5 ms·

Laissez-faire capitialism doesn't exist outside of flea markets. Reality is that many industries are monopolies or effective oligarchies: banking, telecommunic

by russell 18y ago

Laissez-faire capitialism doesn't exist outside of flea markets. Reality is that many industries are monopolies or effective oligarchies: banking, telecommunications, insurance, pharmaceuticals... The idea that these companies working in heir own self interest will counterbalance each other is nonsense. That's why we need regulation. The problem occurs when the regulated do the regulating, whether by infiltrating the government, bribing congress, or actually writing the laws. And I will acknowledge that there is and has been a more than adequate supply of bad regulations. Also we need vigorous antitrust enforcement so that the failure of no one company can bring down the economy. AIG come to mind, but also the telcos, oil companies, and Rupert Murdoch,

ivankirigin 18y ago
Consumers regularly counter act companies. Brands are so valuable that companies fight to protect them. The best examples of monopolies are almost exclusively backed by government regulation. For the examples you site about companies too big to fail: firstly no company is too big to fail. Secondly, those industries would be more competitive without regulation, subsidies, the SEC, and the FCC. Finally, it makes your whole comment hold less weight when you single out Rupert Murdoch while commenting on an open forum on the internet. Communication and broadcasting tools have never been more competitive and free.
- ph0rque 18y ago
  > Consumers regularly counter act companies. So why can't consumers get e.g. cheaper text message rates?
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    Because the FCC auctions off portions of the wireless spectrum, and various municipalities control where you can build cell towers, and so a hypothetical telecom startup devoted to the cheaper text message rates must jump through a lot of bureaucratic red tape just to setup the basic infrastructure. Most startups won't bother while there's low-hanging fruit in the unregulated Internet market. I'm not sure I buy the whole "truly free markets will save us all" argument, but the particular text-messaging argument has a very simple explanation in terms of government monopolies and the cozy relationship between entrenched players and the government.
    - davidw 18y ago
      > auctions off portions of the wireless spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_s... > municipalities control where you can build cell towers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
      - ivankirigin 18y ago
        Certain the tragedy of the commons is a real issue, but the FCC and the spectrum control is too far in the regulated direction.
      - nostrademons 18y ago
        Again, I'm not certain that free markets are the answer. It may be that telecom is fated to suck, and the regulated alternative sucks less than the complete laissez-faire one. But I am fairly certain that telecom sucks at least in part because of regulation.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Like free email? Like open wifi networks to send GB of data? And the other reply is right. The space is incredibly regulated. You'd be arrested for trying to compete in the restricted spectrum.
  - tokenadult 18y ago
    This consumer talks on my prepaid voice account and saves lots of money over texting. Or I use the email I already pay for to send people text. Substitution sometimes works just as well as attacking any one product's pricing model.
- aswanson 18y ago
  What if the consumer dies of a bad pharmaceutical purchased on the free market before getting to change vendors? What if his house wiring (done without codes or regulations) burns him and his home in his sleep before he gets to send out the correction signal to the market? Hominem ūnīus librī timeō.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    My point about brands was that this kind of thing is VERY bad for the companies at fault and they work hard to avoid it. Another point about regulation is that is actually doesn't solve much. Not only do people die from drugs both from failures in testing despite regulation, but they also die from NOT taking drugs because of delays in the regulator process. Most business take pride in what they make. Most people look for that, and look for recommendations from peers. That system is remarkably effective.
    - aswanson 18y ago
      I would not argue the effectiveness of that system, but can you honestly say we should not regulate who can fly an airplane or drive a car, practice heart surgery or design bridges and buildings? Do you think an unfettered market with no regulation of these things is a good idea?
      - Darmani 18y ago
        Depends how much people care about who they go to for heart surgery.
      - vitaminj 18y ago
        The free market would eventually fix all these problems, albeit after a period of suffering and very likely, many deaths. Industry standards and associations would crop up after a string of failures, and consumers would eventually move towards firms that are endorsed by the industry standard bodies. eg. chartered accountants. Regulations are just there to try and avoid the transition period of pain (and death).
- carbon8 18y ago
  > Consumers regularly counter act companies. Brands are so valuable that companies fight to protect them. There are many kinds of businesses that exploit faults in the public and market, yet don't even have any relationship with branding. Companies have better resources and access to more information about the areas they function in than the public does (whether as individuals or groups), and many businesses don't market to the public at all, even if they deal with the public. Debt collection firms, for example, have all of these features. The public does have a mechanism to counteract the actions of companies, and that's representative government and regulation. It's obviously imperfect, but it is the mechanism the public has.
Prrometheus 18y ago
Regulatory costs do raise the barrier to entry and push the market towards fewer, larger firms.
anamax 18y ago
> The problem occurs when the regulated do the regulating, whether by infiltrating the government, bribing congress, or actually writing the laws. It's poor form to not mention that said problem always occurs. It's also poor form to not mention that all of the monopolies/oligopolies mentioned were created and/or maintained by govt action. Regulation is one of those govt actions. Regulation gives Walmart an advantage over every Mom&Pop because even at its best, regulation is a fixed cost that Walmart can spread over more transactions. At its typical, Walmart gets a deal that no one else gets.

