• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Monopoly/oligopoly is not just a game - it's the Real Thing

Lafayette said:
From the Economist: Monopoly is not a game

"World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech" (By Franklin Foer, Penguin Press)

Excerpt from the Economist:

In America monopoly/oligopoly has become (over the past half century) The Game. By agglomerating markets, some companies have arrived at dominant positions where between half and two-thirds of all revenues are shared by a handful of them. It's an oligopoly, not as good as a monopoly, but a lot more legal in the US.

But, it means that by avoiding competition, companies can - without overt collusion - settle into a pattern of market--sharing based upon a "Prime Price" set by the leader, and all the rest who might follow with lower prices (but not the same "Brand Recognition").

So, what companies are "oligopolies"? From Investopedia:

Profits are higher, so the key market players can be pleased. But, is that what we, the consumers, should expect from a competitive Market-economy?

The above array of market-sectors indicates a very high percentage of our GDP, and it should not be allowed! Why is it allowed? Because of our deceitful electoral method fueled by huge amounts of private-riches to maintain the status-quo of oligarchic non-competition!

Whilst we, the sheeple, pay through the nose for higher-than-need-be prices in non-competitive oligopoly markets.

And let's not count on Donald Dork's administration to do a damn thing about it. On the contrary, bring on the reduction of upper Income Taxation for our oligarchs ... !
Click to expand...

I agree, but what do you propose to do about it?

There's only one range of philosophy that seeks to actually address these issues, and it's not the Right or the Center. The question, to keep this post short, is whether or not Americans are willing to accept a multi-cultural social democracy that advocates for free speech, regulation of industry, meaningful taxation of the rich, and serious, conscious commitment to decentralizing private industry (i.e. breaking up banks, corporations, and businesses).

It can happen, if people want it to change. I fear, perhaps what I fear most, is that people will let things get horribly wrong before they start accepting that they, personally, need to make changes in how they view the world, in who they vote for, and in whether or not they should be involved in political causes.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I agree, but what do you propose to do about it?
Click to expand...

Bingo, you've hit the nail on the head.

Because anti-trust law in the US is based upon provable collusion. That is, people get together and negotiate the sharing of any given market - and it can be proven in a court of law. Of course, they are not so stoopid nowadays as to do that overtly. The mechanism has developed all by itself - it is collusive but not the least bit overtly complicitly amongst the players.

It would require a very, very spirited anti-trust broad-based effort to change habits. Perhaps a half dozen of well-known companies whose gross fortunes are notably based upon market prevalence that pay very deep fines.

You may not know this, but the EU is taking both Facebook and Google to court for evading EU-national taxation (with the help of the Irish government). So, I am sure that the other American biggies are watching to see "what happens".

We need a "what happened?" event in the courts of the US. But prosecution did not happen under Obama (for reasons that are inexplicable) and they certainly will not happen under Donald Dork's regime.

We really 'n truly need to clean house - which is reflected in the list posted above of American companies that are indulging in oligopolistic practices to assure their revenues (and of course their profits) are illicit . But, that can only happen with the will of the people.

We, the sheeple, have not understood that ranting in a blog about the more prevalent "indecencies" regarding our legal oversight of markets is simply not good enough. Anti-trust action must be taken quickly and effectively, with national coverage. Only then will the "lessons" seep in, and companies learn to compete fairly instead of settling into soft/cushy oligopolistic market practices.

But, where do you ever see that notion come up in the National Electoral Debates? Why? Because the candidates would be sacrificing major donors to their campaigns. (And until we put caps on such contributions, nothing will change.)

My Point:
*Note that in a court of law "collusion" need not be proven overtly or directly. A case can be won based upon "indirect but complicit collusion". Collusion is based upon indirect pricing complicity within a marketplace. Which indicates that "other means of competition" are not employed, meaning further that customers are getting less "value for their money".
*For instance, why is there not more competition in terms of comparative quality of a product/service?
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
Have you had a chance to research the Constitution and the 12th Amendment? I know you are going to start up with the same argument again and I'd prefer to not have to correct your mistake again.
Click to expand...

Enough of your sarcasm.

Moving right along ...
 
Lafayette said:
Enough of your sarcasm.

Moving right along ...
Click to expand...

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

There is no irony in my posts, but you keep moving right along.
 
