I wonder if government splitting up the companies that make the duopoly would improve things for the consumers.
So instead of having to pay the cost of two sets of CEOs, VPs, management, sales force, R&D, etc, we all now have to pay the cost of 4... 6... 8?
Why would a company want to continue doing business in your nation if you're willing have it ripped apart according to the whims politicians?
Seems to me that government intervention in economics is only worse than the free market when there actually IS true competition.
If there is no competition, but everyone considers the product to be great, what is the negative? In reality, everyone has their own opinions of what makes a certain product "great", so competition will exist. If Apple sells out to Microsoft, do you think the Apple fanboys are going to stick around? They will see that their beloved company has betrayed them, and demand will surge for something better.
In what way is collusion mutually exclusive from reality?
Collusion is long-term unsustainable. It is yet another attempt to fake reality, but reality will ultimately reveal the falsehood, in one way or another. It is certainly not in any company's long-term self-interest to artificially inflate prices.
In what way is having companies existing only because of collusion good for the economy?
If you enjoy the products from that company, then what is the downside to you (or anyone else in the economy)? If you see that their prices are artificially high, certainly other companies also see that fact, and will have an incentive to step in and provide the same product at a lower price.
And if competition is prohibited from stepping in, blame the entity holding a gun to their head.
Sorry buddy, but history tells us when we hear "Oh no, prices really are higher. Its for your own good. Capitalism is working!!!" it means we're being shit on.
The "shitting on" occurred as a result of Thailand's floods. We would have been better prepared if we were able to manufacture hard drives domestically. But unfortunately, government policies have made the price of domestic labor artificially high, so we can only afford to experience the lightspeed advancements in the tech industry by having foreigners build the hardware. The solution is not further government distortion of the economy, but to roll back the existing distortions.
People love to shout "COLLUSION!" when more of their fellow consumers are buying the products they want - due to a) pent-up demand, and b) consumers hoarding products as protection against future price increases - but it's really just reality they are fighting against.
Reality is not going to change, and all you do by trying to fight it (i.e. by demanding the government intervene and impose price controls) is destroy the companies whose products you enjoy and depend on.
After half a century of unsustainable government space endeavors, we may finally see some progress toward receiving actual benefits from space flight, now that the profit motive of the private sector has been (at least partially) restored. The strive for profit will necessarily lead to advancements in space tech, as they have in all other industries where long-term profitability is the primary incentive (Silicon Valley being the prime modern example).
Those are not the only changes at your local McDonald's. Fries used to cooked in animal fat, but are now cooked in one of those "heart-healthy" vegetable oils such as soybean oil, which contain high amount of omega-6 fatty acids, which contribute significantly to cardiovascular disease.
Who do we support? The people behind Fox News who just wanted "information to be free" - or the companies who were trying to protect their intellectual "property"? Which is it?!
Apparently, thanks to compartmentalization, Slashdotters are fine with supporting IP in this instance, if it means bringing down Murdoch.
The first ones to quit get to create the regulatory agencies and win.
Who allows those regulatory agencies to be created? Those agencies don't just spring up out of nowhere. Society must allow them to be created and maintained, and must continually allow those agencies to interfere in the markets, violating individual rights.
All you have said is that if a market moves away from freedom, and toward manipulation and rights violation, then those who are able to control the manipulation will benefit in the short-term. Of course that is the case. What is your point?
Why do you believe that striving for such an ideal only works one way? It is just as necessary to add market checks-and-balances into the system, to be sure that fraud is not occurring. This is already done in contracts between individuals, and between organizations. So I don't understand what nightmare world you're claiming would exist in a free market.
They purposely hid bad debt from stockholders. They committed fraud.
Note also that so-called "worker bees" would still have been left with $0.009/share stock in such a scenario. Regulation can't prevent fraud and loss of wealth, but judicial recourse allows stockholders to recoup some of the losses from those who committed the fraud.
How much compared to healthcare or finance? Does the tech industry feature government unfunded liabilities around $100 Trillion? (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) Or over $5 Trillion in government-guaranteed loans and debt? (Fannie and Freddie)
Then let me put it into terms that you might more easily understand. It would result in theft of the other non informed players in the game because of the existing arbitrage.
