What is true capitalism and is it the best for our country?

[Yurt]

We pride ourselves on Capitalism. Yet, do we practice true capitalism?

Bush, Congress discuss $150 billion lift to economy


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush told lawmakers on Thursday he wants tax rebates for families and breaks for businesses in a rescue plan for the struggling U.S. economy that could total up to $150 billion.


link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080118/bs_nm/usa_economy_stimulus1_dc)


Can this country survive under pure capitalism?

AND what is true capitalism

[Psychoblues]

No

[Yurt]

No

dumbass, stop accusing others of drinking and read:

there are two parts to the question in the thread.....


:alcoholic:

[Kathianne]

dumbass, stop accusing others of drinking and read:

there are two parts to the question in the thread.....


:alcoholic:

Yurt, for Psycho it has to be the accusation of drinking or you are a woman. Consider yourself a step above. :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Yurt, lemme try and straighten this out for you. I generally do 4 to 8 things at a time. I'll give you this time totally for just you. You asked a question for which my only possiible one word answer could be "no". As far as the rest of your bifurcated question goes it would require a book to adequately answer it. You knew that when you asked it.



dumbass, stop accusing others of drinking and read:

there are two parts to the question in the thread.....


:alcoholic:

I fully appreciate your questions and I hope you fully appreciate my answers. My answer was "no". Why do you confuse the "drinking" issue by bringing it up here and in other unrelated threads?

[JackDaniels]

We pride ourselves on Capitalism. Yet, do we practice true capitalism?

Bush, Congress discuss $150 billion lift to economy


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush told lawmakers on Thursday he wants tax rebates for families and breaks for businesses in a rescue plan for the struggling U.S. economy that could total up to $150 billion.


link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080118/bs_nm/usa_economy_stimulus1_dc)


Can this country survive under pure capitalism?

AND what is true capitalism

Yes, real Capitalism would work. However, it can't work when you pair it with the corporatist socialism that the current batch of Republicans in power have put forth in their public policy.

It has to be real laissez-faire capitalism.

[Yurt]

Yes, real Capitalism would work. However, it can't work when you pair it with the corporatist socialism that the current batch of Republicans in power have put forth in their public policy.

It has to be real laissez-faire capitalism.

I wouldn't coin it exactly socialism, but it definetley is not pure capitalism. Now farming corporations .... that I would say is corporate socialism.

The idea of seperation of economy and government has been around for quite some time, yet, has it ever worked? I suppose we could look to the beginning foundations of this country through -- about -- the late 1800's to get a pretty good idea. Interestingly, while the constitution does not permit the giving of "titles," wealthy business men were often "unofficially" titled "Baron." Those that excelled at capitalism, were unoffically knighted by virture of their money.

I don't really have an good grasp of the all the underlying issues in the mid to late 1800's, so I would be a fool to tell you that virtual pure capitalism worked or did not work. You seem to have a good grasp, what is your opinion? My lay opinion would be, that sure, this form of capitalism is what essentially made this country a power. Did the environment suffer? Probably. Did the worker suffer? Who knows, the worker continued working.....

It would be interesting for the board to know your understanding of laissez-faire capitalism.

[typomaniac]

Nobody practices real capitalism, because it's impossible to do so. Real capitalism is just as unworkable as real communism.

[Yurt]

Nobody practices real capitalism, because it's impossible to do so. Real capitalism is just as unworkable as real communism.

really

[typomaniac]

really
Yes. Without government control, monopolies form, competition becomes impossible, and the whole model implodes.

[Yurt]

Yes. Without government control, monopolies form, competition becomes impossible, and the whole model implodes.

really

[typomaniac]

really

Really.

[82Marine89]

Really.

For real and for true?

[Black Lance]

We pride ourselves on Capitalism. Yet, do we practice true capitalism?

Bush, Congress discuss $150 billion lift to economy


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush told lawmakers on Thursday he wants tax rebates for families and breaks for businesses in a rescue plan for the struggling U.S. economy that could total up to $150 billion.


link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080118/bs_nm/usa_economy_stimulus1_dc)


Can this country survive under pure capitalism?

