What is more insidious?

[fj1200]

Government monopolies* or private sector monopolies?

i.e. primary education vs. Microsoft/Standard Oil/etc.

* and government granted, Intellectual Property excepted.

[Kathianne]

Government monopolies* or private sector monopolies?

i.e. primary education vs. Microsoft/Standard Oil/etc.

* and government granted, Intellectual Property excepted.

Government. While abusive business practices are punished, not so with government. Standard Oil is now BP and certainly doesn't have a monopoly. I do believe Microsoft has been battling unfair trade practices for years, no?

[Pagan]

Both, for the Big Monopoly's own the Politicians

[fj1200]

Both, for the Big Monopoly's own the Politicians

Which ones?

[Pagan]

Which ones?

Well let's start with Haliburtain, Carlyle Group, International Banks, then of course the Unions, Entertainment Industry, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[fj1200]

Well let's start with Haliburtain, Carlyle Group, International Banks, then of course the Unions, Entertainment Industry, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Methinks you are confused as to the definition of a monopoly.

But I might give you unions. ;)

[Pagan]

Methinks you are confused as to the definition of a monopoly.

But I might give you unions. ;)

Really?

So no bid contracts, bail outs, so called "too big to fail" B.S., etc.

All those I listed don't control the market?

Me thinks you're a bit confused ;)

[fj1200]

All those I listed don't control the market?

No. But if they did they would fall into my government granted monopoly inclusion which puts you in the Government Monopoly camp.

[Pagan]

No. But if they did they would fall into my government granted monopoly inclusion which puts you in the Government Monopoly camp.

So the International and Central Banks don't set the value of Currency?
So the Big Energy company's don't set the price of Energy?
So the Big Media doesn't control the airwaves?
Etc
Etc
Etc

Really, not a Monopoly eh?

[SassyLady]

Government monopolies* or private sector monopolies?

i.e. primary education vs. Microsoft/Standard Oil/etc.

* and government granted, Intellectual Property excepted.

Government is more insidious.

[fj1200]

So the International and Central Banks don't set the value of Currency?
So the Big Energy company's don't set the price of Energy?
So the Big Media doesn't control the airwaves?

Really, not a Monopoly eh?

No, except for central banks, they have a government granted monopoly on the issuance of currency.

Please point out the monopoly in the following list:
http://www.eagletraders.com/advice/loans_list_top_banks.htm

[Pagan]

No, except for central banks, they have a government granted monopoly on the issuance of currency.

Please point out the monopoly in the following list:
http://www.eagletraders.com/advice/loans_list_top_banks.htm

Granted I'm using the term Monopoly very loosely for I'm applying it the the group of the largest ones. If you don't think they don't control the market you don't have a sense of reality.

[fj1200]

Granted I'm using the term Monopoly very loosely for I'm applying it the the group of the largest ones. If you don't think they don't control the market you don't have a sense of reality.

Yes, admit that you're using definitions "loosely" and then hit my sense of reality. :rolleyes:

[Pagan]

Yes, admit that you're using definitions "loosely" and then hit my sense of reality. :rolleyes:

So are you saying that for example Big Energy and the major Banks don't work in unison and their control perspective their markets?

Yes, reality

[SassyLady]

Let's take oil for example. The government is shutting down oil drilling in the Gulf by US owned companies, but loans money to Mexico to drill....in the Gulf. How does this fit into the monopoly scheme?



