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

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:

PUBLIC scrutiny eventually stalks the kings of capitalism. Wall Street banks enjoyed decades of unfettered growth before coming to be seen, as Matt Taibbi, a journalist, described Goldman Sachs, as a “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”. Today another backlash is gaining strength, this time against the giant digital squids, whose tentacles are encircling both public and personal life. In June the European Commission fined Google a record-breaking €2.4bn ($2.7bn) for suppressing rival comparison-shopping sites. (The firm filed an appeal this week.) The tech giants continue to snap up or shamelessly copy smaller rivals.

A rising figure in the cohort of tech-company critics is Franklin Foer, a journalist at the Atlantic. His new book “World Without Mind” decries society’s capture by big technology companies, mainly Amazon, Facebook and Google. His criticisms are wide-ranging, but centre on the idea that they have become monopolies. Their dominance has gutted the financial health of publishers and music companies. He even charges tech firms with having bruised democracy: they serve up information based on opaque algorithms, suggesting what people should think, and so supplanting individual thought. Mr Foer compares tech’s lack of transparency to Italy, “where it’s never entirely clear how power really operates”.

Click to expand...

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:

Common Industries Overshadowed By Oligopolies:
*Cable Television Services
*Entertainment Industries (Music and Film)
*Airline Industry
*Mass Media
*Pharmaceuticals
*Computer & Software Industry
*Cellular Phone Services
*Smart Phone and Computer Operating Systems
*Aluminum and Steel
*Oil and Gas
*Auto Industry

Click to expand...

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 ... !

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. bring on the reduction of upper Income Taxation for our oligarchs ... !

Click to expand...

:lamo

And other corporations throughout the world are always trying to maximize their profits as well.

Yep.............them damned "Muricans" ruin everything!

RetiredUSN said:

And other corporations throughout the world are always trying to maximize their profits as well.

Yep.............them damned "Muricans" ruin everything!

Click to expand...

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:

Large donors, not just the Koch brothers, have an immense influence in Republican politics. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the 20 largest donors to the political action committee controlled by Donald Trump accounted for nearly 15 percent of funds raised in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Click to expand...

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 ...

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. Point in case: The Koch Brothers who virtually run the Replicant Party (in terms of funding) - and the most wealth American family that made its colossal fortune in the Oil Industry - see here ...

Click to expand...

If you were so concerned for man kind, you should have made your argument with a world view because your typical "Murica Sucks" threads are about as annoying as a scratched vinyl 78.

Oligarchy isn't a "Murican" creation, and it goes on in every country on the planet.

Care to explain to us why many oligarchs throughout the history of "Murica" have been taken down by start ups with a better light bulb.

Some day, you may begin to understand that competition is actually healthy in the marketplace, and today's oligarchs may be tomorrows Sears & Roebuck's.

And........we never broke up any Ma Bell's either ..........huh?

But, But, But, ................them damned Koch Brothers...........right?

RetiredUSN said:

Oligarchy isn't a "Murican" creation, and it goes on in every country on the planet.
...........right?[/B]

Click to expand...

So, for you, that makes oligarchy governance OK?

What stoopidity ...

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...

For once, you may be almost onto something here, the most government regulated industries seem to manage to have a few key players emerge as the winners. Where you fail is in thinking that the POTUS makes the big difference. It is congress critters that craft the very careful laws/regulations and they too have a pecking order granting a subset the super power of committee leadership (where the laws actually get made and then sent to the House/Senate floor rubber stamping when leadership assures them the time is right).

Unlike the POTUS who has a maximum term of 8 years and must wow (bamboozle?) the entire nation these congress critters (with re-election rates over 90%) and an unlimited number of terms in office operating in a carefully crafted seniority based system need only wow (bamboozle?) a single state or even a district carefully drawn (gerrymandered) to favor them.

Business titans know very well how to get the most bang for a buck and that translates in to getting the most bucks for knowing a well aimed bang. It is congress critters that have the ultimate ability to trade campaign cash (bribes?) for carefully tweaking the laws/regulations to reward a select few big (alpha dog?) business donors thus the cycle of trading campaign cash for special favors from key congress critters continues no matter who the current POTUS happens to be.

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...

While I certainly agree with the premise, it is true that a few industries have become essentially dominated by a few companies. The conclusion is lacking, the auto industry nearly went out of business and the airline industry is hurting bad. They aren't artificially raising prices, they can barely stay alive as it is which shows why the industry ended up as a oligarchy in the first place.

ttwtt78640 said:

Where you fail is in thinking that the POTUS makes the big difference. It is congress critters that craft the very careful laws/regulations and they too have a pecking order granting a subset the super power of committee leadership (where the laws actually get made and then sent to the House/Senate floor rubber stamping when leadership assures them the time is right).

