Are monopolies actually a good thing?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
No way! I got news for you, I am almost always right.

If I say it does it make it true? Or do I need someone to say it forme?

[/ QUOTE ]

You called nielso an idiot. I happen to disagree, since I think he is usually correct. While I think that matters in ethics (and hence politics) are objective, my take on which views are correct are obviously only my opinion.
So clearly I was not saying that he is right because I say so--only offering a different perspective on the matter. I'm sure there are plenty who disagree with my assessment.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
capitalism leads to a massive concentration of wealth property and power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

People really hate on corporations for the large amounts of money that they make while at the same time there are lots of poor and starving people. I think the heart of socialism is to equalize the distribution of money. I think the problem with socialism is that it is impossible for any group to micro manage something as big and complex as a country's economy. Socialism is very inefficient, and leads to less resources for society and therefore harms more people.

What kind of arguement can you make to convince working people that it is in their best interest to have the corporations with their large amounts of wealth?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-capitalism leads to a massive concentration of wealth property and power.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How? In "unchecked" capitalism, all transactions are voluntary - and each trader benefits from each transaction.

[/ QUOTE ] Ummm...I don't know why I need to say this but: some people have more maket power than others. Some have millions of dollars worth of resources and property and the means of production while others have none.

Also, because of the natural and social lottery which determines what skills human beings have things that are more demanded in the market-Factory wokers are not voluntarily choosing to be factory wokers but they must because they do not have the skills to be NBA centers or lawyers-they are making the most reasonable decision given the conditions that are imposed upon them. (If somebody has the option of either sleeping in an alley or in a homeless shelter because of economic necessity, and they pick the alley because of the poor conditions at the homeless shelter, it is ridiculous to say 'well, they voluntaryily picket the alley so there is nothing wrong going on here', btw).

Once people make money in the market because of their talents and/or inheritance of wealth, it is also easy to keep it and make more money because there are many low risk investments which are over 90% certain because of compound interest double the person's initial investment in 8-12 years. Money creates more money, just like debt creates more debt. Someone with an investment return of just 5% (the average yearly increase in the stock market since 1940 is over 10%) can make a yearly income of 100,000 without doing any work at all with an investment of 2 million, and if they reinvested it instead they would double there money quite quickly because of compound interst. Change these figures to 10 million and 10%, somebody can make over a million a year for no work and/or pay a small fee to have somebody else manage your money.

Everybody knows captialism leads to massive inequalities; no serious scholar doubts this regardless of which end of the political spectrum she is on.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you should have phrased the OP differently if this was your goal. I believe that unchecked capitalism (at least under conditions of non-anarchy-just said to avoid the AC rampage) creates many monopolies


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How? Without state intervention, how can a firm prevent other firms from entering a market?


[/ QUOTE ] Social circumstaces, once again, can be just as oppressive as formal coercion. There are a whole list of monopolies in a thread in OOT that lists rather obscure monopolies, most of which have had little or no help from governments.

Second, there are natural monopolies: Like phone lines, roads, and railroads. It simply makes no sense to have 34 roads which all start and end at the exact same place, there is no room for this to happen anyway.

Finally, firms can buy out or perform a hostile takeover on other firms. Let us say there is no gov't to prevent concentration of market power. The big firms will buy out the small ones. Wal-mart buys target, buys K-mart, buys Jim and Joe's and mom and pops retail outlet. They then drastically increase prices but people have no other option because they bought everybody out. Whenever someone else tries to start a competing shop that gains some kind of popularity, Wal-mart buys them out, and by your own premises about human self-interestedness they take the deal. Wal-mart (in this situation but possibly in the real world as well) is also so big that it could announce that it is going to stop buying from a distributor of goods that is selling to the competition, and producers will simply refuse to sell to other retailers because Wal-mart's business is so much more important because of the high volume of sales. So wal-mart has two ways at least to ensure that they are the only retailer around and hence can set prices. We need the government to prevent these kinds of scenarios from happening.

