Originally posted by kbear1k No but there are supposed to be laws against monopolies where competition is unlawfuly suppressed. Unfortunately, the courts today are not likely to enforce those laws because they are bought and paid for by large corporations.
The only thing laws can do is enforce monopolies not ban or stop them.
Originally posted by kbear1k No but there are supposed to be laws against monopolies where competition is unlawfuly suppressed. Unfortunately, the courts today are not likely to enforce those laws because they are bought and paid for by large corporations.
Name a court that is owned by a large corporation.
Many (most?) established companies applaud government regulation because it tends to shield them from competition. Strange bedfellows. One of the reasons I am for reduced regulation is to reduce that unnecessary protection.
Three things companies do to enforce their monopolistic positions are to buy-up competitors, drop their prices below profitability to drive other companies out of business, and form cartels. We assume these things are bad and so have regulations against each of them. I'm not sure any of these are needed, though -- provided that there is zero government interference to anyone forming a start-up!
Utilities are something of an exception since it is difficult to establish competing water/electric companies.
Originally posted by kbear1k It's clear that you have not read anything (maybe yu have read but clearly show no understanding) about the history on monopolies in the USA.
Also, if some entity controls a market how are new producers supposed to break into the market? "Price fix? Do consumers have to buy that stuff?" It depends what the product is. Have you tried living without buy any o ...[text shortened]... understanding of capitalism is at the fairy tale level - and has no place in the real world.
I won't insult you, but I have read and have a different view and understanding than you do. In short, we disagree.
We don't have any history in the US of monopolies harming the consumer. We do have a long history of business developing incestuous relations with government. Even the anti trust laws, are really for the protection of certain specific big businesses that are or were in favor of the current administration and Congress.
These days there are alternatives to almost everything. Lubricants come from other sources than oil. Your understanding of capitalism seems to be at the Karl Marx, Lord Keynes level.
Price fixing? Every known example of price fixing has been at the hands of government. The results of government price fixing is always bad for the consumer.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Name a court that is owned by a large corporation.
Many (most?) established companies applaud government regulation because it tends to shield them from competition. Strange bedfellows. One of the reasons I am for reduced regulation is to reduce that unnecessary protection.
Three things companies do to enforce their monopolistic positions are to b ...[text shortened]... omething of an exception since it is difficult to establish competing water/electric companies.
Murray Rothbard in his "Libertarian Manifesto" outlines ways in which even things like water/sewage, and power utilities and police could be privatized with advantage.
04 Jan '13 02:45
The Fiscal Cliff
Back to Top