Click to expand...

What make you think that. The governance rot is all the way down the line - from an unfairly elected Presidency down to the majority strangle-hold upon Congress, which translates directly into a majority Replicant Judiciary.

There are two kinds of "political rot". One is most certainly the unfair Electoral College. The other is fact that commercialism is employed to sway the vote of the electorate. Some call that "free speech", but hogwash is passed on TV about candidates who all "wash whiter than white", except when they get caught with the dirty-washing!

There are only two-debates on American TV that have any real weight in the matter. Which is, thankfully, better than nothing. It is nonetheless incorrect that massive money thrown at commercial advertizing has a preponderant result. (In fact, in many countries it is either forbidden or strictly reduced to a minimum.)

Our electoral rot has been there for more than two centuries. It started with a fine idea (tri-partite governance of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). The election of the presidency, however, was made rotten by the 12th amendment stoopidity of the Electoral College. Five presidencies have been elected by means of the Electoral College that contravened the result of the popular-vote.

In any true democracy, it is ONLY the popular-vote that can determine any elective office. In the US, the vote is direct - with the sole exception of the presidency. In some countries, it is indirect - the head of the party that wins the popular-vote majority in the Legislature presides as the nation's executive.

There is no room in a True Democracy for the machination of an "Electoral College" that corrupts the popular-vote by assigning different numbers of votes in different states to determine the Electoral College vote. This corruption of democracy is intolerable.

Of course, you are free to disagree with that notion. It remains nonetheless that you are Dead Wrong ...

Lafayette said:

What make you think that. The governance rot is all the way down the line - from an unfairly elected Presidency down to the majority strangle-hold upon Congress, which translates directly into a majority Replicant Judiciary.

And the rot has been there for more than two centuries. It started with the initial conception (tri-partite governance of Executive, Legislative and Judicial) but was stymied by the 12th amendment stoopidity of the Electoral College that warps the American democracy.

In any true democracy, it is ONLY the popular-vote that can determine the Executive. In the US, the vote is direct. In many other countries, it is indirect - the head of the party that wins the popular-vote majority in the Legislature that presides.

There is no room in a True Democracy for the machination of an "Electoral College" that corrupts the popular-vote by assigning different numbers of votes in different states to determine the Electoral Vote. This corruption of democracy is intolerable.

Of course, you are free to disagree with that notion. It remains nonetheless that you are Dead Wrong ...

Click to expand...

Again........."Murica" is a union of states.

And, you are only looking for affirmation of your opinion rather than debating........... with proof being in your last sentence.

Lafayette said:

What make you think that. The governance rot is all the way down the line - from an unfairly elected Presidency down to the majority strangle-hold upon Congress, which translates directly into a majority Replicant Judiciary.

And the rot has been there for more than two centuries. It started with the initial conception (tri-partite governance of Executive, Legislative and Judicial) but was stymied by the 12th amendment stoopidity of the Electoral College that warps the American democracy.

In any true democracy, it is ONLY the popular-vote that can determine the Executive. In the US, the vote is direct. In many other countries, it is indirect - the head of the party that wins the popular-vote majority in the Legislature that presides.

There is no room in a True Democracy for the machination of an "Electoral College" that corrupts the popular-vote by assigning different numbers of votes in different states to determine the Electoral Vote. This corruption of democracy is intolerable.

Of course, you are free to disagree with that notion. It remains nonetheless that you are Dead Wrong ...

Click to expand...

Nonsense, and you probably think Obama invented ObamaCare (PPACA) rather than congress critters doing back room deals (in collusion with the insurance industry and big Pharma) - follow the money and you will see.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp0910879

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014...tical-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/

RetiredUSN said:

... with proof being in your last sentence.

Click to expand...

Do you even know what debating is? I make a argument supporting my position, then you rebut it with the articulation of your postion!

That takes more than just an asinine one liner as above ...

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...

Are you equally concerned with leftist "oligopolies" which donate almost exclusively to Dems? Or is this just the usual typical hypocritical leftist tripe? My money's on the latter.

Lafayette said:

Do you even know what debating is? I make a argument supporting my position, then you rebut it with the articulation of your postion!

That takes more than just an asinine one liner as above ...

Click to expand...

