capitlism and monoplies

[HUGGY]

One thing that has always prevented me from being able to support full blown capitalism is monopolies. I have googled about the idea, read a bunch of different sources, many on mises.org, but none of the answers are satisfactory to me.

The idea that in a free market that if a company isn't doing what consumers like they can find another company just doesn't work with monopolies and there are plenty of them around now. In many areas there is only one real broadband provider, lots of times comcast, and if you have trouble with them or don't like their high prices or them throttling bandwith for games and torrents (even legitimate ones), there is nothing to do but revert to dialup. is there really how it should be? Similarly, documents came out showing that the big phone companies all schemed together to raise the price on text messages, which is a complete ripoff, to the same price range as each other so that consumers were stuck with the high price and couldn't go anywhere else. How is the free market in this case good to the consumer? there are other cases like this with car insurance companies keeping their prices inflated and within 5% of each other since they know you need car insurance and have to buy it no matter what (unless you live in a city).

basically the above is IMO the flaw of allowing monopolies to run wild, it also kills the ability for small businesses to start in these areas since big companies can sell for so much cheaper b/c of bulk sale, already having the power over that sector of the market, and being able to operate at a loss for a short time easier than a small business.

Also, if monopolies are to be controlled who should step in? Only someone bigger than the monopolies (some government) and someone who actually cares about that sector of the market being fair (some government, for example ford wouldn't jump in to stop microsoft, why does it care?) has the funds and ability to regulate those companies.

Full blown unregulated capitalism has to lead to monopolies which strangely enough is the essence of communism. Even stranger is the inevitable revolution from those monopolies and a try at communism to protect the publics interests.

 

[Oddball]

Note the sweeping generalizations stated as absolute truth, with no examples given.

 

[HUGGY]

Note the sweeping generalizations stated as absolute truth, with no examples given.

Don't hurt yourself hollywood boy. Little of what I post is dumbed down for your consumtion. Leave the heavy lifting for those that give a crap about more than thier own self importance.

 

[Oddball]

Note the ad hom, and still no examples from Lancelot the missing Link.

 

[RodISHI]

As much as I do not like diaper boy I agree with him on this issue. Rod and I are a prime example of the damage corporates create and facilitate. When I refused to sell out or partner with them they went above and beyond legal means to take us out. From inciting frivolous lawsuits to extreme vandalism, shorting of working capital on loan funds, destruction of equipment, equipment designed to fail from the factory to harassment from county, state and federal officials and then outright threats and theft to insure we would not and could not continue pressing forward. The majority of raw materials in this country belongs to corporates. They do seek to control government, banking, food and all resources. Most people would have possibly listened to their own crooked attorney and signed off and listened to their "keep your house" crap so the bank can collect those federal funds. Most people would not keep seeking to find out what all they did to wipe them out. Most would not live without running water or electricity to stay and search out what these people do, how they do and why they do it. Most take the easy way out or have never been in a situation to understand how corrupt our system is and can be.

 

[Oddball]

Right. But how do those corporations get away with it?

Like KK already pointed out, those monopolies can't hold together without gubmint being the glue.

 

[RodISHI]

Right. But how do those corporationss get away with it?

Like KK already pointed out, those monopolies can't hold together without gubmint being the glue.

I agree to a point. A lot of corruption in our government and our politics. People who sell out for little of nothing and sell out the rest of us when they do it while they are getting a little perk or payback. It needs to be stopped.