Many u.s. companies today buy out there competitiors or a small firm that is coming out with innovation today despite the anti-trust laws. It is that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you see no problem with (and you advocate the expansion of power of) the biggest monopoly of all, the monopoly which creates all other monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ] This monopoly is the monopoly of the people in a democracy, a 'monopoly' that (given good electoral rules and structure as well as small levels of socio-economic inequality e.g. in Scandanivian countries) is of, by and for the people. If politicians don't do what the people want, they can be voted out of office. Electoral accountability works just about perfectly if we simply choose the right form of democracy and limit drastically inequalities in wealth and productive property.

However, when a factory owner destroys a small town's social and economic structure by moving the factory (a market externality-market transactions effect people who have no say in whether or not they take place, not voluntary nor chosen, contra your oft repeated but absurd comments about how the effects of market transactions are 'voluntary') , the people have no say: they cannot vote in a new factory owner who will bring the firm back, nor do they have the threat of no re-election to keep the current factory owner from leaving in the first place.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

capitalism leads to a massive concentration of wealth property and power.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with inequality?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This leads me to accept the idea that unchecked capitalism..

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoooooooo... Easy, horsy. Un'checked' capitalism? Are you kidding me? A monopolist group of criminals has nothing to do with 'checking'.

Generally, people are affraid that without the govt a group of criminals will take what they want by force and eventually become unstoppable. Unfortunately they don't realize that's exactly what 'government' is.

A free society/market always selects against violence, and a monopoly on violence always grows in power (breeds violence).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! I kneel before Nielsio! [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont, hes an idiot. give it time, you will see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spend more time analyzing my logic in stead of acting on emotion. That is if you care about truth and rationality.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-capitalism leads to a massive concentration of wealth property and power.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How? In "unchecked" capitalism, all transactions are voluntary - and each trader benefits from each transaction.

[/ QUOTE ] Ummm...I don't know why I need to say this but: some people have more maket power than others. Some have millions of dollars worth of resources and property and the means of production while others have none.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? A person making a decision to conduct a transaction can agree or decline. If the transaction is beneficial, he agrees. If not, he declines. Most of the time, both parties benefit (at the very least, they expect to).

[ QUOTE ]
Also, because of the natural and social lottery which determines what skills human beings have things that are more demanded in the market-Factory wokers are not voluntarily choosing to be factory wokers but they must because they do not have the skills to be NBA centers or lawyers-they are making the most reasonable decision given the conditions that are imposed upon them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but they *are* voluntarily chosing to become factory workers. They know if they chose to seek employment as NBA centers, they will not produce any value. Guess what, it sucks, but neither the NBA nor the factory owner imposed this set of circumstances upon the factory worker.

[ QUOTE ]
(If somebody has the option of either sleeping in an alley or in a homeless shelter because of economic necessity, and they pick the alley because of the poor conditions at the homeless shelter, it is ridiculous to say 'well, they voluntaryily picket the alley so there is nothing wrong going on here', btw).

[/ QUOTE ]

But it *is* correct to say that he found the alley more satisfying than the shelter.

[ QUOTE ]
Once people make money in the market because of their talents and/or inheritance of wealth, it is also easy to keep it and make more money yada yada yada

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? The factory worker can save some and "keep it and make more money" too.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you should have phrased the OP differently if this was your goal. I believe that unchecked capitalism (at least under conditions of non-anarchy-just said to avoid the AC rampage) creates many monopolies


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How? Without state intervention, how can a firm prevent other firms from entering a market?


[/ QUOTE ] Social circumstaces, once again, can be just as oppressive as formal coercion. There are a whole list of monopolies in a thread in OOT

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, OOT. A reliable source if ever there were one.

[ QUOTE ]
that lists rather obscure monopolies, most of which have had little or no help from governments.

