7 ms·

I don't know where to start. 1) Monopolies can and do happen in the absence of regulation. Indeed, it is frequently only through regulation or direct governmen

by revscat 13y ago

I don't know where to start. 1) Monopolies can and do happen in the absence of regulation. Indeed, it is frequently only through regulation or direct governmental action that competition can be encouraged. (The breakup of the AT&T monopoly comes to mind.) 2) The simple fact of the matter is that government and economic policy go hand-in-hand. Governments create the currency and enforce contracts. They also set the rules for the market. Without those rules -- laws -- markets descend quickly into chaos similar to what you see today in Somalia or Afghanistan: societies driven by tribal loyalties, inefficient, brutal, cruel, and repressive. There are no monopolies in Somalia because there is no system in place for establishing corporate charters or enforcing contracts. This requires a strong government to serve as arbiter between disputing economic interests.

jessaustin 13y ago
I don't know where to start. Eh, you might reserve that tone for posts in which you're mostly correct. Ma Bell was not in any real sense broken up at any point in time. Presumably you're referring to the consent decree that took effect in 1984, but it's also possible you've been fooled by the fig-leaf Comm Act of '96. The result of all that mummery is that right now we have 2.5 phone companies in the USA (which organizations operate the exact same way they did it before the "breakup"), and various tiny morsels the two big daughters haven't yet consumed and excreted. The main outcome has been that telecom executives have extracted vast fortunes from investors, which was probably the point in the first place. That's not even to mention the fact that it was the original Comm Act of '34 that gave Bell its ironclad, FCC-enforced monopoly initially. There is hope, however, because eventually the consumer will only need an ISP, rather than the Frankenstein's monster that is "the phone company". ISPs connect, directly or indirectly, with backbone providers, and there is a functioning market of those. As long as the FCC doesn't outlaw ISPs, sanity will prevail in communications, someday. It's funny that you mention Somalia, because it's a direct refutation of the point you're attempting to make (i.e., no government -> monopoly). It's as if Somalia is such a favorite hobbyhorse of the corporatists that they can't actually talk about how great corporatism is without mentioning it.
- criley2 13y ago
  I don't see why Capitalists are so often misguided about their Ideology. Capitalism is not a system of capital ownership that encourages competition directly, it is a system of capital ownership that encourages greedy[1] people to greedily control capital in a way that most benefits themselves, and by proxy, their company, and by proxy, the economy. There is no competition inherent in private capital ownership, but it can exist as a side effect of greedy people attempting to best steer their capital successfully. [1] I use "greed" often, but this is Greed Motivation. That's what this system is. It's not an insult, rather just a descriptor of the motivations we exploit for our economic success. His examples may have been poor but industrialization is full of examples of Capitalism run wild in a regulatory environment that was non-existent. Would you like to defend the purely Capitalistic actions of Rockefeller and Carnegie, and perhaps rationalize the almost complete lack of a middle class during that heyday of nearly unregulated Capitalism or the incredibly poor conditions that large swaths of people were subjected to so that the richest Americans of all time (by a massive, shocking, so-much-more-than-Bill-Gates margin)could get even more wealthy? I'm always shocked when people automatically assume that Capitalism = Competition, when competition is really a side-effect of Capitalism, and one which is often minimized by firms who control capital and believe that their best interest is not in competing aggressively (expensively) but in dominating cheaply (rent-seeking).
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    One of the heuristics I've developed over years of internet surfing is to instantly disregard any content with terms like greed capitalized or coining new words like "Greed Motivation". FFS Google knows only 7000 pages with "greed motivation" phrase. While you may be absolutely factually correct, which you are not, such argument form is not doing good for the cause you promote. If you really want to spread information about the negative aspects of capitalism, you should try doing that without diatribes and name-calling.
  - criley2 13y ago
    @vdaniuk: You make wild accusations against me, saying that I am name calling? Can you quote me where I did that? Because this was no diatribe and I didn't call anyone names! I conducted myself respectfully--so it is surprising that you would be so disrespectful to me with your false accusation. I think what you've done is a basic against-the-man attack where you "discredit" what I said by inventing fake attacks against me. You're welcome to invent whatever rationalization you need to ignore me, but don't pretend it's anything more than ignorance in action, buddy.

by revscat 13y ago

jessaustin 13y ago

I don't know where to start. Eh, you might reserve that tone for posts in which you're mostly correct. Ma Bell was not in any real sense broken up at any point in time. Presumably you're referring to the consent decree that took effect in 1984, but it's also possible you've been fooled by the fig-leaf Comm Act of '96. The result of all that mummery is that right now we have 2.5 phone companies in the USA (which organizations operate the exact same way they did it before the "breakup"), and various tiny morsels the two big daughters haven't yet consumed and excreted. The main outcome has been that telecom executives have extracted vast fortunes from investors, which was probably the point in the first place. That's not even to mention the fact that it was the original Comm Act of '34 that gave Bell its ironclad, FCC-enforced monopoly initially. There is hope, however, because eventually the consumer will only need an ISP, rather than the Frankenstein's monster that is "the phone company". ISPs connect, directly or indirectly, with backbone providers, and there is a functioning market of those. As long as the FCC doesn't outlaw ISPs, sanity will prevail in communications, someday. It's funny that you mention Somalia, because it's a direct refutation of the point you're attempting to make (i.e., no government -> monopoly). It's as if Somalia is such a favorite hobbyhorse of the corporatists that they can't actually talk about how great corporatism is without mentioning it.

criley2 13y ago
I don't see why Capitalists are so often misguided about their Ideology. Capitalism is not a system of capital ownership that encourages competition directly, it is a system of capital ownership that encourages greedy[1] people to greedily control capital in a way that most benefits themselves, and by proxy, their company, and by proxy, the economy. There is no competition inherent in private capital ownership, but it can exist as a side effect of greedy people attempting to best steer their capital successfully. [1] I use "greed" often, but this is Greed Motivation. That's what this system is. It's not an insult, rather just a descriptor of the motivations we exploit for our economic success. His examples may have been poor but industrialization is full of examples of Capitalism run wild in a regulatory environment that was non-existent. Would you like to defend the purely Capitalistic actions of Rockefeller and Carnegie, and perhaps rationalize the almost complete lack of a middle class during that heyday of nearly unregulated Capitalism or the incredibly poor conditions that large swaths of people were subjected to so that the richest Americans of all time (by a massive, shocking, so-much-more-than-Bill-Gates margin)could get even more wealthy? I'm always shocked when people automatically assume that Capitalism = Competition, when competition is really a side-effect of Capitalism, and one which is often minimized by firms who control capital and believe that their best interest is not in competing aggressively (expensively) but in dominating cheaply (rent-seeking).
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  One of the heuristics I've developed over years of internet surfing is to instantly disregard any content with terms like greed capitalized or coining new words like "Greed Motivation". FFS Google knows only 7000 pages with "greed motivation" phrase. While you may be absolutely factually correct, which you are not, such argument form is not doing good for the cause you promote. If you really want to spread information about the negative aspects of capitalism, you should try doing that without diatribes and name-calling.
- criley2 13y ago
  @vdaniuk: You make wild accusations against me, saying that I am name calling? Can you quote me where I did that? Because this was no diatribe and I didn't call anyone names! I conducted myself respectfully--so it is surprising that you would be so disrespectful to me with your false accusation. I think what you've done is a basic against-the-man attack where you "discredit" what I said by inventing fake attacks against me. You're welcome to invent whatever rationalization you need to ignore me, but don't pretend it's anything more than ignorance in action, buddy.