You posted gibberish and falsehoods.

My response was accurate.

I'm sorry that you are are the one who doesn't understand the idea behind the union of states, and free markets.

Nope, I'm against them all on the Left or Right. It just so happens that oligarchs (mentioned in my comment also in this thread) tend to spend money supporting the Replicants.

In a fair market-economy there are no oligopolies. Which is why - a long, long time ago - the US passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act. In most countries, the law would be known as "Competition Law".

The essence of which is:

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses

Click to expand...

Oligopolies are NOT indicative of a fluid, competitive marketplace (just because there in no sole market dominance by only one market participant as is clearly illegal due to the Sherman Act). Said act did not prevent the rise of oligopolies, which is a manipulation of the market-place and diminishes competition.

So, consumers - like you and me - we pay higher prices than we should.

Unfortunately, the usage of the Sherman Anti-trust act has lapsed in America. It is at the discretion of the president.

And, if you want to get elected in America, you need lots 'n lots of MUNEY ... !

Crovax said:

The conclusion is lacking, the auto industry nearly went out of business and the airline industry is hurting bad. They aren't artificially raising prices, they can barely stay alive as it is which shows why the industry ended up as a oligarchy in the first place.

Click to expand...

We've just been through the Great Recession, so there is no doubt that some industries have been very badly challenged. That does not mean, however, that in normal economic times they did not and will in the future continue to benefit from oligarchic control of their markets.

For instance, here is the share of Medicare insurance business in the US amongst just five insurance companies:


Or how about this study dominance of top five companies in five different industries:


I could go on, but I think the point is made ...

PS: And why do industries consolidate so much less in Canada? Because Canada enforces anti-agglomeration rules?

Lafayette said:

I could go on, but I think the point is made ...
PS: And why do industries consolidate so much less in Canada? Because Canada enforces anti-agglomeration rules?

Click to expand...

Republicans support competition and offshoring and thus low prices. Democrats don't. Health care and education are hugely over priced because Democratic lib socialism is not about competition low price and innovation.

Further, the key to low prices, high quality, profit and, innovation is volume. Thus, the fewer competitors you have the lower prices are likely to be. The ideal number of competitors in each product category that yields the lowest price, highest quality and most innovation is not knowable to libNazi govt regulators, only to the Republican free market. Now do you understand?

RetiredUSN said:

You posted gibberish and falsehoods. I'm sorry that you are are the one who doesn't understand the idea behind the union of states, and free markets.

Click to expand...

And you are the one who does not understand that a union of the states is at the heart of any "republic that is based upon democratic principles of fairness and equality of all its people".

It's a shame you don't live in such a country ...

Lafayette said:

Do you even know what debating is? I make a argument supporting my position, then you rebut it with the articulation of your postion!

That takes more than just an asinine one liner as above ...

Click to expand...

Excellent point. You stated this: "The election of the presidency, however, was made rotten by the 12th amendment stoopidity of the Electoral College."

The Electoral College was created by the Constitution, not the 12th Amendment. Article II, Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives"

Your argument has been rebutted with direct facts. Please demonstrate your debating knowledge by acknowledging the point and withdrawing your assertion, or by pointing out the error of what I posted.

AliHajiSheik said:

Your argument has been rebutted with direct facts. Please demonstrate your debating knowledge by acknowledging the point and withdrawing your assertion, or by pointing out the error of what I posted.

Click to expand...

Stoopid things happen when any "state" is created. History is full of mistakes. Americans seem to think the original constitution is enshrined in Gold and therefore pure, non-adulterated value.

That aint necessarily so. It has mistakes, that were made at a time when "democracy" was just a word without that much significance of meaning.

At the turn of the 19th century, migrants were fleeing Europe to come to the New Land (called America) to pursue a new life far from the strife and penury of Europe. The southern states were getting their manpower off slave ships from Africa. The northern states did not have that much slavery, but did employ the migrants from Europe who kept pouring in.

The south, in the determination of how to elect a president, wanted to assure that its lesser population had more VOICE. So this joke of an Electoral College was concocted to give the southern states more electoral privilege than an ordinary popular-vote would allow.

Let's all remember that at the turn of the 19th century, America did not even know how to conduct a presidential election nationally resulting from a "popular vote". How does one make/print the ballots? How are they distributed? How are they counted and the results sent to DC? The Electoral College AT THAT TIME was a good answer to all those questions and facilitated the process!

All that was one helluva PROBLEM. So, the Electoral College seemed like a good idea at the time. What happened subsequently however was a manipulation of the popular-vote as represented in the Electoral College.