AND what is true capitalism

No. Besides the aforementioned difficulties, such as monopolies and trusts, Americans have grown used to having certain protections, such as workplace safety requirements and laws that regulate hiring, firing and wages, and if all these laws were suddenly removed the affect on the market would be a massive drop in demand for goods and services due to reduced income per worker. Furthermore, productivity per input would be likely to decrease, as less healthy workers inevitably began to produce less by their labor. The whole economy would likely work like the Ford $5 an hour wage in reverse.

As for true capitalism, it is a meaningless term, similar to "true communism". You could argue all day long about exactly what that term describes, but it would be a meaningless debate. Words aren't what matters, it is the ideas behind the words that count.

[manu1959]

Yes. Without government control, monopolies form, competition becomes impossible, and the whole model implodes.

really can you point to a true capitalist society that became one huge monoply and imploded....

in fact some of the best financial and inventive moments in american history that society as a whole benifitted from were the result of monopolies....

[Psychoblues]

Anytime the word "subsidy" is mentioned in government I am totally suspicious. Even though I have supported capitalism as a low middle incomer all my life I can honestly say that I have never asked for or received any subsidy. On the other hand, I know many equally low middle class incomers that claim to fully appreciate their gwb subsidy of 2001. I can't find it in me to argue with that kind of ignorance.

[JackDaniels]

Yes. Without government control, monopolies form, competition becomes impossible, and the whole model implodes.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of economics knows that a monopoly cannot exist without government sanction.

[Psychoblues]

Anyone with even passing knowledge of economics also knows that monopolies do exist when they control governments or parts of governments.



Anyone with even a passing knowledge of economics knows that a monopoly cannot exist without government sanction.

Now, what's your argument?

[typomaniac]

really can you point to a true capitalist society that became one huge monoply and imploded....

in fact some of the best financial and inventive moments in american history that society as a whole benifitted from were the result of monopolies....

No, because no "true capitalist society" has ever existed anywhere.

[manu1959]

No, because no "true capitalist society" has ever existed anywhere.

then how do you know it will implode....

[typomaniac]

then how do you know it will implode....

We know that if gravity didn't exist, we'd float off the planet. In order for us to know that, it's not necessary for gravity to have ever actually been "turned off." :poke:

[manu1959]

We know that if gravity didn't exist, we'd float off the planet. In order for us to know that, it's not necessary for gravity to have ever actually been "turned off." :poke:

so in other words you have no fucking clue what would happen if a capitalist society was allowed by their government to practice true capitalisim....

you just have an irrational fear of the possibility of a monoply.....

tell me which industry was allowed to become a monopoly without government intervention that destroyed all competion and imploded....and if / when it imploded what did / would happen....

[Yurt]

We know that if gravity didn't exist, we'd float off the planet. In order for us to know that, it's not necessary for gravity to have ever actually been "turned off." :poke:

what about "natural" monopolies that the government allows?

[manu1959]

what about "natural" monopolies that the government allows?

such as......

[typomaniac]

so in other words you have no fucking clue what would happen if a capitalist society was allowed by their government to practice true capitalisim....Then enlighten us all, Mr. Wizard. And while you're at it, point to any capitalist society that was ever allowed by its government to practice "true capitalism."

I'll wait.

[manu1959]

Then enlighten us all, Mr. Wizard. And while you're at it, point to any capitalist society that was ever allowed by its government to practice "true capitalism."

I'll wait.

you said it would implode.....prove your case.....

come on you claim to be smarter than all of us....don't tell me that two tough inquires from a dumb ass like me and you are taking your ball and going home....

waht a pussie....

[typomaniac]

you said it would implode.....prove your case.....

come on you claim to be smarter than all of us....don't tell me that two tough inquires from a dumb ass like me and you are taking your ball and going home....

waht a pussie....

In other words, you don't have a fucking clue, either. Then at least man up and admit it.

[manu1959]

In other words, you don't have a fucking clue, either. Then at least man up and admit it.

i didn't make the claim you did......i am just calling you on your pluck from rectum facts.....

no somehow it is my fault you are an idiot.....

[typomaniac]

i didn't make the claim you did......i am just calling you on your pluck from rectum facts.....

no somehow it is my fault you are an idiot.....
Show me one country that has ever had "true capitalism." Just one. Then I'll take it all back.

Otherwise you'd better take that foot out of your mouth.