You and I both own stock in company ABC. You find out that the company is cooking its books. You sell your stock. you are taking it to an irrational extreme
In what sense is consistently applying a principle an "irrational extreme"? What does "extreme" even mean in this sense, other than to apply a negative connotation? Why should consistency be avoided?
You really don't make it sound rational when you equate regulation or government interference as theft.
Theft is taking someone else's property without their consent, either by force, threat of force, or fraud. Do you disagree with this definition? Does the government not initiate force or threat of force when taking money or property from one individual in order to give it to another? Do you disagree with this description? So if the government initiates force or threat of force in order to take money from someone and give it to someone else, in what way is it not theft?
Why would I put my money in company X if I know that the people inside of said company are just going to fleece me through less than dubious means by using, for example, insider trading?
Why wouldn't you write into your contract, before choosing to put money into company X, that the company should be upfront and give you the same access that insiders are afforded, before you would be willing to put your money in the company?
I always find it odd that an industry which experiences the least amount of government regulations (tech and Silicon Valley), and flourishes as a result, is so adamant about regulating industry.
Follow the logic
I own company X (shareholder)
I hire a agent in a posistion of trust (a C.E.O., for example)
The manager takes / gives away valuable property (i.e. insider information)
At a disadvantage (i.e. lacking insider information) I trade at a disadvantage. (I sell stock too low, I fail to invest, etc.)
Wealth is transferred from me to the insider.
Where is the lie, deception, or contract violation that would render this scenario equivalent to fraud? Simply selling when you know there is a problem with a company does not involve any lie, deceit, or fraud. If the CEO told stockholders that the company was fine, in order to buy himself time to dump the stock, then that lie would be fraudulent.
When the product in question isn't what it is advertised to be
If it can be objectively demonstrated that the advertising was knowingly done in a false way, that is fraud, and the seller would be held liable. This is an aspect of a free society.
that's ignorance on the part of the buyer
It is not simple ignorance, which is lacking information, but actual misinformation. If a company lied about their performance to their stockholders, so that the execs could dump their stock, that is misinformation and fraud.
What you don't understand is that an "ideal" is not something that one either must achieve perfectly or not bother doing. An ideal is something that must be continually strived to uphold, by all members. The extent to which people do not strive for that ideal, they will see the negative consequences of their actions. I could write a perfect free market constitution in 10 minutes, but if people do not actually try to uphold that constitution, the results will not be a free market. The purpose of discussions like this is precisely to get people to strive for that ideal - the more who do, the better the results.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with arbitrage, those privy to the information are those that get to take advantage of it while the non-informed parties will suffer. This is not conducive to a true free market.
You are simply reasserting what I have already stated is not the case. The "free" in free market refers to the freedom individuals have from force, threat of force, or fraud, and the judicial recourse they have when such rights violations do occur. There is no freedom from ignorance, nor a right to perfect, equally-accessible knowledge.
State, precisely, what the crime is committed when someone who is more well-informed sells sooner than someone who is less well-informed. What rights are violated by such an action?
That Wikipedia article lists a variety of models which conclude that markets can fail, and then pretends that market members are incapable of reading and learning from such models, and adjusting their actions accordingly. Why wouldn't market participants adjust to this new knowledge about how the market supposedly works, in order to avoid the various negative effects that the models predict will happen? Is it that market members are simply stupid and short-sighted, and need to be regulated? Is it that the models aren't actually representative of market function? Or something else?
If there was going to be a cover up, the insiders wouldn't sell.
All insiders? Or just the one who want to prop up the company? Information has a way of leaking out one way or another, and only laws against insider trading can interfere with such a leak.
Slashdot Mirror
Want to curb consumption of high fructose corn syrup? You can start by removing all government subsidy of the corn industry.
I wonder if government splitting up the companies that make the duopoly would improve things for the consumers.
So instead of having to pay the cost of two sets of CEOs, VPs, management, sales force, R&D, etc, we all now have to pay the cost of 4... 6... 8?
