7 ms·

As someone who leans conservative, it's interesting to see anti-monopoly ideas starting to come back in from the cold. However, as we all know, talk is cheap an

by jdhn 7y ago

As someone who leans conservative, it's interesting to see anti-monopoly ideas starting to come back in from the cold. However, as we all know, talk is cheap and action isn't. I guess I'll start believing that this isn't just a fad once a Republican Justice Department goes after existing monopolies.

AstralStorm 7y ago
Unfortunately, potentially well indoctrinated to give rich a break. And rich have stakes elsewhere, in short term status quo.
sandworm101 7y ago
It is a common problem among right-wing/conservative thinkers. There is an inevitable conflict between the concepts of "freedom of property" and "competition". If people (corporations) are to be given freedom over their property they might choose to put all that property under one leadership, creating a monopoly. The standard conservative reaction to such issues is a "market based" incentive against monopolies, such as what is being done with SpaceX/ULA. The government buys from two people, ensuring that at least two market actors survive. But the advantages of monopoly are extraordinary. Eventually the government has to step in and deny a merger (like they just did with photomultiplier tubes) or bail out a failed business. So conservative principals are inevitably sacrificed. The more mature option is to encourage a healthy market through regulation long before the market boils down to two, but that is definitely not a conservative ideal.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  >There is an inevitable conflict between the concepts of "freedom of property" and "competition". There is no such thing. All the american monopolies are due to protection policies defending them from the competition, i.e. due to the government's interventions. FCC, FDA, FAA are all run by corps' shills. US is a one big blatant example of regulatory capture and crony capitalism at its worse.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    so does that mean that googles search monopoly, or amazons almost soon-to-be monopoly are cause by the govt? what about classic monopolies like standard oil or northern securities company? isn’t it more like monopolies that are allowed to survive do so by the ‘protection policies’ of the govt? so while i do agree fcc, fda, faa are run by corporate shills, back in the days of near zero regulations huge monopolies continued to walk the earth until broken up... and breaking up monopolies is part of regulation
    - ernst_klim 7y ago
      A company could achieve quite a big market share, but it's nearly impossible to hold it for a longer period of time without a government's protection. It's a simple common sense: either you continue to provide the best service, and gain nothing from your market share, or you start to milk the consumers to squeeze more profits. The greed would simply mandate the latter strategy, hence monopolies don't last. >what about classic monopolies like standard oil or northern securities company? The former wasn't a monopoly at the time of anti-trust case. >Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling The latter was operational for how long, less than a year? >so does that mean that googles search monopoly, or amazons almost soon-to-be monopoly are cause by the govt? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/google-set-2018-lobbying-record-as-washington-techlash-expands https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/google-se... >isn’t it more like monopolies that are allowed to survive do so by the ‘protection policies’ of the govt? No, it's the monopolies which actively exploit the government, especially amazon. >back in the days of near zero regulations huge monopolies continued to walk the earth Examples? For example before the deregulation, there were only 6 breweries in the whole US. After deregulation their number grew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3bPU0g8SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3bPU0g8SA Regulations are burden: they increase the entering threshold leading to monopolization. You also need a regulatory agency, which is either run by bureaucrats who don't understand much in the industry (hence not adequate laws) or the industry people (hence regulatory capture). And anti-trust is no different here, the standard oil history is a great example of how it punished a non-monopoly.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
I am also happy about this. We can all talk about the wonders of a free market, but a free market without competition or with rampant price-fixing agreements does not operate...and indeed could be worse than a government monopoly on those goods and services, because at least with a Constitutional Republic, we can vote to change the people running it. We need to aggressively ensure competition, and not just three or four entities. There needs to be more viable businesses in a market. We will stagnate if we don't have smaller thriving companies that compete.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  >We can all talk about the wonders of a free market You don't have a free market in US. Try to sell a drug, for example. You need to get FDA's approval. And FDA is run by big pharma, so even if your drug is used in EU and proved fine, you need to spend quite a lot to push it on american market. US is more a classic corporate (i.e. fascist) state than a free market state.
  - AlexCoventry 7y ago
    Has there ever been a free-market state, in that case?
    - ernst_klim 7y ago
      There is nothing perfect, but EU is much closer to proper market than US. I'm far from being anarcho-capitalist myself, but I think that all the america's troubles are from the terrific centralization of power, and from how this power is controlling everybody's lives, while being controlled by so few entities. That's why I warn any american of any sort of increase of gov's presence. It will cause a great calamity, because the centralized power can never be controlled by many. It's fine if you have a small/local transparent government controlling and regulating. But when you have a big opaque one, you end up in a crony/fascist state. EU is very different in that regard: EU parliament is a very weak political entity, the states' governments are much stronger, and the govs of local provinces are even pore stronger, so the whole political system is very healthy. US seems to be just the opposite to that.