A lot of the people I spoke with in SBA said they would have never gotten away with it had SBA been in charge of that loan. When the government turned over SBA to the banks they screwed the people. These banks help strip businesses that fall within certain categories (the bankers had 33% of the retirement fund in one of those major mining corps). In December 2002 we arrived at our house to discover the propane guy taking our tank out the driveway, along with the propane that had already been paid for. We asked him what was he doing. His claim was well the sheriff told him that the bank owned the house. I asked, so do you take everyone propane tank along with propane they paid for when they have a mortgage on their house? We got into the house to discover that our freezer had even been emptied of the turkey for Thanksgiving dinner and all the steaks that were in there for the coming months. Cupboard doors still wide open from the search and seizure, personal garage was emptied of camping gear, Christmas lights, fishing poles, anything and everything and all of the tools and such Rod had bought back in the first few years we were together were gone. Even a little 5" electric saw with my name engraved in it in big letters was gone. Keep in mind this was a corporate loan for a mining operation that they used as their excuse to strip our home. Their claim was I was behind on payments and there were no funds left on the account whatsoever. Amazingly almost ten grand reported left on that account now by the bank. The amount reported to SBA by the bank changed so many times I can't give you the exact figure without looking through all of the documents. On January 3, 2003 we went into the SBA offices. I wanted to see what exactly was in the file at the SBA office for my company. Still a skeleton crew at SBA since all had not returned from the holidays. A man there helped us. He wanted to know why I wanted to see the file. While we were looking at what was in the file he asked what happened. I wanted to know where were all the papers? He told me the bank keeps the file. He then wanted to know what happen? I gave him a short rundown of what happened. He was shocked. Funny thing, that guy was sent three states away shortly after that, transferred. He'd been at that office for close to twenty years and all the sudden he gets sent away (I learned a year later he got his job back). He told me had that SBA would have never concurred with the bank if SBA had actually known what happened.

It comes down to who gave these banks that authority to rob the nation and assist in wiping out small business concerns when it is convenient for them or something they wish to control and then collect for what they do to these small businesses from the taxpayers? SBA has been used as a money laundry for these gangsters/banksters and a variety of perk moneys hitting in the banks for a long time. So is it really the government or is it the federal reserve system that is screwing the people out of their money and their freedoms?

Senator Harkin was the SBA committee chair at the time this was all transpiring and he had been on that committee for years and years. Odd thing, he sure got off of that committee fast shortly after I called his office in early 2003.

I do know this, if the people of this country do not wake up really soon this country will no longer be a sovereign nation.

On Sept. 14, 1994 David Rockefeller, speaking at the UN Business Council,
"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Rockefeller also said "...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

 

[Paulie]

The Rockefeller family has controlled the Oil and Banking monopolies for 100 years now, and while technology might eventually make the Oil monopoly obsolete, I highly doubt the technology will ever break the Banking monopoly.

get rid of fractional reserve banking and watch their schemes crumble

Wait a minute, don't tell me you're an Austrian?

Usually it's Ron Paul types that advocate the end of fractional reserve banking, ala killing the Fed.

And usually those people are very pro-capitalism.

I would know, I'm one of those people, and so are all the Ron Paul types that I associate with, or have in the past.

 

[Oddball]

Right. But how do those corporationss get away with it?

Like KK already pointed out, those monopolies can't hold together without gubmint being the glue.

I agree to a point. A lot of corruption in our government and our politics. People who sell out for little of nothing and sell out the rest of us when they do it while they are getting a little perk or payback. It needs to be stopped.

A lot of the people I spoke with in SBA said they would have never gotten away with it had SBA been in charge of that loan. When the government turned over SBA to the banks they screwed the people.......

The banks also have a gubmint imposed monopoly upon the creation of credit.

 

[Oddball]

The Rockefeller family has controlled the Oil and Banking monopolies for 100 years now, and while technology might eventually make the Oil monopoly obsolete, I highly doubt the technology will ever break the Banking monopoly.

get rid of fractional reserve banking and watch their schemes crumble

Wait a minute, don't tell me you're an Austrian?

Usually it's Ron Paul types that advocate the end of fractional reserve banking, ala killing the Fed.

And usually those people are very pro-capitalism.

I would know, I'm one of those people, and so are all the Ron Paul types that I associate with, or have in the past.

Austrians are for asset backed currencies, too.