Meanwhile, the gulf region is hemorrhaging jobs. And the impact of the political wrangling over the gulf oil spill is having a worse economic impact than the oil spill itself. One independent analysis put the cost (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/economic-impact-of-obamas-oil-drilling-moratorium-could-be-worse-than-the-oil-spill-itself/) of Obama’s attempted moratorium on drilling at $2.1 billion and 12,000 jobs and the Obama administration itself put the cost at 23,000 jobs (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/common-sense-commentary-gulf-drilling-ban-will-impact-north-dakota/).
This is reaching the point of absurdity. The Obama administration is spending our tax dollars fighting a legal battle for an unnecessary drilling moratorium that is going to cost us even more on top of the economic impact.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/judge-shoots-down-obamas-off-shore-drilling-ban-again/




U.S. Government Loaned Mexican Government More Than $1 Billion to Drill Oil in Gulf of Mexico Last Year; Has $1 Billion More Planned For This Year

Wednesday, September 08, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent federal agency, loaned more than $1 billion to the Mexican state oil company PEMEX in 2009 to support the company’s oil drilling in the southern Gulf of Mexico. The bank has another $1 billion in loans in the pipeline for 2010, unless Congress objects…

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/us-loaned-mexico-1b-to-drill-oil-in-gulf



Our government says it is too dangerous to drill in the Gulf and has virtually stopped new drilling from happening in the Gulf. If it's too dangerous for us to drill there, why would we loan money to Mexico to do what we deem to be too dangerous for the environment?

Do you think our government is out to destroy any monopoly the US might gain in the oil industry?

[Pagan]

Let's take oil for example. The government is shutting down oil drilling in the Gulf by US owned companies, but loans money to Mexico to drill....in the Gulf. How does this fit into the monopoly scheme?

Our government says it is too dangerous to drill in the Gulf and has virtually stopped new drilling from happening in the Gulf. If it's too dangerous for us to drill there, why would we loan money to Mexico to do what we deem to be too dangerous for the environment?

Do you think our government is out to destroy any monopoly the US might gain in the oil industry?

It's not a ploy to jack up the price of oil? Come on, think about it for a bit. Monopoly's and the Big International Corp's love oppressive governments for they own the politicians. It's cheaper to buy and keep the politicians than what it is to "innovate". You own the politicians, dictate the legislation and it stifles and kills your competition.

[SassyLady]

It's not a ploy to jack up the price of oil? Come on, think about it for a bit. Monopoly's and the Big International Corp's love oppressive governments for they own the politicians. It's cheaper to buy and keep the politicians than what it is to "innovate". You own the politicians, dictate the legislation and it stifles and kills your competition.

So, tell me how loaning money to Mexico to drill for oil is killing our competition?

US politicians are owned by which oil monopoly?

[Pagan]

So, tell me how loaning money to Mexico to drill for oil is killing our competition?

US politicians are owned by which oil monopoly?

So you don't think that the Big Energy. don't own the Politicians and the Billions going to PEMEX is to create competition?

It's extortion of the U.S. Tax Payer.

We fund their exploration, their operations, crises are created to jack up the price and we get pumped again at the pump.

[SassyLady]

So you don't think that the Big Energy. don't own the Politicians and the Billions going to PEMEX is to create competition?

It's extortion of the U.S. Tax Payer.

We fund their exploration, their operations, crises are created to jack up the price and we get pumped again at the pump.

You said ....

You own the politicians, dictate the legislation and it stifles and kills your competition.



How can we compete if we can't even drill? The legislation is killing us, not our competitors.

[Pagan]

You said ....

How can we compete if we can't even drill? The legislation is killing us, not our competitors.

Who do you think owns the Politicians that are responsible for forking out the money?

Big Energy, Big Banks, Big Corps, etc. they're International, they're not U.S. and they own the Politicians in D.C.

They don't give a shit about us Pleb's here in the U.S., they're global.

[SassyLady]

Who do you think owns the Politicians that are responsible for forking out the money?

Big Energy, Big Banks, Big Corps, etc. they're International, they're not U.S. and they own the Politicians in D.C.

They don't give a shit about us Pleb's here in the U.S., they're global.

So, do you think government is more insidious or the private sector? Without governments how would the private sector become so powerful? So, shouldn't we limit government control so that the private sector doesn't have so much power?