Why would a company want to continue doing business in your nation if you're willing have it ripped apart according to the whims politicians?
Seems to me that government intervention in economics is only worse than the free market when there actually IS true competition.
If there is no competition, but everyone considers the product to be great, what is the negative? In reality, everyone has their own opinions of what makes a certain product "great", so competition will exist. If Apple sells out to Microsoft, do you think the Apple fanboys are going to stick around? They will see that their beloved company has betrayed them, and demand will surge for something better.
In what way is collusion mutually exclusive from reality?
Collusion is long-term unsustainable. It is yet another attempt to fake reality, but reality will ultimately reveal the falsehood, in one way or another. It is certainly not in any company's long-term self-interest to artificially inflate prices.
In what way is having companies existing only because of collusion good for the economy?
If you enjoy the products from that company, then what is the downside to you (or anyone else in the economy)? If you see that their prices are artificially high, certainly other companies also see that fact, and will have an incentive to step in and provide the same product at a lower price.
And if competition is prohibited from stepping in, blame the entity holding a gun to their head.
Sorry buddy, but history tells us when we hear "Oh no, prices really are higher. Its for your own good. Capitalism is working!!!" it means we're being shit on.
The "shitting on" occurred as a result of Thailand's floods. We would have been better prepared if we were able to manufacture hard drives domestically. But unfortunately, government policies have made the price of domestic labor artificially high, so we can only afford to experience the lightspeed advancements in the tech industry by having foreigners build the hardware. The solution is not further government distortion of the economy, but to roll back the existing distortions.
People love to shout "COLLUSION!" when more of their fellow consumers are buying the products they want - due to a) pent-up demand, and b) consumers hoarding products as protection against future price increases - but it's really just reality they are fighting against.
Reality is not going to change, and all you do by trying to fight it (i.e. by demanding the government intervene and impose price controls) is destroy the companies whose products you enjoy and depend on.
After half a century of unsustainable government space endeavors, we may finally see some progress toward receiving actual benefits from space flight, now that the profit motive of the private sector has been (at least partially) restored. The strive for profit will necessarily lead to advancements in space tech, as they have in all other industries where long-term profitability is the primary incentive (Silicon Valley being the prime modern example).
Those are not the only changes at your local McDonald's. Fries used to cooked in animal fat, but are now cooked in one of those "heart-healthy" vegetable oils such as soybean oil, which contain high amount of omega-6 fatty acids, which contribute significantly to cardiovascular disease.
Let's see if they can explain this guy.
It sure is great we are liberating all of these MENA countries, spreading democracy, so they can democratically elect leaders to violate their rights.
Who do we support? The people behind Fox News who just wanted "information to be free" - or the companies who were trying to protect their intellectual "property"? Which is it?!
Apparently, thanks to compartmentalization, Slashdotters are fine with supporting IP in this instance, if it means bringing down Murdoch.
Apply it. [patent pending]
The first ones to quit get to create the regulatory agencies and win.
Who allows those regulatory agencies to be created? Those agencies don't just spring up out of nowhere. Society must allow them to be created and maintained, and must continually allow those agencies to interfere in the markets, violating individual rights.
All you have said is that if a market moves away from freedom, and toward manipulation and rights violation, then those who are able to control the manipulation will benefit in the short-term. Of course that is the case. What is your point?
So basically, the car comes pre-crumpled, so you don't even have to bother driving it into someone's blind spot and getting creamed. How convenient!
Except for the ones created by the first people to scream "think of the children!" and throw their money at the problem.
If regulatory agencies are created, then the market stops being a free market.
Eventually someone will play the regulatory capture card
A free market would not have regulatory agencies for which to capture.
Why do you believe that striving for such an ideal only works one way? It is just as necessary to add market checks-and-balances into the system, to be sure that fraud is not occurring. This is already done in contracts between individuals, and between organizations. So I don't understand what nightmare world you're claiming would exist in a free market.
They purposely hid bad debt from stockholders. They committed fraud.