 

[Paulie]

get rid of fractional reserve banking and watch their schemes crumble

Wait a minute, don't tell me you're an Austrian?

Usually it's Ron Paul types that advocate the end of fractional reserve banking, ala killing the Fed.

And usually those people are very pro-capitalism.

I would know, I'm one of those people, and so are all the Ron Paul types that I associate with, or have in the past.

Austrians are for asset backed currencies, too.

i'm just trying to understand why this guy seems to know very little about capitalism, as well as having reservations about it.

Usually an anti-fractional reserve banking type understands capitalism enough not to make this kind of thread.

I mean why take that position if you're not already educated about capitalism? It's a pretty bold position that requires knowledge of business to really understand WHY you're taking that posititon.

It's hard to imagine someone that takes that position, but doesn't understand the pitfalls of government regulation.

 

[blu]

i'm just trying to understand why this guy seems to know very little about capitalism, as well as having reservations about it.

Usually an anti-fractional reserve banking type understands capitalism enough not to make this kind of thread.

I mean why take that position if you're not already educated about capitalism? It's a pretty bold position that requires knowledge of business to really understand WHY you're taking that posititon.

It's hard to imagine someone that takes that position, but doesn't understand the pitfalls of government regulation.

I understand and if you read the OP you would see I have looked into it but this is one thing I don't agree with. I think that monopolies are the downfall to totally unregulated markets and huge monopolies cannot be stopped by regular market forces. The government should only get invovled in the market when its to free it up for more competition as monopolies would never give up their grip on it.

 

[Paulie]

i'm just trying to understand why this guy seems to know very little about capitalism, as well as having reservations about it.

Usually an anti-fractional reserve banking type understands capitalism enough not to make this kind of thread.

I mean why take that position if you're not already educated about capitalism? It's a pretty bold position that requires knowledge of business to really understand WHY you're taking that posititon.

It's hard to imagine someone that takes that position, but doesn't understand the pitfalls of government regulation.

I understand and if you read the OP you would see I have looked into it but this is one thing I don't agree with. I think that monopolies are the downfall to totally unregulated markets and huge monopolies cannot be stopped by regular market forces. The government should only get invovled in the market when its to free it up for more competition as monopolies would never give up their grip on it.

Then how do you not understand the pitfalls of regulation?

Do you recognize that a lot of regulation that exists actually HELPS sustain monopolies?

When regulation is so stiff that the average mom and pop operation can't even afford to compete, you end up with big business cornering the market and monopolizing anyway.

Big business can afford to keep prices lower than a small business can in my instances, so that leaves very little market share, if ANY, for said small business.

 

[Oddball]

Then how do you not understand the pitfalls of regulation?

Do you recognize that a lot of regulation that exists actually HELPS sustain monopolies?

When regulation is so stiff that the average mom and pop operation can't even afford to compete, you end up with big business cornering the market and monopolizing anyway.

Big business can afford to keep prices lower than a small business can in my instances, so that leaves very little market share, if ANY, for said small business.

True, up to that last sentence.

Not everyone is price sensitive. There's a segment of the population who will gladly pay more for better service.

 

[Paulie]

Then how do you not understand the pitfalls of regulation?

Do you recognize that a lot of regulation that exists actually HELPS sustain monopolies?

When regulation is so stiff that the average mom and pop operation can't even afford to compete, you end up with big business cornering the market and monopolizing anyway.

Big business can afford to keep prices lower than a small business can in my instances, so that leaves very little market share, if ANY, for said small business.

True, up to that last sentence.

Not everyone is price sensitive. There's a segment of the population who will gladly pay more for better service.

Sure, but that segment doesn't exist in every market, in adequate quantity. So there are many times where the Wal-marts (et al) of the world win the day.

I wasn't using only price sensitivity as reasoning, in case that's how it was perceived. Just one example.

The point is, regulation can singlehandedly cost a small business its very existence.

