Here's an article detailing the sunglasses monopoly by Luxottica http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365362932852610.html And you say there cannot be a monopoly without government force? But I see a monopoly in an industry that, oh happy coincidence, where is the government regulation, the 'crony capitalism' that's propping up this monopoly?
There may be some inevitability inherent to social stratification, but capitalism DEMANDS it. When you reduce everything to monetary utility, there is literally no other alternative; in a capitalist society, if someone does not do everything and anything possible to accumulate wealth and power, someone else will. When you add corporations into the mix, all the humanity melts away. Equality is a matter of freedom and opportunity, not assets. Similarly, the richest people can be the government, provided the government is the people. Alter your perspective a bit. No argument.
For some reason, this thread made me think about this Molly Ivins quote: “It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America.”
scare off how? If someone else wants to buy a diamond mine, what's preventing them? the job of your federal,state, or local government is not to help you renege on an agreement if you change your mind. I accept agreements all the time without reading what I am agreeing to. If this ever came back to bite me in the ass then I would blame myself and not start barking "somebody should of protected me". Adults take responsibility for their actions. It's not other peoples' job to protect you from your own poor business decisions. That's not a monopoly. I can buy sunglasses for 3 bucks at the local wal-mart or grocery store and choose from dozens of brands. If I want sunglasses, I am not at the mercy of this evil sunglass company. In fact the word 'monopoly' doesn't appear once in that article.
So would you prefer we go back to the deregulated state of food safety ala 1900? Obviously a balance is needed but historically we know what a largely unregulated market leads to and its not good.
Buying up the competition, underselling the competition, making deals with vendors to shut out the competition, making deals with suppliers to shut out the competition, bundling products and etc... They actually they have considering the use of Pinkertons to engage in violent strike breaking.
Weslinder has a point. Continuing with the food example if I wanted to start my own restaurant I can't just build a shed with some seats in my back yard and call it a restaurant. I have to meet building codes and health department codes and if I can't afford to have my restaurant meet those codes I can't compete with the restaurant down the block that does. In that sense regulation is certainly reduces competition but given public safety I don't think it is a bad thing that regulation creates those type of barriers.
I would prefer the rich to not be the most powerful people. I would prefer that the smartest people were the most powerful. I would prefer the altruist over the selfish. The progressive over the regressive. The 'brighter days ahead' guy over the 'everything, all the time, right now guy'. Consumption does not equal quality of life.
Has any one of our heroes of American liberty and freedom responded to the question of whether a return to the economic paradise of the early 1900s is a good thing?
Reading these threads and the arguments that corporations really have no power over us and that we are free to avoid corporate power, as opposed to government power, I think misses a few points. Regarding government power versus corporate power living in a country that allows us fairly free movement to we also have the choice to leave if we want to so its not like we have no choice regarding being saddled with the US government. Why moving to another country is expensive its probably cheaper than trying to generate your own power or growing all your own food so you aren't dealing with those corporations. The other thing that is missing is the issue of externalities. For example lets say I decide to completely avoid having anything to do with corporations at all. I live as a hermit in a cave on a mountain where I drink runnoff, burn fire wood and hunt and scavenge my own food. While I might not be purchasing anything from, signing onto contracts, or working for any corporations I still might not be able to escape corporate power. Lets say there is coal in the mountain I'm living on and a mining company wants to buy my property. I am free to not sell but if my neighbors sell and the mining company engages in mountain top removal mining they will make my property pretty much unlivable if I am living a completely self-sufficient lifestyle based off of the land. Pretty much in our civilization it is impossible to avoid corporations and in that sense their power is on par with the power of government.
Shirley some people in this thread are posting as ideologues for the purposes of debate rather than posting out of actual abject stupidity.
Right there you are acknowledging how a monopoly can be formed without government force. Anyway everything else I cited shows how one entity can prevent another entity from partaking in said market. Pinkertons were allowed to act without government interference on behalf of corporations during many of the violent strike breaks in US history.
No. I'm fine with the increased corporatism for the ability to trust that my food is safe, within reason.
As are most of us which is why I find these extreme ideological arguments regarding deregulation laughable. The challenge is always finding a balance, which I suspect we would disagree on where that is, but I have a hard time believing that anyone actually believes the rhetoric about doing away with all regulation.
I think power and wealth have always been intertwined: if you have one, you seem to get the other. While I am sure others will help, I cannot currently think of very many people who were powerful, but not rich. Obviously some people exerted considerable influence, but were not rich like Mother Theresa or Gandhi. However, I would not call them powerful. I fear that if they had become powerful, they would have been corrupted. Remember the people at Enron were considered the smartest people in the room. Do we want them running the country? For the most part I think we do have some intelligent people running our country. The dumb ones usually drag the smart ones down though. While there are people who are stupid and inherit their wealth, it is the jobs that pay the best that attract the smartest students. Therefore, the smartest people are quite often working on Wall Street. Sometime the altruist starts off selfish. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett became wealthy by being greedy and selfish. In fact, Warren Buffett has mentioned that one of his bad business decisions was buying the old textile business of Berkshire Hathaway. I think the story is that he ended buying the company out because the former owner tried to buy Buffett out of his shares for about 10 cents less than he previously proposed. Some conservatives are very progressive. Look at Gary Johnson's website. I know he will never be nominated by the republicans, but I agree with most of his big issues. I agree, which is why I am going home now to be with my family.
