5 ms·

I doubt the lightbulb cartel is still a thing. While oligopolies and monopolies exist, it's not the answer to every inflating article.

by BbzzbB 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago
>> Or the oligopolies that are allowed to operate unfettered in the USA. > I doubt the lightbulb cartel is still a thing. While oligopolies and monopolies exist, it's not the answer to every inflating article. An oligopoly doesn't have to also be a cartel, it just has to have few competitors. I think the GP is complaining about how the US as pretty much allowed any market consolidation short of outright monopoly for a long time, which means a lot of companies have too little competition and therefore too much market power.
- BbzzbB 4y ago
  Is an oligopoly that isn't a cartel problematic? If the lightbulb manufacturers jack up their prices, how long can that last until new incumbents come around and compete margins away? You know what people hate more than oligopolies? High prices. Consolidation is not de facto problematic. Unless said consolidation leads to cartel-like behavior or entrenching regulations (which even Adam Smith recognized as a problem and a propensity of elites, I'm not arguing in favor of laissez-faire capitalism), margins will be cyclical in a free market and colluding oligopolies will eventually face new incumbents, because high margins attracts competition and investments. There are exceptions like markets where cost is prohibitive for new participants, say telecom (hello Rogers-Bell-Telus), but I don't see how that applies to lightbulbs in the 21st century.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  Well that shouldn't come at a surprise since U.S. antitrust law is aimed at protecting consumer interests, not protecting competition.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Well that shouldn't come at a surprise since U.S. antitrust law is aimed at protecting consumer interests, not protecting competition. And a lot of people are now questioning the wisdom and effectiveness of that approach. Also a, "that shouldn't come [as] a surprise" response doesn't really address anything in this subthread. I don't think anyone is surprised that was the approach that was taken or its result, they just disagree with it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      > I don't think anyone is surprised that was the approach that was taken or its result, they just disagree with it. You mean you disagree with it, despite there being many markets where less competition doesn't hurt or even benefits the consumer. Also, addressing the tone or being grammar nazi doesn't add much to discussion.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        I'll put this as simply as possible: you didn't understand what I wrote, but chose to respond anyway.
        minsc_and_boo 4y ago
        A 'you didn't understand what I wrote' response doesn't really address anything in this subthread.
midislack 4y ago
Of course it’s still a thing. Why wouldn’t it be?
- BbzzbB 4y ago
  Because manufacturing lightbulbs today is a well established process and basically any manufacturer can produce them if they so chose, as opposed to 1925's situation. It also quite empirically is no longer a thing as LED bulbs can last up to 100k hours [1] and are often rated for 50k [2], as opposed to the cartel's 1k [3]. 1: https://www.inlineelectric.com/lifespan https://www.inlineelectric.com/lifespan 2: https://www.bulbs.com/learning/ledfaq.aspx https://www.bulbs.com/learning/ledfaq.aspx 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
  - coliveira 4y ago
    You don't seem to understand how modern markets work. See for example Coca-cola. Anyone can create a drink that looks like Coca-cola. However, we know it has a near monopoly on that segment of the market. Just because a product can be manufactured, doesn't mean that companies have the capacity to create and produce it at the scale needed to become profitable.
    - BbzzbB 4y ago
      That's a separate subject to anti-competitive oligopolies. Let me doubt people are loyal to lightbulb manufacturers and that the situation is remotely comparable to one of the most powerful and well established consumer brands in history. But since you brought up this subject, why should I care consumer brands are exercising their pricing power for as long as I have access to the low-margin alternatives? People paying $5 for takeout coffee at Starbucks doesn't affect me in any way. It would affect me if Coke and Starbucks prohibited the existence of competitors or extinguished them, but that isn't the case (for these examples at least, such anti-competitive behaviors do exist) as you have yourself implicitly noted in your comment.
      - 4y ago
NonNefarious 4y ago
I didn't say it was. But the four meat producers raking in 40% higher profits while whining about a labor shortage should be top of the docket for any politician claiming to want to "do something" about inflation. Isn't the baby-formula fiasco yet another wake-up call? While we're at it, let's stop burning our food. Growing (and subsidizing) corn for fuel is asinine.

