4 ms·

If there's any single place where the gov absolutely needs to be on monopolies, it's grocery stores.

EricDeb 4y ago
there's so much false competition in America, where upon first glance it looks like there are many competing companies but actually they are all owned by a parent company.
- elcritch 4y ago
  There used to be much stronger protections on these monopolies, at least in newspapers and such. It's definitely been a step backwards as a country to remove those limits IMHO. I'm pro-capitalist in many areas I don't think a government monopoly on stores would be good at all. However, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.
  - jim-jim-jim 4y ago
    As somebody with a more critical stance towards capitalism, monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system. Firms that reach this stage become (even more) parasitic and should be dealt with, but it seems counterproductive to dismantle that success. I'd like to see nationalization considered in more of these discussions.
    - astrange 4y ago
      What's so good about nationalizing things? Governments don't need to own things to regulate them. If you (the public) own something then it's your problem if it goes into debt.
      - jim-jim-jim 4y ago
        Drastically reduced out of pocket costs from a lack of profit motive, and the ability to leverage this purchasing power to negotiate further savings with other participants in the supply chain. It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.
        twoodfin 4y ago
        The US military doesn’t have a profit motive, has massive leverage over most of its key suppliers, and yet I do not think anyone would list “cost control” among its virtues.
        antifa 4y ago
        If it did, we'd save a lot of money purchasing tanks, guns, F-35s, drones, etc. from China.
        astrange 4y ago
        The profit motive is what causes lower costs; where else would the margin come from? And it's also nice to not own PG&E considering how much debt they're in. On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)
      - ADuckOnQuack 4y ago
        The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway, so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
        astrange 4y ago
        No they don't. Those are usually loans, don't confuse a bailout with a loan. And don't assume equity holders do nothing but profit; if it fails they get nothing. (…Also I don't think it happens "regularly"?) The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing. On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model. > I'd like to see nationalization considered There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
      - jim-jim-jim 4y ago
        > HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model. The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling. I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason. > There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization. In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > advertising is not productive labor Yes, it is. Otherwise people wouldn't pay for it.
        sidlls 4y ago
        The fact that people pay for something is not an indication that it is productive labor.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Do you buy things you don't want?
  - komali2 4y ago
    How do you ensure, or guarantee preferably, that the government will continue to provide a level playing field by preventing anti-market mergers, when capital provides political power? Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly? We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
    - lmm 4y ago
      I mean, Standard Oil did get broken up. Ma Bell did get broken up. Clearly at some point the US government was able to resist pressure from these wealthy and well-connected corporates, and break them up for the sake of the rest of us. What's changed since then?
      - komali2 4y ago
        > What's changed since then? These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?
        lmm 4y ago
        I don't think it's that simple. Standard Oil was huge, the companies of that era owned whole towns.
      - kevingadd 4y ago
        Right-wingers took more control over the parts of the government responsible for fighting monopolies
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        A Supreme Court ruling that allowed essentially unlimited and unregulated anonymous spending on political campaigns as being protected by the first amendment. Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Volkswagen owns Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Audi, Skoda, Seat, and a few others
untilNxtwk 4y ago
[flagged]
- echelon 4y ago
  > Bezos had dozens with tens of thousands just lying around to buy into his vision. Bezos didn't come from wealth. Don't attribute his success to nepotism. He was shrewd, clever, cunning, at the right place at the right time, and made all of the right calls.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Bezos’ grandfather owned a 25000 acre ranch in Texas. I don’t know that nepotism was a factor but that’s a fair amount of wealth in his family.
  - untilNxtwk 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Bezos didn’t come from the same wealth as the other examples but he did accept $300,000 in start up capital from his parents to get Amazon going. That’s not something available to the average joe.
- RobRivera 4y ago
  I cannot tell if this is a chatgpt or someone with mild bad grammar. EDIT: I see post comment, the parent i responded to has thus rewritten their comment.
  - echelon 4y ago
    I wonder when HN will fill up with ChatGPT responses. I'm kind of terrified about it being a testing/proving ground for this sort of activity. I give Reddit and Twitter a year, maybe two, before 99% of the discourse is non-human. There's not going to be any stopping it without strict identification - state ID, driver's license, passport. The days of pseudonymity look to be not long for this earth.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Our government is nothing more than a facade at this point working for the monopolies and oligarchy.
- astrange 4y ago
  Another way to say it is that if you want to regulate an industry, it's easier to grant it a monopoly because that's the only way you can manage to keep an eye on them. That's why you don't have 5 choices of power company.
latency-guy2 4y ago
Why? Are most grocery stores not already operating on razor thin margins? What basis are you extending to the government an abuse of it's power? Are there not still already numerous other options existing in the same location, sometimes even being directly across the street from each other? I don't understand why so many want to be under the boot of city/state/federal, and everything in between. It's mind boggling. I think people need to be more honest, is the success of the US in spite of the government, or is it because of the government that we are who we are today, and further the future. I will concede all my politics from that point if we can give a direct answer. And not the bullshit weasel answer where it is 'both', it can't be, one operates and limits the other overwhelmingly by force, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.

