Posted on 06/20/2017 6:59:59 AM PDT by Callahan
So for you, nothing can be too big? Too intrusive? I guess you must be a shill for the US Chamber of Communists. How about China? Are you all in for Chinese goods too? People who, like you see no reason for ANY LIMITS, are the reason why we are where we are today. Crony Capitalist fits you to a tee!
I would caution everyone, though, to keep things in the right perspective when they look at things from a historical standpoint. Some industries -- especially those that require huge capital investments and operate through "open access" arrangements under tight government regulation -- almost have to operate as monopolies by definition. Public utilities and similar companies like telephone and cable providers would fit this description before cell phone and satellite technology made a lot of their infrastructure obsolete.
If you want to see monopolistic practices in U.S. history, just look at the growth of the railroad industry in the latter half of the 19th century. Railroads were so dominant in this country that all of the companies in the precursor to the Dow Jones Industrial Index in the 1880s were railroads.
If you want to see monopolistic practices in U.S. history, just look at the growth of the railroad industry in the latter half of the 19th century. Railroads were so dominant in this country that all of the companies in the precursor to the Dow Jones Industrial Index in the 1880s were railroads.
Now see, this is an excellent point. At one time people did not realize that certain things which we now call "utilities" are so critical to the population that they became heavily regulated due to the power they were capable of wielding.
What Amazon, What Google, What Microsoft, and others have done, is make themselves so d@mn near indespensible as to almost qualify as a Utility.
Is not Google d@mn near a Utility now? A Water company pipes water into your home, Google pipes information into your home. It's looking like Amazon will be piping Groceries into your home, and at some point it makes sense to stop viewing them as private corporations and begin looking at them as a sort of Utility, Like Water, Electric or Gas.
Everything has become commoditized.
I used to think that Walmart had a crushing advantage in food sales with its low prices. Then I saw Aldi's and said "This is a company that can take on Walmart." Since then, our nearest Aldi's has improved dramatically. Higher produce quality. Low sales prices. All credit cards accepted. VERY pleasant cashiers. Eggs 30 cents a dozen!#?!!!
We also have Sprouts and a Costco. While we used to spend 95% of our food budget at Walmart, now its 5%.
While Amazon will remain huge, eventually other companies will chip around the edges, at least.
It had it's bad points and at the time it happened, I thought it was unnecessary and an example of an abuse of power by a Federal Judge.
But did it hurt the nation or the citizens? Not much that I can see. Whatever harm it did, appears to have been minor, and I believe it even promoted competition that helped usher in some of the technology we are now using.
It created much more confusion than it help savings for customers. Did it help or hurt the advancement of technology for the cell phones?
I think it helped. If I recall properly, I believe I have read that AT&T engineers had decided that Cell Phones were completely impractical because no one would pay the costs for cell phones at the time to achieve economies of scale.
They did in fact seriously misread the market and the advancements of technology that would make them more practical.
I am not sure if I know a good answer to this one- you could argue that Microsoft has a monopoly status too... but would you want to argue that it has not helped the entire planet while becoming the biggest capitalist success story ever?
I hate Microsoft, and yes, they have what is D@mn near a monopoly, and that is in fact one reason why I hate them. They have too much power over computer systems in this country, and I for one would like to see it broken.
I have been messing around with Linux. I'm not going to Windows 10, I am instead going to convert all my stuff to Linux.
If only it were so easy to do something about Google and Amazon. (Both heavy supporters of "Big Anus" and the "Gaystapo". )
1. Amazon is the dominant retailer in the U.S., accounting for about 43% of the online retail market in 2016.
2. The most recent (March 2017) number I've seen from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce indicate that online sales represent 8.4% of all retail sales in the U.S.
This means that Amazon accounts for just 3.6% of all retail sales in the U.S. This doesn't come close to a "monopoly" by any objective measure.
I have not said anything which even slightly resembles such a thing.
Post 2:
"There is too much power concentrated in these companies."
Post 16:
"The power of these companies needs to be distributed among the people."
Post 28:
"Power must be distributed."
Those are your words - on *this* thread.
As I said - Money is power. The definition of successful as a company selling goods and services is making money. They use that money to wield power - which you seem to think is too concentrated and must be "distributed" among the people.
That's right out of the communist manifesto my friend. Hell, "Power to the People" is an old t-shirt/bumper sticker slogan from the sixties and seventies.
The Bell System was a monopoly established *by* the government.
A monopoly requires the use of force to eliminate competition.
There is only one entity authorized to use force to achieve its ends: Government.
Therefore, the only way a monopoly can exist is if the government allows it.
The unfortunate part is that I don’t see any solution to this problem. America is suppose to be “One man One Vote” but it’s closer to “one dollar one vote” and a million people might want the government to do something, but all it takes is one billionaire to disagree.
At what threshold do you think we should begin paying attention to this? From my perspective, it looks as if they have all the makings for running the table.
Those are my words, but if you will notices the words "money" or "profits" are conspicuously absent from them.
Please do not attempt the ole "bait and switch" routine on me. I said their power needs to be distributed, I said nothing about income or wealth.
A monopoly requires the use of force to eliminate competition.