[Agnapostate]

It's all a matter of the same hierarchical authoritarian power structures. In many ways, there are little meaningful differences: the largest corporations are the government.

[Agnapostate]

Granted I'm using the term Monopoly very loosely for I'm applying it the the group of the largest ones.

Yeah, as in, using it "very loosely" actually meaning that you're using it "very wrongly," you idiot. That's an oligopoly, not a monopoly. Do you have some kind of mental disorder that prevents you from associating words with accurate definitions?

[fj1200]

So are you saying that for example Big Energy and the major Banks don't work in unison and their control perspective their markets?

Yes, reality

Now you want to create your own definitions too? You're describing collusion and no, they do not have the market power.

[Nukeman]

It's all a matter of the same hierarchical authoritarian power structures. In many ways, there are little meaningful differences: the largest corporations are the government.

Wow.....Just Wow..... Two threads in one day i agree with Agna!!!!!! I must be comign down with something:laugh:

LArge business does run the government. When you have the money to throw around like they do you can "buy" and legislation you want.....

[Agnapostate]

Now you want to create your own definitions too? You're describing collusion and no, they do not have the market power.

It's perhaps not a matter of conscious collusion so much as the natural "mutual interdependence" of oligopoly.

[DragonStryk72]

Government monopolies* or private sector monopolies?

i.e. primary education vs. Microsoft/Standard Oil/etc.

* and government granted, Intellectual Property excepted.

Government monopolies, most definitely. When Microsoft hit the status of having a monopoly, the government stepped in to break it down into smaller parts, same with Standard Oil and Ma Bell. When the government is the one with that same degree of power, they are able to "excuse" themselves from the very same laws that would have prevented any private sector business from doing the same as they.

Government run businesses also have no need to make profit, or even really be successful, as is the case with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. No legitimate private enterprise could ever continue to exist with the losses that they routinely take, save that there is a government stamp taking away their liability.

[Agnapostate]

Government monopolies, most definitely. When Microsoft hit the status of having a monopoly, the government stepped in to break it down into smaller parts, same with Standard Oil and Ma Bell.

The government's "monopoly" of antitrust power facilitated that. Ultimately, however, government and capitalist authoritarianism are mutually interdependent.

[fj1200]

It's perhaps not a matter of conscious collusion so much as the natural "mutual interdependence" of oligopoly.

That's an interesting way to admit you're wrong. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

When the government is the one with that same degree of power, they are able to "excuse" themselves from the very same laws that would have prevented any private sector business from doing the same as they.

Nailed it right there.

Everyone has been bringing up how corporations with their perceived unlimited power as being the problematic entities but no one has brought up where government creates their own monopolies by limiting/eliminating the competitive marketplace. Fannie and Freddie, etc. are great examples. But how about public schools that have abysmal track records and who don't disappear due to its failure but are given more and more money in the hopes of turning it around.

[fj1200]

... capitalist authoritarianism...

Nice contradiction. :laugh: It can only exist with government authoritarianism.

[Pagan]

Nice contradiction. :laugh: It can only exist with government authoritarianism.

Yeah, just like him saying that Anarchism is strictly Socialist ideology :lol::lol:

This fucking fool is incredible, isn't he?


Where's the Eggman!


http://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Pink_Flamingos_clip_image001.jpg

[fj1200]

^So few words and even less substance. :clap:

[revelarts]

The term monopoly is not the right word, Oligopoly is probably closer to it.
I like the word Cartels. Some are strict cartels, some are loose.

You know the golden rule. the people with the gold make the rules. Has a lot of truth. the Biz Cartels tell the politicians what to do on certain issues. Sometimes different cartels don't want the same thing. The politicians do have some authority but without the money they can't stay in power and the cartels can't keep their stink rolling without some gov't cover and assistants. In terms of contracts, regulations or the lack there of, and sometime a little military intervention in countries that don't want to play ball.