Second, there are natural monopolies: Like phone lines, roads, and railroads. It simply makes no sense to have 34 roads which all start and end at the exact same place, there is no room for this to happen anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural monopolies are myths. There was robust competition in utilities before mercantilists figured out how to rig the system and get local governments to grant them monopoly protection.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, firms can buy out or perform a hostile takeover on other firms.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
Let us say there is no gov't to prevent concentration of market power. The big firms will buy out the small ones. Wal-mart buys target, buys K-mart, buys Jim and Joe's and mom and pops retail outlet. They then drastically increase prices but people have no other option because they bought everybody out. Whenever someone else tries to start a competing shop that gains some kind of popularity, Wal-mart buys them out, and by your own premises about human self-interestedness they take the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, with their bottomless pit of money, right? This has been debunked hundreds of times.

[ QUOTE ]
Wal-mart (in this situation but possibly in the real world as well) is also so big that it could announce that it is going to stop buying from a distributor of goods that is selling to the competition, and producers will simply refuse to sell to other retailers because Wal-mart's business is so much more important because of the high volume of sales. So wal-mart has two ways at least to ensure that they are the only retailer around and hence can set prices. We need the government to prevent these kinds of scenarios from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also debunked, in this forum, time and again.

[ QUOTE ]
Many u.s. companies today buy out there competitiors or a small firm that is coming out with innovation today despite the anti-trust laws. It is that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet you see no problem with (and you advocate the expansion of power of) the biggest monopoly of all, the monopoly which creates all other monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ] This monopoly is the monopoly of the people in a democracy, a 'monopoly' that (given good electoral rules and structure as well as small levels of socio-economic inequality e.g. in Scandanivian countries) is of, by and for the people. If politicians don't do what the people want, they can be voted out of office. Electoral accountability works just about perfectly if we simply choose the right form of democracy and limit drastically inequalities in wealth and productive property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: democracy is great, as long as everyone (or rather, 50%+1) votes the same way I do. Too bad for the 49%, we're going to make them do it our way.

[ QUOTE ]
However, when a factory owner destroys a small town's social and economic structure by moving the factory (a market externality-market transactions effect people who have no say in whether or not they take place, not voluntary nor chosen, contra your oft repeated but absurd comments about how the effects of market transactions are 'voluntary') , the people have no say: they cannot vote in a new factory owner who will bring the firm back, nor do they have the threat of no re-election to keep the current factory owner from leaving in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I hire a guy to mow my grass, and I decide to find someone else to do it, should I be compelled to continue employing the first guy? Getting rid of him is harming him, isn't it? Even if I can find someone cheaper (or do it myself!). Is he now *entitled* to that job? If so, is he entitled to it *forever*?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, when a factory owner destroys a small town's social and economic structure by moving the factory (a market externality-market transactions effect people who have no say in whether or not they take place, not voluntary nor chosen, contra your oft repeated but absurd comments about how the effects of market transactions are 'voluntary') , the people have no say: they cannot vote in a new factory owner who will bring the firm back, nor do they have the threat of no re-election to keep the current factory owner from leaving in the first place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If I hire a guy to mow my grass, and I decide to find someone else to do it, should I be compelled to continue employing the first guy? Getting rid of him is harming him, isn't it? Even if I can find someone cheaper (or do it myself!). Is he now *entitled* to that job? If so, is he entitled to it *forever*?

[/ QUOTE ] When a large company moves out of a small town it harms everyone in that city. Pick up a basic sociology textbook or a history book about this, if somehow you can't see what everyone else in the world does.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but they *are* voluntarily chosing to become factory workers. They know if they chose to seek employment as NBA centers, they will not produce any value. Guess what, it sucks, but neither the NBA nor the factory owner imposed this set of circumstances upon the factory worker.

[/ QUOTE ] No, they won't get a job as an NBA center and that is why they won't try-do not have the skills to get higher. The rest of your argument is irrelevant because of this and committs the naturalistic fallacy anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
So what? The factory worker can save some and "keep it and make more money" too.