by russell 18y ago

ivankirigin 18y ago

Consumers regularly counter act companies. Brands are so valuable that companies fight to protect them. The best examples of monopolies are almost exclusively backed by government regulation. For the examples you site about companies too big to fail: firstly no company is too big to fail. Secondly, those industries would be more competitive without regulation, subsidies, the SEC, and the FCC. Finally, it makes your whole comment hold less weight when you single out Rupert Murdoch while commenting on an open forum on the internet. Communication and broadcasting tools have never been more competitive and free.

ph0rque 18y ago
> Consumers regularly counter act companies. So why can't consumers get e.g. cheaper text message rates?
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Because the FCC auctions off portions of the wireless spectrum, and various municipalities control where you can build cell towers, and so a hypothetical telecom startup devoted to the cheaper text message rates must jump through a lot of bureaucratic red tape just to setup the basic infrastructure. Most startups won't bother while there's low-hanging fruit in the unregulated Internet market. I'm not sure I buy the whole "truly free markets will save us all" argument, but the particular text-messaging argument has a very simple explanation in terms of government monopolies and the cozy relationship between entrenched players and the government.
  - davidw 18y ago
    > auctions off portions of the wireless spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_s... > municipalities control where you can build cell towers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Certain the tragedy of the commons is a real issue, but the FCC and the spectrum control is too far in the regulated direction.
    - nostrademons 18y ago
      Again, I'm not certain that free markets are the answer. It may be that telecom is fated to suck, and the regulated alternative sucks less than the complete laissez-faire one. But I am fairly certain that telecom sucks at least in part because of regulation.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Like free email? Like open wifi networks to send GB of data? And the other reply is right. The space is incredibly regulated. You'd be arrested for trying to compete in the restricted spectrum.
- tokenadult 18y ago
  This consumer talks on my prepaid voice account and saves lots of money over texting. Or I use the email I already pay for to send people text. Substitution sometimes works just as well as attacking any one product's pricing model.
aswanson 18y ago
What if the consumer dies of a bad pharmaceutical purchased on the free market before getting to change vendors? What if his house wiring (done without codes or regulations) burns him and his home in his sleep before he gets to send out the correction signal to the market? Hominem ūnīus librī timeō.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  My point about brands was that this kind of thing is VERY bad for the companies at fault and they work hard to avoid it. Another point about regulation is that is actually doesn't solve much. Not only do people die from drugs both from failures in testing despite regulation, but they also die from NOT taking drugs because of delays in the regulator process. Most business take pride in what they make. Most people look for that, and look for recommendations from peers. That system is remarkably effective.
  - aswanson 18y ago
    I would not argue the effectiveness of that system, but can you honestly say we should not regulate who can fly an airplane or drive a car, practice heart surgery or design bridges and buildings? Do you think an unfettered market with no regulation of these things is a good idea?
    - Darmani 18y ago
      Depends how much people care about who they go to for heart surgery.
    - vitaminj 18y ago
      The free market would eventually fix all these problems, albeit after a period of suffering and very likely, many deaths. Industry standards and associations would crop up after a string of failures, and consumers would eventually move towards firms that are endorsed by the industry standard bodies. eg. chartered accountants. Regulations are just there to try and avoid the transition period of pain (and death).
carbon8 18y ago
> Consumers regularly counter act companies. Brands are so valuable that companies fight to protect them. There are many kinds of businesses that exploit faults in the public and market, yet don't even have any relationship with branding. Companies have better resources and access to more information about the areas they function in than the public does (whether as individuals or groups), and many businesses don't market to the public at all, even if they deal with the public. Debt collection firms, for example, have all of these features. The public does have a mechanism to counteract the actions of companies, and that's representative government and regulation. It's obviously imperfect, but it is the mechanism the public has.

Prrometheus 18y ago

Regulatory costs do raise the barrier to entry and push the market towards fewer, larger firms.

anamax 18y ago

> The problem occurs when the regulated do the regulating, whether by infiltrating the government, bribing congress, or actually writing the laws. It's poor form to not mention that said problem always occurs. It's also poor form to not mention that all of the monopolies/oligopolies mentioned were created and/or maintained by govt action. Regulation is one of those govt actions. Regulation gives Walmart an advantage over every Mom&Pop because even at its best, regulation is a fixed cost that Walmart can spread over more transactions. At its typical, Walmart gets a deal that no one else gets.