Big Agra, Big Pharma and Big Chemical company execs get jobs in the FDA. then leave and go back to new Big agra jobs or become Big Agra lobbyist to congress. Then sometimes go back to the FDA.

the Gov't (or some associates) wants to wire tap everyone in the U.S. big telecoms (AT&T exposes as 1) put splitters on all their com lines so the Gov't gets all it's traffic. the people find out and get pissed. the telcoms get the Congress and Pres to give them legal cover. and the gov't takes it's state secrets and "were protecting you" positions. And the Telecoms get paid and stay out of court.

Whats worse?
the Gambino's or the Medellín's

[revelarts]

... capitalist authoritarianism...
... government authoritarianism...

the key word here authoritarianism

Capitalist boot on your neck or Gov't of the people Boot on your neck.
what difference does the label make.
Niether should have that authority. Capitalism can get just as bad. they'es no built in moral check on capitalism to keep it from becoming a monster once it gets to big. Neither is there any checks in large Pollyanna social communes .Govt needs to be small and capitalism needs a small as well IMO. Checks on it are harder though. But a moral people is a necessity for either to really work.

Freedom anit a easy place to get to.



capitalist authoritarianism
"...I owe my sooooul to the Company store.."
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tfp2O9ADwGk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tfp2O9ADwGk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[fj1200]

Niether should have that authority. Capitalism can get just as bad.

What authority does capitalism have?

[revelarts]

Read some history on why unions where founded.

some capitalist became extremely successful and practically owned whole towns and regions. the only good jobs where working for the mill, the mine or the factory and the mill, mine or factory owned the General store and the land all the houses and apartments where on and set the prices for the area for nearly everything. Then they could buy and sell local politicians so they could have legal back up for anything.

that's how.

That's what johnny Cash's song is talking about.
Miners being almost slaves to a company.

Capitalism at it's finest, i don't think so.

Competition makes a real difference but John D. Rockefeller said that "Competition is SIN" and created monopoly when every he could and by hook or crook. In many cases where he couldn't own, it destroy it or minimize it he would partner with it. = Cartel.


I'll adapt a what Winston Churchill said about democracy here,
--Capitalism is the worse form of economics every devised except for everything else.--

That a little strong but the fact is Capitalism is about the best our human nature can do.

[fj1200]

Read some history on why unions where founded.

some capitalist became extremely successful and practically owned whole towns and regions. the only good jobs where working for the mill, the mine or the factory and the mill, mine or factory owned the General store and the land all the houses and apartments where on and set the prices for the area for nearly everything. Then they could buy and sell local politicians so they could have legal back up for anything.

that's how.

:rolleyes: Don't condemn capitalism with something that does not contain the elements of capitalism.

[revelarts]

:rolleyes: Don't condemn capitalism with something that does not contain the elements of capitalism.

Private ownership.
Freely Trading labor for money or goods.
Freely Trading goods for money or labor.
Make the most of you biz opportunities.

Aren't those a couple of elements of Capitalism?
What elements are you talking about?

[Agnapostate]

Nice contradiction. :laugh: It can only exist with government authoritarianism.

Yes, that's technically true. Capitalism cannot survive without the existence of government interventionism. Regardless, it's the orthodox firm structure of the labor market and the compulsory nature of entry into wage labor that are the authoritarian facets of the capitalist economy.


Yeah, just like him saying that Anarchism is strictly Socialist ideology :lol::lol:

This fucking fool is incredible, isn't he?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

[Pagan]

Yes, that's technically true. Capitalism cannot survive without the existence of government interventionism. Regardless, it's the orthodox firm structure of the labor market and the compulsory nature of entry into wage labor that are the authoritarian facets of the capitalist economy.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:



EGGMAN!!!


http://images2.fanpop.com/image/polls/342000/342910_1261078676862_full.jpg

[Agnapostate]

^ Troll. :dunno:

[Pagan]

^ Troll. :dunno:

So it wasn't a direct response to your post quoting me?