No it doesn't. People can be frozen out of a market simply by agreements between other people.
Therefore, the only way a monopoly can exist is if the government allows it.
This may be true, but it sort of misses the point. Monopolies are inevitable if the government allows it. It is the duty of government to make sure that none form, or linger if they do.
The people have become stupid, and i'm not sure anything can be done besides going through the suffering that is coming.
“...ping us all when Jeff Bezos has a private army...”
Your buddy Bezos is advocating the violent removal of legally elected President Trump thru the Washington Post, which he owns.
“Because history gives us a pretty good understanding of human nature, and when power is available to be exploited, it eventually will be exploited. To disregard potential threats is naive.”
Sure, you’ve got a crystal ball and so you can convict people (or corporations) of crimes before they have been committed! That sounds real American.
“Don’t strawman me. I’m talking about the notion that you can have a free market system that regulates itself.”
Which I said nothing about, so you are actually strawmanning me in the same breath you’re telling not to strawman you. Hilarious.
“Yes, I know it’s a big Leftist talking point to rail about corporations, but the potential to do mischief when you become so big or have so much information about the public is real.”
So what? Anyone with a firearm has the “potential to do mischief” as well, but we don’t favor banning guns, because WE’RE NOT LEFTISTS.
“Google did use their power to manipulate the 2012 elections.”
Uh huh. Guess what? In this country, it’s not illegal to “manipulate elections”, despite the MSM talking points. Everyone has the right to put up signs, send out mailings, make phone calls, etc and do their darndest to manipulate the election in their favor. That’s the American way.
I figure they’re going into home deliveries, and that they expect high dollar customers to use the home delivery service.
Kroger is using shop online but you go and pick it up at the store. I don’t think they deliver to your home - I don’t even use the online service - just go there and get my groceries - they do promote the online business though.
>> I mention it constantly
Well then, that makes ‘just the two us.’
I’m not big on breaking corporations apart — in a fair and competitive market, they’ll break and reform on their own as a consequence of an informed consumer base — however, the consumers are not informed.
You make a great point regarding broadcast — those frequencies are leased ultimately by the citizens.
No doubt you’ve noticed that the likes of Gingrich, Hannity, Rush, Levin, et al only speak to the wicked MSM. No mention is ever made about the controlling parent companies. It’s pathetic, and I find it hard to take them seriously when all they do is bemoan the MSM minions.
There’s an article I found here a couple of days ago. It correctly speaks to the AT&T Time Warner merger that’s been a factor for months now. The second article from the Hill was published 3 weeks ago.
AT&T should punt CNN — else, every conservative subscriber should punt AT&T.
- - - -
Time Warner Shareholders Rebuke CNN’s Jeff Bewkes For Network’s Trump Bashing
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3561511/posts
- - - -
Trump’s pick to lead antitrust division raises concerns over vertical mergers
BY HARPER NEIDIG - 05/30/17 11:41 AM EDT
President Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Justice’s antitrust division said that vertical mergers, such as the proposed AT&T-Time Warner deal, can “raise competitive concerns.”
Then charge him with sedition. We don’t need any new laws or to grant any new power to the government to deal with that.
Many did, but somebody had to get it first in order to have something to bequeath. How the first ones got it is what history is about. Consider that before throwing around characterizations of naiveté.
How do you know that it is temporary? How do you know a new player will replace the old? Because that has been the case in the past?
Tell ya what. I'll bet that it's temporary, and you bet that it's permanent.
That is a logical fallacy.
Which one? Actually, I thought it was just an inference from history.
It is when a monopoly is created or maintained by any means that there is a problem.
That's like saying, "When there is enough stuff, there is a problem." True, but is it a moral problem?
A monopoly is neither moral nor immoral. The means of creating or maintaining it must be one or the other. The usual ones are downright sleazy. That is what you're objecting to, and I don't disagree.
You said “power” - in any market, power *is* money. They are interchangeable. There is no bait and switch - they are the same thing.
And yes, a monopoly *requires* force. Force is the very definition of monopoly. Without the ability to use force, someone else can always come along and offer the same product or service better and cheaper regardless of any agreement between any other parties. And if people are unhappy with the “large and monopolistic” provider, they will choose the new one - absent force.
I’m not going to continue this argument because it’s plain that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
May you not have to learn the errors in your thinking the hard way.
It has long been frustrating to me that all of the politicians on our side simply accept the censorship and control of left wing people in positions of power within the media.
Since 1992, (when I woke up to how they were manipulating that election) I have believed that we should be attacking these organizations with the intent of destroying their ability to control the "news."
The first thing we should have been doing is deliberately calling them out. For example, in every interview with George Stephanopolous, we should never refer to him by his name, or as a journalist.
We should always say "Mr Bill Clinton's press secretary pretending to be unbiased." Or some such. If talking to Cokie Roberts, we should say "Democrat Senator's daughter."
We should use every opportunity to broadcast to the American people that these people whom they regard as "Journalists" are actually partisan agents with deep connections to the Democrat party.
We should be trying to damage them, not get along with them. We should make it clear that we consider them biased and we should bring the topic up every time we are on camera.
But our side doesn't seem to realize that it's in a war, and the other side has all the broadcasting equipment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.