[manu1959]

Show me one country that has ever had "true capitalism." Just one. Then I'll take it all back.

Otherwise you'd better take that foot out of your mouth.


listen up ya dumb fuck....

you made the claim that true capitalism would implode.....

i said prove it....

you can't......

don't act like i made the claim you dumb twat.....

[MtnBiker]

Nice discussion.

A little less name calling though. :)

[typomaniac]

listen up ya dumb fuck....

you made the claim that true capitalism would implode.....

i said prove it....

you can't......

don't act like i made the claim you dumb twat.....

No, you're being the dumb fucking asshole, and a tiresome one at that.

The world is full of theories that haven't been proved, and yet everyone agrees that they're (probably) true BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN DISPROVED.

You've been owned, you worthless piece of shit. Either admit it or pour yourself a nice hot cup of STFU.

[manu1959]

No, you're being the dumb fucking asshole, and a tiresome one at that.

The world is full of theories that haven't been proved, and yet everyone agrees that they're (probably) true BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN DISPROVED.

You've been owned, you worthless piece of shit. Either admit it or pour yourself a nice hot cup of STFU.

too funny....you can't prove your claim....

you claimed that true capitalisim would implode.....

come on prove it.....all i asked for is one example.....or you could articualte your therory in if then statements....you can't can you....

[manu1959]

Nice discussion.

A little less name calling though. :)

sorry...i will refrain

[MtnBiker]

sorry...i will refrain

Thanks!

[typomaniac]

too funny....you can't prove your claim....

you claimed that true capitalisim would implode.....

come on prove it.....all i asked for is one example.....or you could articualte your therory in if then statements....you can't can you....

You want it in if-then statements? Okay:

IF government never intervenes in business activity
THEN businesses form monopolies, trusts, and other structures that are illegal in today's capitalist countries
THEN competition becomes impossible,
THEN consumers no longer benefit from unrestricted business activity,
THEN one of the key elements of capitalism is no longer in place.

You want to disprove that? Great: give me a counter-example. Any counter-example.

[manu1959]

You want it in if-then statements? Okay:

IF government never intervenes in business activity
THEN businesses form monopolies, trusts, and other structures that are illegal in today's capitalist countries
THEN competition becomes impossible,
THEN consumers no longer benefit from unrestricted business activity,
THEN one of the key elements of capitalism is no longer in place.

You want to disprove that? Great: give me a counter-example. Any counter-example.

THEN businesses form monopolies, trusts, and other structures that are illegal in today's capitalist countries

pity....

IF government never intervenes in business activity
Then monopolies, trusts, and other structures can not be illegal...

bummer...try again

[typomaniac]

THEN businesses form monopolies, trusts, and other structures that are illegal in today's capitalist countries

pity....

IF government never intervenes in business activity
Then monopolies, trusts, and other structures can not be illegal...

bummer...try again

That's not a counter-example. No government has ever given business carte blanche to behave completely as they wish.

Bummer. Try again.

[manu1959]

That's not a counter-example. No government has ever given business carte blanche to behave completely as they wish.

Bummer. Try again.

i made no claim....i asked you to prove yours......which was.....true capitalisim if allowed to progress ad naseum would implode....

come on...prove that it would implode.....

[typomaniac]

i made no claim....i asked you to prove yours......which was.....true capitalisim if allowed to progress ad naseum would implode....

come on...prove that it would implode.....

You seem to be running into some snags with the whole if-then thing.

IF some government ever did decide to repeal all the laws that restrict business activity...

THEN you'd get the whole chain-reaction of consequences that I just outlined.

Why? Because businesses want to make as much money as they can, as quickly as they can. And the best way to do so is to make the environment impossible for anyone else to compete in.

[manu1959]

You seem to be running into some snags with the whole if-then thing.

IF some government ever did decide to repeal all the laws that restrict business activity...

THEN you'd get the whole chain-reaction of consequences that I just outlined.

Why? Because businesses want to make as much money as they can, as quickly as they can. And the best way to do so is to make the environment impossible for anyone else to compete in.

your opening premise in your if then string was no govt interfrence.....your second statement was that monoplies were illegal....

if govt does not interfere
then monopolies can not be illegal....

so your string falls apart....

come on you are smart you can prove that capitalisim if allowed to expand to a monoply would implode.....i am sure there are many examples....

