loss of the monopoly seems to have improved customer options and prices, though some will still mourn Bell's R&D labs.
That is a rub, large companies can have great "blue sky" labs.
You need to define what it means to be guilty of "abuse of monopoly", because that can be very subjective. Difficult, will change with situation, matter for courts/regulator.
You list "pressuring suppliers and vendors" as an ill that needs to be fixed, but this ties into the need to to define "abuse". Businesses have and should continue to have the freedom to control their pricing, just like I have the freedom to sell an item at cost to a friend but sell it for profit to a stranger. No that's OK, but you shouldn't be able to force a supplier to charge more for a new competitor or force a vendor to use your product.
Outright corruption - This is a crime, but does not need any new rules for enforcement.
Re: Standard Oil - Why was it a good thing? http://mises.org/daily/5274
Key points from the article:
2. When Supreme Court made its ruling, Standard Oil had 150 competitors. Note that "monopoly" means "single seller", and is typically used to describe a situation where there are no competitors.
If anything, Standard Oil is an excellent example of badly applied gov't regulation. What was the actual benefit to consumers? What was the cost to consumers? Government used taxpayer money to fund a lawsuit that harmed Standard Oil; but Standard Oil wasn't doing anything that harmed consumers. That's abuse of government power, which is a type of corruption that increases the cost of business (translating to higher prices).
What's your opinion on Bell's breakup?
Maybe an independent NGO with enough clout to enforce rulings? Have to watch the watchers though...
Ruling on what though?
"You have too much market share, give me money"? No, more the nasty stuff that they can get done for, abuse of monopoly, pressuring suppliers and vendors, outright corruption into government oversight etc. I think it's good that they broke up standard oil, we're better off. They should have broken up MS, but MS got to them and they were found guilty, but allowed to continue and pay the "fines" in their own stuff, strengthening their position!
Outside of criminal activities (that cause direct harm; ex: careless toxic waste dispoal), everything else is and should be fair game.
I would agree that we need a ref - but the government is not a perfect ref, and often times will behave as a player. Agreed. It is disturbing how often they leave gov to work in the private sector in areas where they managed.....
Because of that, I'm less willing to delegate authority to the government - when they're as likely to make things worse as to fix things, there's 0 net gain to involve them.
Maybe an independent NGO with enough clout to enforce rulings? Have to watch the watchers though...
I just wrote a multi-paragraph reply, but a lameness error stopped it. Short form: I like free markets, they're just vulnerable when big companies game the system and use influence. It needs a "ref" to step in and call foul.
Why don't you go buy stocks in those companies with amazing % profit on investment, then? Get your cut of all that money. I do.
I'm not saying that every market good will have the cheapest possible price; I'm merely observing the reality that there are opposing forces in a free market that create a very good negative feedback loop that acts against "excessive profits". ("excessive" profits attract competition) I know these forces exist, but they do not apply in most real markets, for the reasons I stated.
Established markets may not have constantly decreasing prices, but that's because they've reached an equilibrium where the the "normal profit" is close to 0. (economic term which includes the opportunity costs) Hahaha. Joke. That the price doesn't change much doesn't mean that the economic forces of competition aren't there. Agreed, but they are stifled, think there's real competition in fuel?
Oligopolies have an incentive to cheat, Agreed. so that limits the "rent" of any of those types of markets. ? It takes government intervention to create a monopoly or break the market feedback loops that naturally exist.
Monopoly is the end result of effective market competition in most free markets without regulation. The feedback loops exist, but you assume no collusion and ignore barriers to entry, market distortion and outright corruption. Look at MS, their money and legal power/influence exerts a force like gravity that distorts everything around them. The normal rules don't apply once you are really big, you're too big to fail.