by jdhn 7y ago

AstralStorm 7y ago

Unfortunately, potentially well indoctrinated to give rich a break. And rich have stakes elsewhere, in short term status quo.

sandworm101 7y ago

It is a common problem among right-wing/conservative thinkers. There is an inevitable conflict between the concepts of "freedom of property" and "competition". If people (corporations) are to be given freedom over their property they might choose to put all that property under one leadership, creating a monopoly. The standard conservative reaction to such issues is a "market based" incentive against monopolies, such as what is being done with SpaceX/ULA. The government buys from two people, ensuring that at least two market actors survive. But the advantages of monopoly are extraordinary. Eventually the government has to step in and deny a merger (like they just did with photomultiplier tubes) or bail out a failed business. So conservative principals are inevitably sacrificed. The more mature option is to encourage a healthy market through regulation long before the market boils down to two, but that is definitely not a conservative ideal.

ernst_klim 7y ago
>There is an inevitable conflict between the concepts of "freedom of property" and "competition". There is no such thing. All the american monopolies are due to protection policies defending them from the competition, i.e. due to the government's interventions. FCC, FDA, FAA are all run by corps' shills. US is a one big blatant example of regulatory capture and crony capitalism at its worse.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  so does that mean that googles search monopoly, or amazons almost soon-to-be monopoly are cause by the govt? what about classic monopolies like standard oil or northern securities company? isn’t it more like monopolies that are allowed to survive do so by the ‘protection policies’ of the govt? so while i do agree fcc, fda, faa are run by corporate shills, back in the days of near zero regulations huge monopolies continued to walk the earth until broken up... and breaking up monopolies is part of regulation
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    A company could achieve quite a big market share, but it's nearly impossible to hold it for a longer period of time without a government's protection. It's a simple common sense: either you continue to provide the best service, and gain nothing from your market share, or you start to milk the consumers to squeeze more profits. The greed would simply mandate the latter strategy, hence monopolies don't last. >what about classic monopolies like standard oil or northern securities company? The former wasn't a monopoly at the time of anti-trust case. >Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling The latter was operational for how long, less than a year? >so does that mean that googles search monopoly, or amazons almost soon-to-be monopoly are cause by the govt? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/google-set-2018-lobbying-record-as-washington-techlash-expands https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/google-se... >isn’t it more like monopolies that are allowed to survive do so by the ‘protection policies’ of the govt? No, it's the monopolies which actively exploit the government, especially amazon. >back in the days of near zero regulations huge monopolies continued to walk the earth Examples? For example before the deregulation, there were only 6 breweries in the whole US. After deregulation their number grew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3bPU0g8SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3bPU0g8SA Regulations are burden: they increase the entering threshold leading to monopolization. You also need a regulatory agency, which is either run by bureaucrats who don't understand much in the industry (hence not adequate laws) or the industry people (hence regulatory capture). And anti-trust is no different here, the standard oil history is a great example of how it punished a non-monopoly.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

I am also happy about this. We can all talk about the wonders of a free market, but a free market without competition or with rampant price-fixing agreements does not operate...and indeed could be worse than a government monopoly on those goods and services, because at least with a Constitutional Republic, we can vote to change the people running it. We need to aggressively ensure competition, and not just three or four entities. There needs to be more viable businesses in a market. We will stagnate if we don't have smaller thriving companies that compete.

ernst_klim 7y ago
>We can all talk about the wonders of a free market You don't have a free market in US. Try to sell a drug, for example. You need to get FDA's approval. And FDA is run by big pharma, so even if your drug is used in EU and proved fine, you need to spend quite a lot to push it on american market. US is more a classic corporate (i.e. fascist) state than a free market state.
- AlexCoventry 7y ago
  Has there ever been a free-market state, in that case?
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    There is nothing perfect, but EU is much closer to proper market than US. I'm far from being anarcho-capitalist myself, but I think that all the america's troubles are from the terrific centralization of power, and from how this power is controlling everybody's lives, while being controlled by so few entities. That's why I warn any american of any sort of increase of gov's presence. It will cause a great calamity, because the centralized power can never be controlled by many. It's fine if you have a small/local transparent government controlling and regulating. But when you have a big opaque one, you end up in a crony/fascist state. EU is very different in that regard: EU parliament is a very weak political entity, the states' governments are much stronger, and the govs of local provinces are even pore stronger, so the whole political system is very healthy. US seems to be just the opposite to that.