[typomaniac]

your opening premise in your if then string was no govt interfrence.....your second statement was that monoplies were illegal....

if govt does not interfere
then monopolies can not be illegal....Right. Monopolies are illegal now. My string deals only with what would happen IF they were not.


come on you are smart you can prove that capitalisim if allowed to expand to a monoply would implode.....i am sure there are many examples....I don't know of a single case where a government kept completely away from a monopoly for all time; sorry.

[manu1959]

Right. Monopolies are illegal now. My string deals only with what would happen IF they were not.

I don't know of a single case where a government kept completely away from a monopoly for all time; sorry.

so you don't know of a single case that would proove your point....

but i will move on....

microsoft is a monopoly....the power companies are a monopoly....the water companies are a monopoly...hell the govt is a monopoly....

i will give you a few others....what happend to US steel....the railroads....ATT once the govt ruled them illegal monopolies.....

[typomaniac]

so you don't know of a single case that would proove your point....A case like the one I mentioned would disprove my point, not prove it.


microsoft is a monopoly....the power companies are a monopoly....the water companies are a monopoly...hell the govt is a monopoly....Microsoft isn't a true monopoly, because it does have competition. And the government can't possibly be a monopoly because it isn't a corporation. The water and power companies are monopolies, true, but they're far from being unregulated ones.
i will give you a few others....what happend to US steel....the railroads....ATT once the govt ruled them illegal monopolies.....They were broken up. What's your point? :confused:

[manu1959]

A case like the one I mentioned would disprove my point, not prove it.

Microsoft isn't a true monopoly, because it does have competition. And the government can't possibly be a monopoly because it isn't a corporation. The water and power companies are monopolies, true, but they're far from being unregulated ones.They were broken up. What's your point? :confused:

fsair enough...

what happend when the govt broke up / artificaly imploded the true monoplies i mentioned.....

[typomaniac]

fsair enough...

what happend when the govt broke up / artificaly imploded the true monoplies i mentioned.....

The goal was to restore the competitive balance of the marketplace. Sometimes they succeeded in this goal, sometimes they failed.

[manu1959]

The goal was to restore the competitive balance of the marketplace. Sometimes they succeeded in this goal, sometimes they failed.

wait a second....you are claiming that government imposed implosion of a monopoly succeded....is it possible that if a monopoly imploded on it's own then other companies would rise from the ashes and capitalisim would continue.....

don't be too quick to reply before you think of all the monopolies that have "implodeded" and why....

btw...govts are monopolies.....

[typomaniac]

wait a second....you are claiming that government imposed implosion of a monopoly succeded....is it possible that if a monopoly imploded on it's own then other companies would rise from the ashes and capitalisim would continue.....How is a monopoly capable of "imploding on its own" if it has succeeded in making competition against it impossible?

[manu1959]

How is a monopoly capable of "imploding on its own" if it has succeeded in making competition against it impossible?

no clue you made the claim in post 10.....

[typomaniac]

no clue you made the claim in post 10.....

The claim in post 10 was that capitalism ultimately implodes, not that monopolies implode.

I consider capitalism to have "imploded" when no real competition exists any longer and therefore consumers get no benefit out of having a free market.

[manu1959]

The claim in post 10 was that capitalism ultimately implodes, not that monopolies implode.

I consider capitalism to have "imploded" when no real competition exists any longer and therefore consumers get no benefit out of having a free market.

monopolies are the result of unregulated unrestrained capitalisim......

so if consumers get no benifit from from a company what would happen......

[typomaniac]

monopolies are the result of unregulated unrestrained capitalisim......

so if consumers get no benifit from from a company what would happen......

"Getting no benefit from a company" isn't the same as "getting the benefit of a competitive market." Even a monopoly has to provide SOME benefit to its customers, but not nearly as much as when there's healthy competition.

[manu1959]

"Getting no benefit from a company" isn't the same as "getting the benefit of a competitive market." Even a monopoly has to provide SOME benefit to its customers, but not nearly as much as when there's healthy competition.

really i got great servcie from att and us steel ..... when the govt decided we needed helthy competition we got fucked by japan and all the bay bells....