Salut Lafayette:

Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly are economic outcomes which effect all states which allow economies of scale to go unchecked. This leads to the domination of otherwise free markets by fewer and fewer large firms until a stable oligopoly or a more stable monopolistic competition settles into the market of an economic sector. This leads to the concentration of wealth (or the control of wealth) in very few hands. At this point monopolistic competition or oligopoly metastasise across the boundary from economic domination to political domination and thus become oligarchy.

When that happens anti-trust laws are moot as the political will to apply them and to enforce them is checked by the influence of the companies themselves. The only effective and long-term solution is trust busting. States must break up these massive conglomerates into smaller independently controlled firms and not allow them to collude and agglomerate once again. That is very hard to do as the oligarchy will fight tooth and nail to preserve the economic dominance which permits its political dominance. Dislodging such well rooted power is very difficult and profoundly dangerous for its advocates especially in a transnational economic milieu where powerful state and non-state actors function as potent allies to a country's existing oligarchy.

The cost of challenging oligarchy can destroy economies and even entire countries. These are the lessons learned by politicians who look at the cases of Guatemala in the 1950's and Libya in 2010's. Both states tried to challenge transnational oligarchy and both were effectively destroyed for their defiance. The American oligarchy led the destruction in Guatemala and France's oligarchy led the destruction in Libya. There are far more case studies which can be cited but these two should suffice for now. If not then examine Iran in the 1950's or Greece in the 2010's for two more cases where British oligarchy and German/French/Pan-European oligarchy have punished attempts to challenge economic and political domination by the powerful few.

Thus confronting monopolistic competition, oligopoly and oligarchy are not just domestic economic and political challenges but transnational-scale, national security and military challenges for a country as well. When power is that well entrenched in a country and that well buttressed by transnational agents abroad there is only one solution - popular revolution. Revolution which is peaceful if possible is always desired and should be the goal of popular political uprisings but given oligarchy's long pedigree of using extreme violence in its own defence, peaceful uprising is unlikely to succeed without using violence. So violent revolution is a more likely out come. That is what happened in Iran in 1979 and (with fanatical religious overtones laminated on top of popular revolt) in Mesopotamia and the Levant with ISIL. Both have been contained or are being defeated by transnational oligarchy at this time.

There are no easy answers to this problem.

Cheers.
Méchantroddy.
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Bingo, you've hit the nail on the head.

Because anti-trust law in the US is based upon provable collusion. That is, people get together and negotiate the sharing of any given market - and it can be proven in a court of law. Of course, they are not so stoopid nowadays as to do that overtly. The mechanism has developed all by itself - it is collusive but not the least bit overtly complicitly amongst the players.

It would require a very, very spirited anti-trust broad-based effort to change habits. Perhaps a half dozen of well-known companies whose gross fortunes are notably based upon market prevalence that pay very deep fines.

You may not know this, but the EU is taking both Facebook and Google to court for evading EU-national taxation (with the help of the Irish government). So, I am sure that the other American biggies are watching to see "what happens".

We need a "what happened?" event in the courts of the US. But prosecution did not happen under Obama (for reasons that are inexplicable) and they certainly will not happen under Donald Dork's regime.

We really 'n truly need to clean house - which is reflected in the list posted above of American companies that are indulging in oligopolistic practices to assure their revenues (and of course their profits) are illicit . But, that can only happen with the will of the people.

We, the sheeple, have not understood that ranting in a blog about the more prevalent "indecencies" regarding our legal oversight of markets is simply not good enough. Anti-trust action must be taken quickly and effectively, with national coverage. Only then will the "lessons" seep in, and companies learn to compete fairly instead of settling into soft/cushy oligopolistic market practices.

But, where do you ever see that notion come up in the National Electoral Debates? Why? Because the candidates would be sacrificing major donors to their campaigns. (And until we put caps on such contributions, nothing will change.)

My Point:
*Note that in a court of law "collusion" need not be proven overtly or directly. A case can be won based upon "indirect but complicit collusion". Collusion is based upon indirect pricing complicity within a marketplace. Which indicates that "other means of competition" are not employed, meaning further that customers are getting less "value for their money".
*For instance, why is there not more competition in terms of comparative quality of a product/service?
Click to expand...