there's so much false competition in America, where upon first glance it looks like there are many competing companies but actually they are all owned by a parent company.

elcritch 4y ago
There used to be much stronger protections on these monopolies, at least in newspapers and such. It's definitely been a step backwards as a country to remove those limits IMHO. I'm pro-capitalist in many areas I don't think a government monopoly on stores would be good at all. However, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.
- jim-jim-jim 4y ago
  As somebody with a more critical stance towards capitalism, monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system. Firms that reach this stage become (even more) parasitic and should be dealt with, but it seems counterproductive to dismantle that success. I'd like to see nationalization considered in more of these discussions.
  - astrange 4y ago
    What's so good about nationalizing things? Governments don't need to own things to regulate them. If you (the public) own something then it's your problem if it goes into debt.
    - jim-jim-jim 4y ago
      Drastically reduced out of pocket costs from a lack of profit motive, and the ability to leverage this purchasing power to negotiate further savings with other participants in the supply chain. It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.
      - twoodfin 4y ago
        The US military doesn’t have a profit motive, has massive leverage over most of its key suppliers, and yet I do not think anyone would list “cost control” among its virtues.
        antifa 4y ago
        If it did, we'd save a lot of money purchasing tanks, guns, F-35s, drones, etc. from China.
      - astrange 4y ago
        The profit motive is what causes lower costs; where else would the margin come from? And it's also nice to not own PG&E considering how much debt they're in. On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)
    - ADuckOnQuack 4y ago
      The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway, so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
      - astrange 4y ago
        No they don't. Those are usually loans, don't confuse a bailout with a loan. And don't assume equity holders do nothing but profit; if it fails they get nothing. (…Also I don't think it happens "regularly"?) The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing. On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model. > I'd like to see nationalization considered There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
    - jim-jim-jim 4y ago
      > HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model. The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling. I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason. > There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization. In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > advertising is not productive labor Yes, it is. Otherwise people wouldn't pay for it.
        sidlls 4y ago
        The fact that people pay for something is not an indication that it is productive labor.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Do you buy things you don't want?
- komali2 4y ago
  How do you ensure, or guarantee preferably, that the government will continue to provide a level playing field by preventing anti-market mergers, when capital provides political power? Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly? We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
  - lmm 4y ago
    I mean, Standard Oil did get broken up. Ma Bell did get broken up. Clearly at some point the US government was able to resist pressure from these wealthy and well-connected corporates, and break them up for the sake of the rest of us. What's changed since then?
    - komali2 4y ago
      > What's changed since then? These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?
      - lmm 4y ago
        I don't think it's that simple. Standard Oil was huge, the companies of that era owned whole towns.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      Right-wingers took more control over the parts of the government responsible for fighting monopolies
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      A Supreme Court ruling that allowed essentially unlimited and unregulated anonymous spending on political campaigns as being protected by the first amendment. Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
themitigating 4y ago
Volkswagen owns Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Audi, Skoda, Seat, and a few others

untilNxtwk 4y ago

[flagged]

echelon 4y ago
> Bezos had dozens with tens of thousands just lying around to buy into his vision. Bezos didn't come from wealth. Don't attribute his success to nepotism. He was shrewd, clever, cunning, at the right place at the right time, and made all of the right calls.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Bezos’ grandfather owned a 25000 acre ranch in Texas. I don’t know that nepotism was a factor but that’s a fair amount of wealth in his family.
- untilNxtwk 4y ago
  [flagged]
- brewdad 4y ago
  Bezos didn’t come from the same wealth as the other examples but he did accept $300,000 in start up capital from his parents to get Amazon going. That’s not something available to the average joe.
RobRivera 4y ago
I cannot tell if this is a chatgpt or someone with mild bad grammar. EDIT: I see post comment, the parent i responded to has thus rewritten their comment.
- echelon 4y ago
  I wonder when HN will fill up with ChatGPT responses. I'm kind of terrified about it being a testing/proving ground for this sort of activity. I give Reddit and Twitter a year, maybe two, before 99% of the discourse is non-human. There's not going to be any stopping it without strict identification - state ID, driver's license, passport. The days of pseudonymity look to be not long for this earth.

encryptluks2 4y ago

Our government is nothing more than a facade at this point working for the monopolies and oligarchy.

astrange 4y ago
Another way to say it is that if you want to regulate an industry, it's easier to grant it a monopoly because that's the only way you can manage to keep an eye on them. That's why you don't have 5 choices of power company.

latency-guy2 4y ago

Why? Are most grocery stores not already operating on razor thin margins? What basis are you extending to the government an abuse of it's power? Are there not still already numerous other options existing in the same location, sometimes even being directly across the street from each other? I don't understand why so many want to be under the boot of city/state/federal, and everything in between. It's mind boggling. I think people need to be more honest, is the success of the US in spite of the government, or is it because of the government that we are who we are today, and further the future. I will concede all my politics from that point if we can give a direct answer. And not the bullshit weasel answer where it is 'both', it can't be, one operates and limits the other overwhelmingly by force, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.