That is, there was no uniformity then and there still is none today. About the unfairness of the Electoral College (from Time Mag): Richard Dawkins: Electoral College Is Viciously, Unnecessarily Undemocratic - excerpt:

The time has come around again for my quadrennial tirade against the electoral-college system. A president can be elected despite his opponent’s receiving a larger popular vote. Candidates might as well not bother to campaign in non-swing states. It is for this same reason that campaign buses, planes, motorcades and TV commercials circle obsessively to Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and other “swing” states.

The electoral college, by contrast, is gratuitously, inexcusably undemocratic. It wasn’t always so. The original electoral college, which lasted only through the first four presidential elections, was a beautiful idea. It resembled the way a university chooses a new professor, and it had the same virtues. Rather than have the entire university vote, a committee or electoral board is set up. The committee members take their responsibility seriously. They meticulously scan the CVs of all the candidates, read their books and papers, solicit references from people who know them well, make them give a lecture to test their speaking skills, interview them, and spend hours in committee arguing about their merits and shortcomings. Finally, when all such information has been digested and mulled over, the committee votes.

The rot set in when electoral college members were pledged to vote for named presidential candidates rather than exercising their own informed judgment. Such pledging renders pointless the whole idea of a true electoral college—the general population might as well vote for their president directly, rather than indirectly via a delegate pledged to him. But the truly pernicious innovation was the all-or-none rule. Except in Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral college votes go to the candidate with a majority of the popular vote in the state, regardless of how slender that majority was. This injustice is not an inevitable byproduct of something defensible, as it would be if, say, the House of Representatives exercised the choice of president. It is a gratuitous, eminently avoidable injustice which could be abolished at a stroke.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Stoopid things happen when any "state" is created. History is full of mistakes. Americans seem to think the original constitution is enshrined in Gold and therefore pure, non-adulterated value.

That aint necessarily so. It has mistakes, that were made at a time when "democracy" was just a word without that much significance of meaning.

At the turn of the 19th century, migrants were fleeing Europe to come to the New Land (called America) to pursue a new life far from the strife and penury of Europe. The southern states were getting their manpower off slave ships from Africa. The northern states did not have that much slavery, but did employ the migrants from Europe who kept pouring in.

The south, in the determination of how to elect a president, wanted to assure that its lesser population had more VOICE. So this joke of an Electoral College was concocted to give the southern states more electoral privilege than an ordinary popular-vote would allow.

Let's all remember that at the turn of the 19th century, America did not even know how to conduct a presidential election nationally resulting from a "popular vote". How does one make/print the ballots? How are they distributed? How are they counted and the results sent to DC? The Electoral College AT THAT TIME was a good answer to all those questions and facilitated the process!

All that was one helluva PROBLEM. So, the Electoral College seemed like a good idea at the time. What happened subsequently however was a manipulation of the popular-vote as represented in the Electoral College.

That is, there was no uniformity then and there still is none today. About the unfairness of the Electoral College (from Time Mag): Richard Dawkins: Electoral College Is Viciously, Unnecessarily Undemocratic - excerpt:

Click to expand...

So you agree that you were mistaken about the 12th Amendment or are you going to blast me with another wall of text? The Constitution was ratified in the 18th Century, by you keep saying the 19th Century, it should you truly don't understand that.

AliHajiSheik said:

So you agree that you were mistaken about the 12th Amendment or are you going to blast me with another wall of text?

Click to expand...

Go play in the sandbox of a Message Board ...

Lafayette said:

Go play in the sandbox of a Message Board ...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you don't react well when your mistaken facts are corrected. No reason to be nasty, though.

AliHajiSheik said:

I'm sorry that you don't react well when your mistaken facts are corrected. No reason to be nasty, though.

Click to expand...

Some people must have the last word. Because they are child-like.

You've had yours. Do you feel better now?

Moving right along ...

Lafayette said:

Some people must have the last word. Because they are child-like.

You've had yours. Do you feel better now?

Moving right along ...

Click to expand...

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.

Lafayette said:

Case in point:The Koch Brothers who virtually run the Replicant Party
...

Click to expand...

what? Republican Party was founded by Jefferson and Madison in 1793 to be libertarian. The Kochs are libertarian too. They are just helping to carry on the 200 year tradition of America. Do you really imagine that if the Kochs disappeared both parties would be communist and everyone would forget about freedom from big liberal govt or that if Soros disappeared both parties would then be opposed to freedom?