[/ QUOTE ] Someone who makes $10 hour can save a lot less in almost all cases than someone who makes $100.

[ QUOTE ]
Natural monopolies are myths. There was robust competition in utilities before mercantilists figured out how to rig the system and get local governments to grant them monopoly protection.

[/ QUOTE ] No, No no no. Every textbook in economics proves this is otherwise, and I even gave an example of one that is not a myth and demonstrating why it is a natural monopoly, and you ignored my example because it calls into question your absolute faith in the market: you ACers have found a new biblical religion: the market is god, the gov't is the devil, everything in the world that is wrong in the world is due to the government, and everything that is right in the world is due to the market.

In any case sometimes competition can be harmful or just counter productive, as in the case of many natural monopolies.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us say there is no gov't to prevent concentration of market power. The big firms will buy out the small ones. Wal-mart buys target, buys K-mart, buys Jim and Joe's and mom and pops retail outlet. They then drastically increase prices but people have no other option because they bought everybody out. Whenever someone else tries to start a competing shop that gains some kind of popularity, Wal-mart buys them out, and by your own premises about human self-interestedness they take the deal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah, with their bottomless pit of money, right? This has been debunked hundreds of times.

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean? If it is so debunked why is it in every economic text?

In any case, they don't need a bottomless ammount or even close. It is hard to create a medium or larger retail store because it costs a lot of money to even try to do. ANd they have so much money: the Waltons have about 100 billion collectively, and this is when they do not have a monopoly and charge low prices. If they simply doubled the ammount of stores and doubled the prices they would magnify there profits by ten to thirty times and be worth a trillion bucks!!! More than enough to buy off people(the reason this is not 100 x2 x2 is that if you double your prices you far more than double the ammount of profit you gain from a sale-e.g. the store gets about 5 cents profit on a 50 cent candy bar, if they doubled the price they would get 60 cents, twelve times the profit)

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wal-mart (in this situation but possibly in the real world as well) is also so big that it could announce that it is going to stop buying from a distributor of goods that is selling to the competition, and producers will simply refuse to sell to other retailers because Wal-mart's business is so much more important because of the high volume of sales. So wal-mart has two ways at least to ensure that they are the only retailer around and hence can set prices. We need the government to prevent these kinds of scenarios from happening.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Also debunked, in this forum, time and again.


[/ QUOTE ] Also accepted by almost every actual scholar. Wal-mart right now actually pays less for just about everything than the other retailers because they tell them they will not buy from them unless wal-mart gets a special discount, and the companies listen because they are high volume. Imagine what they could do if they could tell the distributors to not sell to others as well.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This monopoly is the monopoly of the people in a democracy, a 'monopoly' that (given good electoral rules and structure as well as small levels of socio-economic inequality e.g. in Scandanivian countries) is of, by and for the people. If politicians don't do what the people want, they can be voted out of office. Electoral accountability works just about perfectly if we simply choose the right form of democracy and limit drastically inequalities in wealth and productive property.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Translation: democracy is great, as long as everyone (or rather, 50%+1) votes the same way I do. Too bad for the 49%, we're going to make them do it our way.

[/ QUOTE ] No: translation, gov'ts can be accountable to the people.

In any case, you don't understand Proportional representation if you think it is 50%+1 that decides everything, nor how politics works in consensual as opposed to majoritarian democracies.

Even if it was, I'd rather have the 50%+1 that decides everything rather than an anarcho-capitalism, where a small, powerful minority would tell a large majority what to do because of their control of the means of production. Better to have 50%+1 deciding how things are done than the 1% of people who control 50% of the wealth tell the other 99% how things are going to be done.

[Borodog]

Lol. You have it exactly backwards. Under capitalism, the large majority tell the minority who own the means of production what to do.

Do you see why?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. You have it exactly backwards. Under capitalism, the large majority tell the minority who own the means of production what to do.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ] LOL. You live in a dream world.