Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenSo what is the logical outcome of "capitalism" as far as you see it? Two businesses in a field? Three businesses in a given field? You are a proponent of "capitalism" - surely you have a theory about what its logical outcome is? Right? Nothing controversial here yet. You seem muddled. What is the logical outcome of "capitalism"? Are you saying it's more than one business? If so, where is that hardwired into the ideology?
you that said "Monopolies are the logical outcome of "capitalism"", so I am simply asking you to explain that to which I disagree.
Originally posted by FMFI seem muddled, you can't even answer a question or support your hypothesis. Is that how you work here on rhp, posting thoughts without ever supporting them?
So what is the logical outcome of "capitalism" as far as you see it? Two businesses in a field? Three businesses in a given field? You are a proponent of "capitalism" - surely you have a theory about what its logical outcome is? Right? Nothing controversial here yet. You seem muddled. What is the logical outcome of "capitalism"? Are you saying it's more than one business? If so, where is that hardwired into the ideology?
The outcome of capitalism is competition lowering prices benefiting the consumer. If you live in a town, for example, with 3 grocery stores, and one of them is Walmart, everyone may shop at walmart because they offer the same products at a lower price. That is NOT a monopoly. People go there because of the savings they get by shopping there. A monopoly would only exist if Walmart prevented any other grocery store from existing, which could only be done by illegal force or government intervention---which is the only way a monopoly would exist here as i have previously posted.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenSo you are saying that in theory the logical outcome of "capitalism" is three businesses? Surely not. Look, NimzovichLarsen, if there is no monopoly, then there is no problem. elefejesus and I and just about everyone else agree on this. Do you disagree? Monopolies are bad. Do you disagree? Citizens ought to be protected from monopolies in the vent that they might occur. Do you disagree? What's the controversy here? You seem to be taking our different perspectives personally. I don't see why.
The outcome of capitalism is competition lowering prices benefiting the consumer. If you live in a town, for example, with 3 grocery stores, and one of them is Walmart, everyone may shop at walmart because they offer the same products at a lower price. That is NOT a monopoly. People go there because of the savings they get by shopping there. A mo ...[text shortened]... nt intervention---which is the only way a monopoly would exist here as i have previously posted.
Originally posted by FMFlol, come on fmf, all i'm asking you is to explain your position that the logical outcome of capitalism are monopolies, and you CANT do it. I think everyone agrees monopolies are bad, but capitalism doesn't create monopolies as you suggeste--and are now backing off of. I'll take your inability to defend your statement as a concession that you were wrong.
So you are saying that in theory the logical outcome of "capitalism" is three businesses? Surely not. Look, NimzovichLarsen, if there is no monopoly, then there is no problem. elefejesus and I and just about everyone else agree on this. Do you disagree? Monopolies are bad. Do you disagree? Citizens ought to be protected from monopolies in the vent that they migh ...[text shortened]... troversy here? You seem to be taking our different perspectives personally. I don't see why.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenDo any businesses go out of business because of the competition and the lowering of prices? Yes they do. Are you saying that the logical outcome of "capitalism" is two or three businesses? Is there something stopping it from reaching "one business" (a monopoly), if so, what? Cite the ideology please. Not your "Walmart & 2 others = 3" example.
The outcome of capitalism is competition lowering prices benefiting the consumer.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenQuite frankly, you're the first "capitalist" that I have ever heard deny it. How many businesses, in a given market place, is the logical outcome of a "capitalism" system? You mentioned "three". Are you serious? Where did you get that number from?
i'm asking you is to explain your position that the logical outcome of capitalism are monopolies
The entire Sherman Act was necessary because of legally formed monopolies in the forms of the trusts that dominated US business in the late 1800s.
Also, Windows was a monopoly, certainly in the 1990s. Yes, one could buy a Mac, but the Mac's market share was much lower in the early 1990s than it is today and many pieces of important software were built that could not run on the Mac.
If you wanted to buy a PC, which was borderline necessary in those days, you basically had to use Windows. Linux, OS2, etc., were barely on the radar screen. As such, MS had a monopoly. You don't need 100% market share to have a monopoly.
The fact that MS was able to obliterate WordPerfect and Netscape Navigator by tying Word and Explorer to its Windows platform (to varying degrees of course) shows the power of Microsoft's monopoly.
Does MS have a nefarious monopoly today? Maybe not. Competition from Apple and Google certain have eaten away at MS' aura of invulnerability. But that's from a 2009 perspective. Things were very different in, say, 1994.
Originally posted by FMFyou are so obtuse. 3 was just an example of a situation that is not a monopoly. you can have as many businesses as you want, it's not limited. THAT'S WHY THERE IS NO MONOPOLY. One goes out of business and another one is started. Only the prevention of another company starting would there be a monopoly, but that doesn't exist in the U.S..