[typomaniac]

really i got great servcie from att and us steel ..... when the govt decided we needed helthy competition we got fucked by japan and all the bay bells....

Right after the breakup of Ma Bell it was ugly for a while, sure; but most of us are paying way less for long distance today.

[Black Lance]

really i got great servcie from att and us steel ..... when the govt decided we needed helthy competition we got fucked by japan and all the bay bells....

While 100%, pure laissez-fair capitalism has never really been tried (it's damn near a military neccesity that the government regulate some aspects of the economy, such as roads) we can still get a good idea of what such a setup would result in based on economic models developed over the past few centuries. Whether or not such economies would "implode" depends, obviously, on your definition of implosion. Does that implosion include social upheaval, anarchy, a catastrophic decline in living standards for the masses, an outright economic shutdown, or some combination of all of these?

An important point to make at this point in the debate is that government involvement in the economy is NOT limited to breaking up monopolies. The government also prints currency, regulates the financial markets, and engages in several other fiscal practices that are too important to be outsourced to the private sector. Additionally, the end of government involvement in the economy would result in trillions of dollars in externalities no longer being included in the price of goods and services, with the resulting economic and environmental disasters that would follow. And of course there are all the problems listed on my previous post to consider.

While most people would prefer a small government to a large one - governments are just institutions run by people, after all, much as businesses are - the simple reality is that modern economies could not function without government regulating the marketplace.

[manu1959]

Right after the breakup of Ma Bell it was ugly for a while, sure; but most of us are paying way less for long distance today.

so that would mean that when a monopoly implodes the market comes back and starts over.....

[LuvRPgrl]

There does not seem to be a shortage of people confusing capitalism with a free market.

[gene430]

Yes, real Capitalism would work. However, it can't work when you pair it with the corporatist socialism that the current batch of Republicans in power have put forth in their public policy.

It has to be real laissez-faire capitalism.

You knocked this one out of the park.......simple, concise, correct.

[typomaniac]

so that would mean that when a monopoly implodes the market comes back and starts over.....

That's the theory, I suppose...

[manu1959]

That's the theory, I suppose...

well att and a couple of others proved the theory.....unfortunately us steel lost to the free market in other countries.....one of the first global market casualties if you will.....

[Psychoblues]

US Steel lost out because they had not retooled or changed their manufacturing process since about 1910 while those that profitted so heavily from it ignored the changing technologies and market standards. There have been more than a few books written on this subject, m'59. I don't suppose you have ever read a single one of them.



well att and a couple of others proved the theory.....unfortunately us steel lost to the free market in other countries.....one of the first global market casualties if you will.....

AT&T? The Democrats broke them up years ago and the Republicans put them back together again. I really could write you a book on how I think that happened and how I think that will turn out. I'll save it for when I have more time. In the meantime, why don't you pay attention to the grocery and produce markets? It don't look good for the home team to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Black Lance]

If anyone feels like testing out the theory some more, I would like to volunteer De Beers diamonds as next target for the monopoly smasher. They are a perfect example of how monopolies ruin the market: they allegedly control 98% of the global diamond supply, store huge numbers of diamonds in vaults to create an artificial scarcity, and exploit the situation created that way to raise prices through the roof.

[manu1959]

If anyone feels like testing out the theory some more, I would like to volunteer De Beers diamonds as next target for the monopoly smasher. They are a perfect example of how monopolies ruin the market: they allegedly control 98% of the global diamond supply, store huge numbers of diamonds in vaults to create an artificial scarcity, and exploit the situation created that way to raise prices through the roof.

don't buy diamonds then....and you wouldn't bitch if your last name was debeers.....

as for me...good for them....but this just proves my point they are pretty much the only game in town and they haven't imploded and there is still a market ...

[Black Lance]

don't buy diamonds then....


I don't intend to.



and you wouldn't bitch if your last name was debeers.....


If my last name was debeers I would look for more ethical ways to conduct business.



as for me...good for them....but this just proves my point they are pretty much the only game in town and they haven't imploded and there is still a market ...

There is still a market, sure, but diamonds make up only a small part of the total US economy. What would happen to the economy, and American society, if large US industries exercised massive price inflation De Beers style?

To put the question another way, and cut right to the point, what might happen when a company with a monopoly on the meat or bread industry decided to maximize profits by producing much less bread/meat, thereby allowing the company to raise bread/meat prices to several times their current level?