OK if you say so http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/sheep.gif

Man you don't even have enough sense to pour piss out of your own boot http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/fart.gif

[Agnapostate]

So it wasn't a direct response to your post quoting me?

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you're a braindead troll that makes moronic claims about anarchism. :dunno:

[Little-Acorn]

What is more insidious?

Government monopolies* or private sector monopolies?

i.e. primary education vs. Microsoft/Standard Oil/etc.

* and government granted, Intellectual Property excepted.

Government monopolies, of course.

Because while government can break up private monopolies,
private groups cannot break up government monopolies.
And government sure isn't going to break up its own monopolies.

In fact, private monopolies cannot exist in free societies, unless government interferes enough to prevent the competition, or government neglects its real duty (protecting people's rights from abuse) enough to let the monopolies use legbreakers, sabotage etc. enough to prevent the competition on their own.

[fj1200]

Private ownership.
Freely Trading labor for money or goods.
Freely Trading goods for money or labor.
Make the most of you biz opportunities.

Aren't those a couple of elements of Capitalism?
What elements are you talking about?

The employees, townees if you will, are in effect owned by the company and are in no position to be freely trading anything so your example isn't pure capitalism. I will admit though that your example makes me wonder about the "failure" of capitalism in that scenario.

[Pagan]

Government monopolies, of course.

Because while government can break up private monopolies,
private groups cannot break up government monopolies.
And government sure isn't going to break up its own monopolies.

In fact, private monopolies cannot exist in free societies, unless government interferes enough to prevent the competition, or government neglects its real duty (protecting people's rights from abuse) enough to let the monopolies use legbreakers, sabotage etc. enough to prevent the competition on their own.

They are equally bad.

So are you saying that Republican President Teddy Roosevelt using the Sherman Act to bust up J.P. Morgans railroad trust, JD Rockefellers Standard Oil trust into 30 competing companies was wrong?

Are you saying that Ronnie breaking up AT&T was also a big mistake? Me, nope. Go to Europe and experience the joy's of the Telecom monopoly's there.

Government or Private Monopoly's are bad and the results of Monopoly's are the people get screwed.

Like I've been saying over and over again, it's all about balance. Regulation when applied in moderation that are equal and fair are good. But when practiced in excess just like complete "Free" Market is also bad, the key is balance.

[Agnapostate]

The employees, townees if you will, are in effect owned by the company and are in no position to be freely trading anything so your example isn't pure capitalism. I will admit though that your example makes me wonder about the "failure" of capitalism in that scenario.

"Pure capitalism" as it's typically conceptualized (laissez-faire capitalism with "free markets" and minimal or even no state influence), has never existed outside of the textbook and never will, so focus on actually existing capitalism.

[fj1200]

"Pure capitalism" as it's typically conceptualized (laissez-faire capitalism with "free markets" and minimal or even no state influence), has never existed outside of the textbook and never will, so focus on actually existing capitalism.

Then the problem wouldn't be capitalism now would it? ;)

[Agnapostate]

Then the problem wouldn't be capitalism now would it? ;)

Uh, it would, except I mean real capitalism, not your textbook utopian fantasies.

[fj1200]

Uh, it would, except I mean real capitalism, not your textbook utopian fantasies.

Oh, you mean capitalism that's been perverted by government intervention then.

[Pagan]

Oh, you mean capitalism that's been perverted by government intervention then.

Now don't overload his brain there fj or ......

http://www.anatomorphex.com/picts/shatter/FX013_EXPLODING_HEAD.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Oh, you mean capitalism that's been perverted by government intervention then.

That would be the only kind of "capitalism" that's ever existed, while the "laissez-faire" variant has only existed in the textbook. On that note, "perverted"? Government intervention is a necessary criterion of capitalism's survival! I most often mention Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=847649&show=abstract) to illustrate this. As noted by the abstract:


This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organize, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies.