Quite frankly, you're the first "capitalist" that I have ever heard deny it. How many businesses, in a given market place, is the logical outcome of a "capitalism" system? You mentioned "three". Are you serious? Where did you get that number from?
Originally posted by sh76what microsoft had in 1994 was not, in my opinion, a TRUE monopoly. IT had most of the market share because of the genius of Bill Gates, but others were not PREVENTED from obtaining an equal market share (or a close to market share). The distinction I am making is that in a true monopoly others are prevented from obtaining a market share, but in your example hard work/genius created a large market share which is what happens in capitalism. In a true monopoly the playing field is not level and others are kept from obtaining a market share, and I don't think that happened in 1994 with Microsoft.
The entire Sherman Act was necessary because of legally formed monopolies in the forms of the trusts that dominated US business in the late 1800s.
Also, Windows was a monopoly, certainly in the 1990s. Yes, one could buy a Mac, but the Mac's market share was much lower in the early 1990s than it is today and many pieces of important software were built that c ...[text shortened]... ulnerability. But that's from a 2009 perspective. Things were very different in, say, 1994.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenOkay; then we're just each using our own definitions and not really discussing the same thing.
what microsoft had in 1994 was not, in my opinion, a TRUE monopoly. IT had most of the market share because of the genius of Bill Gates, but others were not PREVENTED from obtaining an equal market share (or a close to market share). The distinction I am making is that in a true monopoly others are prevented from obtaining a market share, but in yo ...[text shortened]... are kept from obtaining a market share, and I don't think that happened in 1994 with Microsoft.
According to Wikipedia (which is sourced well for this definition), a monopoly "exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
Is this a "true" monopoly? Well, I guess it depends on how you define "true" monopoly.
That definition though, I believe, fairly describes what Microsoft had in the 1990s (and perhaps still has, albeit to a lesser extent). I also think that the existence of such a monopoly has the potential to be harmful to economy and to society if used improperly. As such, this type of monopoly, whether "true" or not, has to be regulated.
What's the best way in which to do so? I don't know, but the Sherman Act has done a pretty good job for 115 years and so I see no reason to scrap it.
It's also true, of course, that the existence of at least some of these types of monopolies, is a virtually inevitable by-product of capitalism. That doesn't mean we scrap capitalism. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But, we need to take care to clean the bathwater, or the baby is going to get sick.
Monopolies arise naturally when there are tremendous start-up costs - or when a very large economy-of-scale is needed to be a profitable producer. Utility companies often have monopolies within the region they operate in because of the high costs of starting a rival network.
But monopolies aren't the main problem - I agree that most markets have more than one competitor -- oligopolies the big problem -- when there are only a few competitors, it becomes relatively easy for price-fixing arrangements or other forms of collusion to arise. And each of these companies can be old-school behemoths each offering slightly different flavors of the same old same old.
But I suppose if you extended the time frame long enough, all dominant "monopolies" will eventually be turned into buggy-whip makers via the process of creative destruction. Right now I'm hoping this will happen with the music industry and radio stations, but that's a different topic for a different forum.
Microsoft brings up an interesting case. One problem facing many computer-users is the prospect of viruses. When one company is making the vast majority of operating systems, the virus "community" targets that system. Which allows a rival like Mac to offer an alternative that is relatively virus-free, because all the "viruses" are monopolizing the monopoly. But I suspect that as Mac becomes more popular, Mac viruses will follow suit
Originally posted by sh76No one owes you an OS at any price.
Okay; then we're just each using our own definitions and not really discussing the same thing.
According to Wikipedia (which is sourced well for this definition), a monopoly "exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have ...[text shortened]... But, we need to take care to clean the bathwater, or the baby is going to get sick.
Get over it.
It seems there is general agreement that where there are monopolies restricting competition, whether in business or labor, action should be taken to correct market failure and encourage competition. Free markets may occasionally run into a monopoly once in a while, but they don't actively go out creating them as governments do when they nationalize an industry. Governments too can be monopolies.
I guess the principle idea is that competition is a force of good.
Capitalism ideally encourages competition.
That is hard to replace in a government monopoly or labor union.
Originally posted by FMFWhy are you afraid to support your assertation?
So what is the logical outcome of "capitalism" as far as you see it? Two businesses in a field? Three businesses in a given field? You are a proponent of "capitalism" - surely you have a theory about what its logical outcome is? Right? Nothing controversial here yet. You seem muddled. What is the logical outcome of "capitalism"? Are you saying it's more than one business? If so, where is that hardwired into the ideology?