[manu1959]

I don't intend to.

If my last name was debeers I would look for more ethical ways to conduct business.

There is still a market, but diamonds makes up only a small part of the total economy. What would happen to the economy, and American society, if large US industries exercised massive price inflation De Beers style?

To put the question another way, and cut right to the point, what might happen when a company with a monopoly on the meat or bread industry decided to maximize profits by producing very little bread/meat, allowing the company to raise bread/meat prices to several times their current level?

well i guess another company would open a bread or meat store....as bread and meat are not a limited resource and can be raised or made.....but lets just assume that someone owned every single cow on the planet and owned the patent on bread and jacked up the prices.....

people would eat chicken and not eat bread and they would either go out of business or lower prices.....

as for debeers they bought all the diamonds .... not sure how it is unethical ..... plus you don't need diamonds to live

[MtnBiker]

To put the question another way, and cut right to the point, what might happen when a company with a monopoly on the meat or bread industry decided to maximize profits by producing much less bread/meat, thereby allowing the company to raise bread/meat prices to several times their current level?


Wow!! that is a pretty big assumption. Exactly how would a monopoly be created in the beef or bread industry?

[typomaniac]

Wow!! that is a pretty big assumption. Exactly how would a monopoly be created in the beef or bread industry?

Predatory pricing. The biggest conglomerates would temporarily sell at a loss and quickly wipe out the independent farmers.

[manu1959]

Predatory pricing. The biggest conglomerates would temporarily sell at a loss and quickly wipe out the independent farmers.

how come that hasn't happened yet?....hell it hasn't even happened to the little independant gas stations.....

[MtnBiker]

how come that hasn't happened yet?....hell it hasn't even happened to the little independant gas stations.....

They wouldn't be able to sustain the loss, there are to many competitors. Not to mention the logistics involved, beef is grown and sold all over the nation.

[manu1959]

They wouldn't be able to sustain the loss, there are to many competitors. Not to mention the logistics involved, beef is grown and sold all over the nation.

very true and the real issue is this ..... us steel was once in this very posistion ..... anyone remember what the govt. did to them ..... and what happened to the american steel industry and who now has the monopoly on steel ..... not america .... the american govt saw to that ....

[Kathianne]

My dad was quite high up in the steel industry back when. His take, due to union pressure and weak management, they failed to update their equipment-capital investments.

Japan and Germany produce more, better, cheaper and won. It's changed some in recent years, though no jobs back.

[manu1959]

My dad was quite high up in the steel industry back when. His take, due to union pressure and weak management, they failed to update their equipment-capital investments.

Japan and Germany produce more, better, cheaper and won. It's changed some in recent years, though no jobs back.

not to mention when the govt broke up their monopoly.....and built japan's and germany's steel plants from scratch for them....

[typomaniac]

how come that hasn't happened yet?....hell it hasn't even happened to the little independant gas stations.....

Gee. I'd guess it's because - last time I checked - predatory pricing was still illegal. :uhoh:

[Black Lance]

well i guess another company would open a bread or meat store....as bread and meat are not a limited resource and can be raised or made.....but lets just assume that someone owned every single cow on the planet and owned the patent on bread and jacked up the prices.....

As already mentioned, predatory pricing helps maintain these kinds of monopolies. Companies such as standard oil developed this technique, wherein they lowered prices in any area where a local vendor opened a store, sold at a loss until the new retailer went out of business, and then proceeded to raise prices to several times above their previous level.

Now admittedly a product like wheat or meat would be harder to maintain than a monopoly on oil or railroads, but a monopoly need not be total to be disastrous for the economy. De Beers "only" owns 98% of the diamond supply, but they essentially determine the market price when they own that much of the supply.



people would eat chicken and not eat bread and they would either go out of business or lower prices.....

I said meat, not beef. Chicken is a meat.

The important point to make here is that many products, such as oil, simply don't have readily available substitutes, and often times holders of a monopoly on one product will seek to swallow up the supply sources of any substitutes that exist. In many cases they will even seek to buy out their suppliers to lower total costs, which adds further to the economic firepower of the company by further diversifying its interests and reach.



as for debeers they bought all the diamonds .... not sure how it is unethical ..... plus you don't need diamonds to live

Monopolies such as De Beers are generally considered an unethical business practice, as they ruin the market economy. And De Beets hasn't so much bought all the diamonds so much as they have bought the source of the diamond supply. For more on this, see the movie Blood Diamond.