So do you support Wolf-PAC, Represent.US, Rootstrikers, or BrandNewCongress (or JusticeDemocrats)? The larger issue is that, again, I'm not certain there's a single Republican politician who support anti-trust laws, and most Democratic politicians don't, either. Again, it's not "inexplicable" why Obama didn't support jailing bankers, handing the bailed out auto-industry into the hands of the workers, and didn't bother to show up to major strikes for major unions. He took a lot of corporate/bankers cash to run his campaigns and broker deals within his administration.

It's going to take a herculean effort by the American populace to break up corporate power and banks. I don't mean 50% popularity, this is going to have to sit at 90% popularity and/or have at least a few hundred-thousand to a million dedicated, small-dollar-funded activists pushing this agenda, being involved in Senate campaigns, state legislatures, internal Democrat and Republican party politics, and presidential runs. That's the only way this gets off of the ground, and when it starts to reach this level of organization, there will be considerable negative media coverage and high level opposition from the people who currently have their hands on effectively all of the levers.

I say this not to discourage people, but to be clear about what kind of effort, what kind of mobilization is needed to break one of the most corrupt systems in human history.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I agree, but what do you propose to do about it?

There's only one range of philosophy that seeks to actually address these issues, and it's not the Right or the Center. .
Click to expand...
Translation: I'm a communist and I love Bernie Sanders
 
FieldTheorist said:
It can happen, if people want it to change.
Click to expand...

actually, they tried change to communism in USSR and Red China and 120 million slowly starved to death. Why not try reading some history?
 
FieldTheorist said:
I'm not certain there's a single Republican politician who support anti-trust laws,
Click to expand...

LOL wrong again:
Having never been a fan of antitrust protectionism, I found it interesting that (according to Bloomberg) while Democrats are highlighting antitrust in their party platform, they may yet give a pass to Silicon Valley powerhouses and the tech sector generally.

That Apple AAPL +0.49%, Amazon and Google GOOGL +0.94% and the like give three times the cash to Democrats as they do Republicans was hinted at as explanation. But it'd be good for both parties to back off tech and non-tech alike. Alas, even the Republican platfrom (p. 37) seeks to expand antitrust to now-exempt insurance companies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynec...the-2016-party-platform-debates/#15dc09a6281f


Still, many of President Donald Trump’s policy positions have not tracked traditional Republican paradigms, and have veered instead towards a distinctive brand of economic populism.

During his campaign, for example, he vowed to challenge certain high-profile mergers in the telecommunications industry — including the 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast, which was already approved by the relevant government authorities — and decried the “antitrust problems” of companies across the technology industry.

Both statements raised concern among some Republicans that the Trump administration would press for aggressive investigation of companies perceived to have a dominant position in their respective markets or, at the very least, would be less predictable in antitrust enforcement decisions.
 
Lafayette said:
I'll repeat the same message a hundred times if necessary: This is an Economics Debate forum. Look up the word debate.

And enough of the empty one-liner sarcasm.

The US market for goods/services was "bought out" by oligarchs long ago. Case in point: The Koch Brothers who virtually run the Replicant Party (in terms of funding) - and the most wealthy American family that made its colossal fortune in the Oil Industry - see here.

And here: GOP donors - excerpt:

Of course, if American voters wanna believe the nonsense they get over the boob-tube pre-election commercials, which sway most electoral campaigns, then who am I to complain?

And here is the irony of it all: Hillary was predicted to win the presidential election when, just before the November vote, then FBI head Comey, broke the story about her email and how the FBI would proceed with a further investigation. That fact alone switched the key states by which Donald Dork won the election in the infamous Electoral College.

If that's the kind of "democracy" you want, then you can have it ...
Click to expand...

Sooooo, there are no left wing corporatists in this oligopoly?
 
James972 said:
Translation: I'm a communist and I love Bernie Sanders
Click to expand...

Translation: I don't feel like arguing, I don't know communism is, and I hate Bernie Sanders because he makes fun of the great leader, Donald.

Noted.

James972 said:
actually, they tried change to communism in USSR and Red China and 120 million slowly starved to death. Why not try reading some history?
Click to expand...

Translation: "YOU COMMUNIST BADMAN NOGOOD PINKO KILL MILLIONS!"