This section is also extremely on-point:


[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organization, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

However, it is a scalar issue. At the highest levels of government involvement in the social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia, economic efficiency is also at its highest, with the positive association holding as the two factors simultaneously decline in the Rhine capitalism of other parts of Europe to the liberal democratic capitalism of Britain to the liberal democratic capitalism of the U.S. to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism prevalent under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, which rejected Keynesian dominance in macroeconomics to accept the prescriptions of neoclassicals, with Thatcher in particular being the right-winger and an enthusiastic Hayek fan.

[fj1200]

First I must acknowledge your surfeit of typing, it is exemplary.


That would be the only kind of "capitalism" that's ever existed, while the "laissez-faire" variant has only existed in the textbook. On that note, "perverted"? Government intervention is a necessary criterion of capitalism's survival! I most often mention Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=847649&show=abstract) to illustrate this. As noted by the abstract:

I disagree. I have already acknowledged that government can/should provide "stable and reliable conditions" but the remainder is just fluff that helps to justify your view of government intervention. Your desire to "restrict competition" (I exclude patents here), institute "industrial policies," "tariff protection," etc. smacks of the excessive power granted to industry that many in this forum have been railing against. Not only is that intervention unnecessary and counterproductive but causes the unholy marriage of government and corporatism that many dislike.

I'm sure I disagree with his conclusion as well. While those policies may be effective (arguable) in the short-run they are not a stable long-run policy for an advanced domestic economy; see Japan's Lost Decade(s) and various Asian Contagions.


This section is also extremely on-point:

More of the same.


However, it is a scalar issue. At the highest levels of government involvement in the social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia, economic efficiency is also at its highest, with the positive association holding as the two factors simultaneously decline in the Rhine capitalism of other parts of Europe to the liberal democratic capitalism of Britain to the liberal democratic capitalism of the U.S. to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism prevalent under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, which rejected Keynesian dominance in macroeconomics to accept the prescriptions of neoclassicals, with Thatcher in particular being the right-winger and an enthusiastic Hayek fan.

Love that Hayek.

[Sweetchuck]

Government services by definition are a monopoly, but can anyone list any corporate monopolies besides Microsoft?

[DragonStryk72]

Nailed it right there.

Everyone has been bringing up how corporations with their perceived unlimited power as being the problematic entities but no one has brought up where government creates their own monopolies by limiting/eliminating the competitive marketplace. Fannie and Freddie, etc. are great examples. But how about public schools that have abysmal track records and who don't disappear due to its failure but are given more and more money in the hopes of turning it around.

What gets me with the schools, though, is that it isn't the money what's the problem, really. The schools that are really in trouble nowadays are mainly looking at the problem of bad teachers being kept on because of the union.

It's like my brother says, government is like acting, you tend to fail upwards.

[Agnapostate]

Not only is that intervention unnecessary and counterproductive but causes the unholy marriage of government and corporatism that many dislike.

This is a contradiction, not a counterargument.You've done nothing to refute the work in question.


I'm sure I disagree with his conclusion as well. While those policies may be effective (arguable) in the short-run they are not a stable long-run policy for an advanced domestic economy

Actually, the opposite is true. Consider Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm):


Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

State protection of infant industries so that they have the freedom to mature into internationally competitive industries is a preference for long-term dynamic comparative advantage over short-term static comparative advantage.


see Japan's Lost Decade(s) and various Asian Contagions.

Post the relevant arguments or evidence.


More of the same.

More of the same lack of counter-argument.


Love that Hayek.

You must not be a hard-core pseudo-libertarian, in that case. They spurn Hayek for Mises and Rothbard.

[DragonStryk72]

Government services by definition are a monopoly, but can anyone list any corporate monopolies besides Microsoft?

I would classify the Big 3 Auto companies under that heading. They were labelled as "too big to fail" which means they have now attained a status that makes them almost exempt from the rules and laws of doing business. That to me is the most outstanding point of what a monopoly really is at it's heart.