 

[blu]

Then how do you not understand the pitfalls of regulation?

I understand the pitfalls of bad, anti-capitalism regulation, and we have talked about this already in the thread.

Do you recognize that a lot of regulation that exists actually HELPS sustain monopolies?

yes and I am not for that type of regulation. I am for regulation that keeps things competitive like no price gouging between large corporations or lobbying laws that specifically benefit a large organization

When regulation is so stiff that the average mom and pop operation can't even afford to compete, you end up with big business cornering the market and monopolizing anyway.

and it should be the oppisite. regulation should be made that keeps monopolies from overrunning a market and breaks should be given to smaller companies to allow them to be competitive

Big business can afford to keep prices lower than a small business can in my instances, so that leaves very little market share, if ANY, for said small business.

yep this was brought up already, I believe in this thread.

 

[Oddball]

Then how do you not understand the pitfalls of regulation?

Do you recognize that a lot of regulation that exists actually HELPS sustain monopolies?

When regulation is so stiff that the average mom and pop operation can't even afford to compete, you end up with big business cornering the market and monopolizing anyway.

Big business can afford to keep prices lower than a small business can in my instances, so that leaves very little market share, if ANY, for said small business.

True, up to that last sentence.

Not everyone is price sensitive. There's a segment of the population who will gladly pay more for better service.

Sure, but that segment doesn't exist in every market, in adequate quantity. So there are many times where the Wal-marts (et al) of the world win the day.

I wasn't using only price sensitivity as reasoning, in case that's how it was perceived. Just one example.

The point is, regulation can singlehandedly cost a small business its very existence.

Absolutely.

But I also used better service as an example, too.

In the case of clothing, Target has markedly better quality merch than Wal-Mart, at a comparable price.....The mega-Targets also have great grocery prices and, in some cases, a different selection of items.

 

[Paulie]

Well blu, you seem to have your opinion on regulation and how it could be used beneficially to control monopolies.

I'm a free market guy, but the constitution DOES allow for congress to regulate interstate commerce. There are regulations that I do agree with.

The "free market" doesn't have to equate to anarchy, with big business running rampant. It's too bad that most liberals don't understand that, or take the time to recognize it in their fervent attempts to chastize it.

 

[Paulie]

True, up to that last sentence.

Not everyone is price sensitive. There's a segment of the population who will gladly pay more for better service.

Sure, but that segment doesn't exist in every market, in adequate quantity. So there are many times where the Wal-marts (et al) of the world win the day.

I wasn't using only price sensitivity as reasoning, in case that's how it was perceived. Just one example.

The point is, regulation can singlehandedly cost a small business its very existence.

Absolutely.

But I also used better service as an example, too.

In the case of clothing, Target has markedly better quality merch than Wal-Mart, at a comparable price.....The mega-Targets also have great grocery prices and, in some cases, a different selection of items.

I lump Target in with the "et al" part in my post to you, though. Target isn't exactly a mom and pop operation. They're competitive with Wal-mart. We used to have a store around here called Jamesway. Not a mom and pop, but I'm not necessarily being literal when I use that phrase. Jamesway had a more localized distribution chain, but Wal-mart and Target took their market share.

Bradlees is another example of a smaller discount department store that lost out to the Wal-marts of the world.

 

[blu]

Well blu, you seem to have your opinion on regulation and how it could be used beneficially to control monopolies.

I'm a free market guy, but the constitution DOES allow for congress to regulate interstate commerce. There are regulations that I do agree with.

The "free market" doesn't have to equate to anarchy, with big business running rampant. It's too bad that most liberals don't understand that, or take the time to recognize it in their fervent attempts to chastize it.

and I think the interstate commerce laws are the only legal way the regulations I want could be done. Also I know the free market doesn't intend for big business to run rampant, but when international corporations have billions in bankroll how can mom & pop who have a 100k business loan compete?