I doubt the lightbulb cartel is still a thing. While oligopolies and monopolies exist, it's not the answer to every inflating article.

by BbzzbB 4y ago

I doubt the lightbulb cartel is still a thing. While oligopolies and monopolies exist, it's not the answer to every inflating article.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> Or the oligopolies that are allowed to operate unfettered in the USA. > I doubt the lightbulb cartel is still a thing. While oligopolies and monopolies exist, it's not the answer to every inflating article. An oligopoly doesn't have to also be a cartel, it just has to have few competitors. I think the GP is complaining about how the US as pretty much allowed any market consolidation short of outright monopoly for a long time, which means a lot of companies have too little competition and therefore too much market power.

BbzzbB 4y ago
Is an oligopoly that isn't a cartel problematic? If the lightbulb manufacturers jack up their prices, how long can that last until new incumbents come around and compete margins away? You know what people hate more than oligopolies? High prices. Consolidation is not de facto problematic. Unless said consolidation leads to cartel-like behavior or entrenching regulations (which even Adam Smith recognized as a problem and a propensity of elites, I'm not arguing in favor of laissez-faire capitalism), margins will be cyclical in a free market and colluding oligopolies will eventually face new incumbents, because high margins attracts competition and investments. There are exceptions like markets where cost is prohibitive for new participants, say telecom (hello Rogers-Bell-Telus), but I don't see how that applies to lightbulbs in the 21st century.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
Well that shouldn't come at a surprise since U.S. antitrust law is aimed at protecting consumer interests, not protecting competition.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Well that shouldn't come at a surprise since U.S. antitrust law is aimed at protecting consumer interests, not protecting competition. And a lot of people are now questioning the wisdom and effectiveness of that approach. Also a, "that shouldn't come [as] a surprise" response doesn't really address anything in this subthread. I don't think anyone is surprised that was the approach that was taken or its result, they just disagree with it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    > I don't think anyone is surprised that was the approach that was taken or its result, they just disagree with it. You mean you disagree with it, despite there being many markets where less competition doesn't hurt or even benefits the consumer. Also, addressing the tone or being grammar nazi doesn't add much to discussion.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      I'll put this as simply as possible: you didn't understand what I wrote, but chose to respond anyway.
      - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
        A 'you didn't understand what I wrote' response doesn't really address anything in this subthread.

midislack 4y ago

Of course it’s still a thing. Why wouldn’t it be?

BbzzbB 4y ago
Because manufacturing lightbulbs today is a well established process and basically any manufacturer can produce them if they so chose, as opposed to 1925's situation. It also quite empirically is no longer a thing as LED bulbs can last up to 100k hours [1] and are often rated for 50k [2], as opposed to the cartel's 1k [3]. 1: https://www.inlineelectric.com/lifespan https://www.inlineelectric.com/lifespan 2: https://www.bulbs.com/learning/ledfaq.aspx https://www.bulbs.com/learning/ledfaq.aspx 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
- coliveira 4y ago
  You don't seem to understand how modern markets work. See for example Coca-cola. Anyone can create a drink that looks like Coca-cola. However, we know it has a near monopoly on that segment of the market. Just because a product can be manufactured, doesn't mean that companies have the capacity to create and produce it at the scale needed to become profitable.
  - BbzzbB 4y ago
    That's a separate subject to anti-competitive oligopolies. Let me doubt people are loyal to lightbulb manufacturers and that the situation is remotely comparable to one of the most powerful and well established consumer brands in history. But since you brought up this subject, why should I care consumer brands are exercising their pricing power for as long as I have access to the low-margin alternatives? People paying $5 for takeout coffee at Starbucks doesn't affect me in any way. It would affect me if Coke and Starbucks prohibited the existence of competitors or extinguished them, but that isn't the case (for these examples at least, such anti-competitive behaviors do exist) as you have yourself implicitly noted in your comment.
    - 4y ago

NonNefarious 4y ago

I didn't say it was. But the four meat producers raking in 40% higher profits while whining about a labor shortage should be top of the docket for any politician claiming to want to "do something" about inflation. Isn't the baby-formula fiasco yet another wake-up call? While we're at it, let's stop burning our food. Growing (and subsidizing) corn for fuel is asinine.