Yeah, cool story, bro. Come back to me when you actually want to, you know, address any of the substance that was actually contained within my posts rather than your absurd strawman of my position.

James972 said:
LOL wrong again:
Having never been a fan of antitrust protectionism, I found it interesting that (according to Bloomberg) while Democrats are highlighting antitrust in their party platform, they may yet give a pass to Silicon Valley powerhouses and the tech sector generally.

That Apple AAPL +0.49%, Amazon and Google GOOGL +0.94% and the like give three times the cash to Democrats as they do Republicans was hinted at as explanation. But it'd be good for both parties to back off tech and non-tech alike. Alas, even the Republican platfrom (p. 37) seeks to expand antitrust to now-exempt insurance companies.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make me wrong --on really trivial grounds. I said I didn't know of any Republican who supports anti-trust laws. Whatever Democrats do or don't support regarding anti-trust laws, that doesn't will into existence Republicans who care about and support anti-trust laws.

Still, many of President Donald Trump’s policy positions have not tracked traditional Republican paradigms, and have veered instead towards a distinctive brand of economic populism.

During his campaign, for example, he vowed to challenge certain high-profile mergers in the telecommunications industry — including the 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast, which was already approved by the relevant government authorities — and decried the “antitrust problems” of companies across the technology industry.

Both statements raised concern among some Republicans that the Trump administration would press for aggressive investigation of companies perceived to have a dominant position in their respective markets or, at the very least, would be less predictable in antitrust enforcement decisions.
Click to expand...

Donald Trumps words have tracked populism. His actions show him to be the most elitist imbeciles that has ever inhabited the Whitehouse. If you can choke down Trump's doublethink, dutifully and on command, that's your problem not mine.
 
countryboy said:
Sooooo, there are no left wing corporatists in this oligopoly?
Click to expand...

Yet again, more one-liner sarcasm.

Make your point, and defend it with the right statistics! Find the research on Left-wing Corporatists (whatever you think that means) and maybe we can have a good exchange about such a societal-phenomenon?

This is a Debate Forum, not a Message Board for the Rabid Right!

Moving right along ...
 
Lafayette said:
Yet again, more one-liner sarcasm.

Make your point, and defend it with the right statistics! Find the research on Left-wing Corporatists (whatever you think that means) and maybe we can have a good exchange about such a societal-phenomenon?

This is a Debate Forum, not a Message Board for the Rabid Right!

Moving right along ...
Click to expand...

Yes, "moving right along", because leftist hypocrisy cannot stand up to scrutiny. Best to "move right along", lest yours be exposed. :roll:

Yes, this is supposedly a "debate" forum. I asked a valid question. You are either unwilling, or unable to answer it. So instead, as libs are wont to do, you label it as "one liner sarcasm". :shrug:
 
FieldTheorist said:
So do you support Wolf-PAC, Represent.US, Rootstrikers, or BrandNewCongress (or JusticeDemocrats)? The larger issue is that, again, I'm not certain there's a single Republican politician who support anti-trust laws, and most Democratic politicians don't, either. Again, it's not "inexplicable" why Obama didn't support jailing bankers, handing the bailed out auto-industry into the hands of the workers, and didn't bother to show up to major strikes for major unions.
Click to expand...

You do know that labor unions are explicitly exempt from anti-trust laws, right?
 
countryboy said:
Yes, "moving right along", because leftist hypocrisy cannot stand up to scrutiny. Best to "move right along", lest yours be exposed. :roll:
Click to expand...

don't feel bad its the liberal way because liberalism is based in ignorance. This is why you never see a conservative who has to run from a debate. A liberal will lose a debate but remain a liberal because he has no respect for reason.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The sense I got from your post that monopoly power and organized labor were somehow on opposite sides.
Click to expand...

there is no monopoly power here thanks to capitalism and anti-trust. unions and management are on opposite sides with opposite interests
 
James972 said:
there is no monopoly power here thanks to capitalism and anti-trust.
Click to expand...

There is monopoly power here thanks to unions and their exemption from laws that make monopoly power illegal.

unions and management are on opposite sides with opposite interests
Click to expand...

Liberal government administrations and government unions don’t have opposite interests, yet for pretenses are said to be on “opposite sides of the table.”
 