[Agnapostate]

I would classify the Big 3 Auto companies under that heading. They were labelled as "too big to fail" which means they have now attained a status that makes them almost exempt from the rules and laws of doing business. That to me is the most outstanding point of what a monopoly really is at it's heart.

Except for "mono" meaning one? This does prove my point that the non-economist general public tend to use the term "monopoly" to mean market power or concentration in general. Since the market structures of the U.S. capitalist economy range between oligopoly and monopolistic competition, it's still a very relevant issue.

[fj1200]

This is a contradiction, not a counterargument.You've done nothing to refute the work in question.

So you say.


Actually, the opposite is true. Consider Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm):

Interesting. Go free trade.


State protection of infant industries so that they have the freedom to mature into internationally competitive industries is a preference for long-term dynamic comparative advantage over short-term static comparative advantage.

Protectionism bad, free trade good.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/08/the-benefits-of-free-trade-a-guide-for-policymakers


Post the relevant arguments or evidence.

See, Japan's Lost Decade and various Asian Contagions. They weren't to long ago you may have heard of them.


More of the same lack of counter-argument.

Meh.


You must not be a hard-core pseudo-libertarian, in that case. They spurn Hayek for Mises and Rothbard.

Didn't say I was. Good for them.

[Sweetchuck]

I would classify the Big 3 Auto companies under that heading. They were labelled as "too big to fail" which means they have now attained a status that makes them almost exempt from the rules and laws of doing business. That to me is the most outstanding point of what a monopoly really is at it's heart.

No way, domestic automakers aren't a monopoly - not even if you include the taxpayer support that BO provides them.

First, they don't have capital leverage to control market prices. They struggle to compete globally. Second, the market is adequately saturated and it's growing - just not here. India, China, Russia - all entering the global auto market in a more significant manner.

The fact that Toyota became the worlds largest auto producer shows how weak our auto manufacturing industry is.

[Kathianne]

No way, domestic automakers aren't a monopoly - not even if you include the taxpayer support that BO provides them.

First, they don't have capital leverage to control market prices. They struggle to compete globally. Second, the market is adequately saturated and it's growing - just not here. India, China, Russia - all entering the global auto market in a more significant manner.

The fact that Toyota became the worlds largest auto producer shows how weak our auto manufacturing industry is.

I agree. When Obama referred to the auto industry as too big to fail, it wasn't about product, it was about union jobs and votes. It was about government gaining a stanglehold on those workers and the products that GM and Chysler would turn out.

There are few monopolies in US today, MS may have come close regarding programs the public wanted and that would work, but even that attempt was broken.

Seems to me that government should stay out of business, with the exception of the most dangerous industries: airlines, mining, for example and those with proven records of bad conduct: meat packing, food weights and measures.

Of course any business that broke laws regarding employee treatment, consumer fraud, others too numerous to list, they and they alone, should feel the full weight of the government justice system.

[Sweetchuck]

I agree. When Obama referred to the auto industry as too big to fail, it wasn't about product, it was about union jobs and votes. It was about government gaining a stanglehold on those workers and the products that GM and Chysler would turn out.

There are few monopolies in US today, MS may have come close regarding programs the public wanted and that would work, but even that attempt was broken.

Seems to me that government should stay out of business, with the exception of the most dangerous industries: airlines, mining, for example and those with proven records of bad conduct: meat packing, food weights and measures.

Of course any business that broke laws regarding employee treatment, consumer fraud, others too numerous to list, they and they alone, should feel the full weight of the government justice system.

Failing manufacturing, failing States, failing banks - these are all conveniences for BO and his big government cronies to further their agenda of control and dependence.

Which is why you're seeing industry, States, etc. distance themselves from shit like bailouts and stimulus. BO struck fast and hard and the private sector and States recoiled quickly when his agenda became obvious.