[manu1959]

As already mentioned, predatory pricing helps maintain these kinds of monopolies. Companies such as standard oil developed this technique, wherein they lowered prices in any area where a local vendor opened a store, sold at a loss until the new retailer went out of business, and then proceeded to raise prices to several times above their previous level.

Now admittedly a product like wheat or meat would be harder to maintain than a monopoly on oil or railroads, but a monopoly need not be total to be disastrous for the economy. De Beers "only" owns 98% of the diamond supply, but they essentially determine the market price when they own that much of the supply.

I said meat, not beef. Chicken is a meat.

The important point to make here is that many products, such as oil, simply don't have readily available substitutes, and often times holders of a monopoly on one product will seek to swallow up the supply sources of any substitutes that exist. In many cases they will even seek to buy out their suppliers to lower total costs, which adds further to the economic firepower of the company by further diversifying its interests and reach.

Monopolies such as De Beers are generally considered an unethical business practice, as they ruin the market economy. And De Beets hasn't so much bought all the diamonds so much as they have bought the source of the diamond supply. For more on this, see the movie Blood Diamond.

there are two independant gas station along with four national stations.....how is that possible given your premise.....we also have a mom and pop coffee shop and four national chains.....seems it is more difficult to corner a market than you seem to think....

[Kathianne]

not to mention when the govt broke up their monopoly.....and built japan's and germany's steel plants from scratch for them....

Luckily for his blood pressure, he's no longer around to discuss this.

[typomaniac]

there are two independant gas station along with four national stations.....how is that possible given your premise.....we also have a mom and pop coffee shop and four national chains.....seems it is more difficult to corner a market than you seem to think....

Cleopatra clearly isn't the only queen of de-nial.

Once again, for the slowpokes: it WOULDN'T be difficult to corner a market if predatory pricing were legal.

[Yurt]

Cleopatra clearly isn't the only queen of de-nial.

Once again, for the slowpokes: it WOULDN'T be difficult to corner a market if predatory pricing were legal.

are you sure you know what predatory pricing is? in order to undertake this, you would have to take a huge loss in the beginning. in order to sustain a loss of that magnitude, you must have a good product that people want and are willing to pay you for... predatory pricing is not easy and often fails due to the loss, for while you intially may sell more, you have just devalued your product

[typomaniac]

are you sure you know what predatory pricing is? in order to undertake this, you would have to take a huge loss in the beginning. in order to sustain a loss of that magnitude, you must have a good product that people want and are willing to pay you for... predatory pricing is not easy and often fails due to the loss, for while you intially may sell more, you have just devalued your product
None of which matters if you have the capital reserves to absorb that loss.

[Black Lance]

there are two independant gas station along with four national stations.....how is that possible given your premise.....


Because gas stations sell the vast majority of their product to people with motor vehicles. These consumers would simply drive to a new location before purchasing gasoline if the local stations raised prices to an uncompetitive level.



we also have a mom and pop coffee shop and four national chains.....seems it is more difficult to corner a market than you seem to think....

Nobody said it is "easy" to corner the market. Far from it. But the economic reality remains that monopolies can be formed, and if the government wasn't on standby to destroy these entities when they are created, I suspect we would see many more of them than currently exist.

[LuvRPgrl]

US Steel lost out because they had not retooled or changed their manufacturing process since about 1910 while those that profitted so heavily from it ignored the changing technologies and market standards. There have been more than a few books written on this subject, m'59. I don't suppose you have ever read a single one of them.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

US Steel lost mostly because the other producers had the help of their govt.


AT&T? The Democrats broke them up years ago and the Republicans put them back together again. I really could write you a book on how I think that happened and how I think that will turn out. I'll save it for when I have more time. In the meantime, why don't you pay attention to the grocery and produce markets? It don't look good for the home team to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Technology broke them up. In the past, it was required for the system to work well, that only one company be in large areas. Now electricity is broken up, but not natural gas, I wonder why? (rhetorical question)