Note also that so-called "worker bees" would still have been left with $0.009/share stock in such a scenario. Regulation can't prevent fraud and loss of wealth, but judicial recourse allows stockholders to recoup some of the losses from those who committed the fraud.
hi tech industry is highly subsidized.
How much compared to healthcare or finance? Does the tech industry feature government unfunded liabilities around $100 Trillion? (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) Or over $5 Trillion in government-guaranteed loans and debt? (Fannie and Freddie)
Then let me put it into terms that you might more easily understand. It would result in theft of the other non informed players in the game because of the existing arbitrage.
You and I both own stock in company ABC. You find out that the company is cooking its books. You sell your stock. you are taking it to an irrational extreme
In what sense is consistently applying a principle an "irrational extreme"? What does "extreme" even mean in this sense, other than to apply a negative connotation? Why should consistency be avoided?
You really don't make it sound rational when you equate regulation or government interference as theft.
Theft is taking someone else's property without their consent, either by force, threat of force, or fraud. Do you disagree with this definition? Does the government not initiate force or threat of force when taking money or property from one individual in order to give it to another? Do you disagree with this description? So if the government initiates force or threat of force in order to take money from someone and give it to someone else, in what way is it not theft?
Why would I put my money in company X if I know that the people inside of said company are just going to fleece me through less than dubious means by using, for example, insider trading?
Why wouldn't you write into your contract, before choosing to put money into company X, that the company should be upfront and give you the same access that insiders are afforded, before you would be willing to put your money in the company?
I always find it odd that an industry which experiences the least amount of government regulations (tech and Silicon Valley), and flourishes as a result, is so adamant about regulating industry.
Follow the logic I own company X (shareholder) I hire a agent in a posistion of trust (a C.E.O., for example) The manager takes / gives away valuable property (i.e. insider information) At a disadvantage (i.e. lacking insider information) I trade at a disadvantage. (I sell stock too low, I fail to invest, etc.) Wealth is transferred from me to the insider.
Where is the lie, deception, or contract violation that would render this scenario equivalent to fraud? Simply selling when you know there is a problem with a company does not involve any lie, deceit, or fraud. If the CEO told stockholders that the company was fine, in order to buy himself time to dump the stock, then that lie would be fraudulent.
When the product in question isn't what it is advertised to be
If it can be objectively demonstrated that the advertising was knowingly done in a false way, that is fraud, and the seller would be held liable. This is an aspect of a free society.
that's ignorance on the part of the buyer
It is not simple ignorance, which is lacking information, but actual misinformation. If a company lied about their performance to their stockholders, so that the execs could dump their stock, that is misinformation and fraud.
It solves problems because it's an ideal.
What you don't understand is that an "ideal" is not something that one either must achieve perfectly or not bother doing. An ideal is something that must be continually strived to uphold, by all members. The extent to which people do not strive for that ideal, they will see the negative consequences of their actions. I could write a perfect free market constitution in 10 minutes, but if people do not actually try to uphold that constitution, the results will not be a free market. The purpose of discussions like this is precisely to get people to strive for that ideal - the more who do, the better the results.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with arbitrage, those privy to the information are those that get to take advantage of it while the non-informed parties will suffer. This is not conducive to a true free market.
You are simply reasserting what I have already stated is not the case. The "free" in free market refers to the freedom individuals have from force, threat of force, or fraud, and the judicial recourse they have when such rights violations do occur. There is no freedom from ignorance, nor a right to perfect, equally-accessible knowledge.
State, precisely, what the crime is committed when someone who is more well-informed sells sooner than someone who is less well-informed. What rights are violated by such an action?
That Wikipedia article lists a variety of models which conclude that markets can fail, and then pretends that market members are incapable of reading and learning from such models, and adjusting their actions accordingly. Why wouldn't market participants adjust to this new knowledge about how the market supposedly works, in order to avoid the various negative effects that the models predict will happen? Is it that market members are simply stupid and short-sighted, and need to be regulated? Is it that the models aren't actually representative of market function? Or something else?
If there was going to be a cover up, the insiders wouldn't sell.
All insiders? Or just the one who want to prop up the company? Information has a way of leaking out one way or another, and only laws against insider trading can interfere with such a leak.