Lafayette said:
From the Economist: Monopoly is not a game

"World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech" (By Franklin Foer, Penguin Press)

Excerpt from the Economist:

In America monopoly/oligopoly has become (over the past half century) The Game. By agglomerating markets, some companies have arrived at dominant positions where between half and two-thirds of all revenues are shared by a handful of them. It's an oligopoly, not as good as a monopoly, but a lot more legal in the US.

But, it means that by avoiding competition, companies can - without overt collusion - settle into a pattern of market--sharing based upon a "Prime Price" set by the leader, and all the rest who might follow with lower prices (but not the same "Brand Recognition").

So, what companies are "oligopolies"? From Investopedia:

Profits are higher, so the key market players can be pleased. But, is that what we, the consumers, should expect from a competitive Market-economy?

The above array of market-sectors indicates a very high percentage of our GDP, and it should not be allowed! Why is it allowed? Because of our deceitful electoral method fueled by huge amounts of private-riches to maintain the status-quo of oligarchic non-competition!

Whilst we, the sheeple, pay through the nose for higher-than-need-be prices in non-competitive oligopoly markets.

And let's not count on Donald Dork's administration to do a damn thing about it. On the contrary, bring on the reduction of upper Income Taxation for our oligarchs ... !
Click to expand...
Layfaytte spams us with articles from the liberal press and then runs in embarrassment when he cant defend his own spam. You would think he might be in sales for the Economist.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You do know that labor unions are explicitly exempt from anti-trust laws, right?
Click to expand...

And for good reason.

How to learn proper English (Employ first and foremost a dictionary):
*Business Trust:
A trust is a fiduciary relationship in which one party, known as a trustor, gives another party, the trustee, the right to hold title to property or assets for the benefit of a third party, the beneficiary. Trusts are established to provide legal protection for the trustor’s assets, to make sure those assets are distributed according to the wishes of the trustor, and to save time, reduce paperwork and, in some cases, avoid or reduce inheritance or estate taxes.

In finance, a trust can also be a type of closed-end fund built as a public limited company.

A trust is a business convention. Unions are a social convention.
Click to expand...

*Labor Union:
An organization of workers formed to promote collective bargaining with employers over wages, hours, fringe benefits, job security, and working conditions. A labor union or trade union bargains with employers on behalf of union members and negotiates labor contracts.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference, and therefore why a law was created to define the limits of a "trust" because "property" is involved? There is not the slightest resemblance between the two entities.

Your Replicant "one-liner logic" seems to want to equate them in the eyes of the law.

There is no such equation in law - neither in the US, nor in Europe ...
 
Lafayette said:
And for good reason.

How to learn proper English (Employ first and foremost a dictionary):
*Business Trust:

*Labor Union:

Do you understand the difference, and therefore why a law was created to define the limits of a "trust" because "property" is involved? There is not the slightest resemblance between the two entities.
Click to expand...

Oh but there so very much is. If there were no resemblance, then labor unions wouldn't even need explicit exemption from anti-trust regulations in the first place. And according to unions, "property" is involved, as unions have argued in court (successfully in some cases) against governments that passed Right To Work laws on the basis that a combination of Right To Work and the so-called duty of monopoly representation deprives the union of its rightful property.

The fundamental principle by which labor unions are exempted from anti-cartel regulations is nonsensical. That principle is that labor isn't an article of commerce. The law declares this, so legally speaking, that's that, however it isn't consistent with reality, given that firms which sell their services are engaging in commerce when they sell those services, and anti-trust regulations do apply in the sale of those services. It is only when a bona fide labor union is involved does the labor become somehow not an article of commerce. The law of the land is the law of the land, I acknowledge that, and in this case that law is over a century old now, but in this case, the law regarding unions, labor and commerce, and cartel tactics, is completely and nonsensically inconsistent with reality. In every case when the sale of labor/services is involved, labor functions as an article of commerce. The only time it doesn't is when a labor union has gotten involved, then it's suddenly different.

There is no such equation in law - neither in the US, nor in Europe ...
Click to expand...

I know that of course, which goes back to their exemption from anti-trust laws. The law simply and arbitrarily states the two aren't related. If unions weren't inherently cartels, they wouldn't need explicit exemption from laws that prohibit cartel behavior.
 
Natural monopolies. Not all monopolies are inefficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom