Monopolies are not a product of capitalism. Monopolies can only exist when the state limits competition by either regulation, licensing, or other means.
Monopolies are not a product of capitalism. Monopolies can only exist when the state limits competition by either regulation, licensing, or other means.
Those are possible but also there is price fixing and selling at a loss to kill competition. Once competition is gone, they can put the screws to everyone.
It is like a casino. If you start out with enough money, the house always wins.
I can not think of a single example of a business that did not have competition without state involvement protecting that business. The casino is a great example. Only an idiot would do business with a casino, just like only an idiot would do business with a company that "puts the screws to them"
They have no problem just buying politicians to have the state tilt the table in in their favor.
It doesn't have to be the whole business being a monopoly such as we saw with the railroads and Standard Oil.
We actually see it all the time. Companies preventing vendors from selling replacement components. Software lock-ins for equipment that prevents you from getting service outside of their system. Constant changing of plugs to require you buy from one vendor.
It can also be through abuse of the patent and copyright system. The system is supposed to be a limited time protection in exchange for the things being eventually brought into the public domain. They have been leveraged into lasting in perpetuity.
Free and Open source software solves all of this. You have a choice of software, and components.... See my casino comment above. I will agree the patent and copyright system is problematic. Which is why the software I mention above is under CopyLeft licence. Again, vote with your wallet.
That's fine for a desktop computer but desktop computers are a small fraction of the market. The problem is with the computers in your car, television, tractor, heart monitor, and the thousands of other devices I could list.
Even for your desktop computer, if you are looking for someone to work for you, you want someone that can be productive without making a huge investment of time and money training them on some other software. That's why all those companies hand out software to all the schools and students so that is what the students learn with. That creates a vendor lock in. It is cheaper and easier to provide the software that the users are familiar with than train the users on something else. Once they have taken the market captive, it is almost impossible to displace them.
This is from the perspective of someone who is sitting at a Linux computer and retired from working with computers professionally and I am a big fan of free and open source software. There is a small segment of the users who can and will make that leap away from the ecosystem of Microsoft and Apple.
So, you are in agreement then. These are not monopolies, these are companies that invest and produce products that people voluntarily buy and use. Just like those that throw their money away to a casino. That sums up my argument quite well. cheers
Being a monopoly is not inherently evil on its own. It is the abuse of the power of the monopoly that is the problem.
There were people who voluntarily sold themselves into slavery. People voluntarily went to work in company towns. Some people voluntarily work in prostitution. Some people in the world voluntarily sell their organs to the highest bidder. That doesn't make any of them right.
We, as a society, define what are acceptable business practices. Some of the choices we make are capitalistic, some are socialistic, and some are communistic. None of them are wrong, it is just a choice we make. I think the communistic choice is right for a city park or a library where everyone can go and enjoy it without regard to their being able to pay for the privilege. I don't think that the police and fire departments should only serve those who can pay. Which things fit under that model is a decision we make collectively.
I have no problem with privately owned businesses. I also have no problem with a socialist employee owned business as long as they are not stealing other people's things. I would never join a union but I also support people's right to create one if they choose.
I am not going to argue whether something fits some pedantic definition of a monopoly. A de facto monopoly can exist when they capture sufficient market share. Again, that's not a bad thing unto itself. The problem is when they abuse people with the power that the monopoly gives them.
Similarly, I don't have a problem with someone marketing a $20 bottle of some kind of boutique water. Someone goes into a disaster area and starts selling regular water for $20 a bottle to people suffering from the disaster creates a different problem. We differentiate marketing from price gouging. One is legal, the other isn't. It is still selling water for $20 a bottle both ways.
2) That doesn't make it wrong either, sometimes we do what is necessary while weighing risk and reward.. Free will, etc etc
3) Socialistic and Communistic practices are seldom choices. As they are backed by force.
4) You mean share holders?? How is that socialistic?
5) What the heck is a de facto monopoly? Playing fast and loose with definitions. It either "is.. or is not" (Yoda or someone)
6) There is no such thing as price gouging. There is supply and there is demand. Price controls always end in disaster. Often creating hoarding, or items not being put on the market for sale."Price gouging" creates competition. If you are forced to buy water bottles for $20 each, call me I will sell them to you for 19.. Free shipping!
There is no right or wrong beyond what we decide collectively. These economic models are just accounting systems. With capitalism, we pay individually and get what we choose. With socialism, we pool our money and decide what we should get back for it. With communism,we decide to spend our pool of money and expect nothing specific in return.
If you wish to base a government on any one of them without the others, it will suck. They all can screw people if left unconstrained. If you give up your power, all of them can result in force being used against you. Granted, the pure capitalist has private security to use force on you rather than the actual government.
No, it is not playing fast and loose with definitions, I am not just playing bait and switch. The Marxists also roll out that "it has never been implemented correctly" crap. If you want to nit-pick and separate a true monopoly with one sole source, they are hard to find because we take action against them collectively. It can also be a small group of companies that pretend that they are competitors with a wink and a nod. It can also be in the form of a cartel where they band together and force the members to adhere to policy.
If you believe that companies like Pfizer and Moderna were not abusing their monopoly by paying off the news media and government to extract billions of dollars, you have not been paying attention. If you don't believe that Microsoft as close to a monopoly on office software that you can get without going to jail, I don't know what will convince you. If you believe that companies like Tyson, John Deere, and Monsanto are playing fair with the farmers, I would hate to see what it would take for you to say is abuse.
If you don't believe price gouging exists, it is just ignoring the laws that we have specifically created to prevent people taking advantage of people during an emergency situation. It sounds like the people that try to play the whole "sovereign citizen" game to pretend that they don't have to follow the country's laws.
None of the examples you use above fit the definition.
You are playing fast and loose with de facto definitions.
monopoly
noun
mo┬╖тАЛnop┬╖тАЛo┬╖тАЛly m╔Щ-╦Иn├д-p(╔Щ-)l─У
pluralmonopolies
1
: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2
: exclusive possession or control
no country has a monopoly on morality or truth
тАФHelen M. Lynd
3
: a commodity controlled by one party
had a monopoly on flint from their quarries
тАФBarbara A. Leitch
4
: one that has a monopoly
The government passed laws intended to break up monopolies.
"It sounds like the people that try to play the whole "sovereign citizen" game to pretend that they don't have to follow the country's laws."
This is actually the closest thing you refer to that fits the definition. The state does have a monopoly on the legal and lawful use of force.
"I would hate to see what it would take for you to say is abuse."
An example of abuse would be using the above monopoly of the use of force, to take my private property. John Deer has not once threatened to put me in prison for not buying a tractor. However, if I refuse to pay taxes to fund abortion (for example) then force would be used, resist it, and risk deadly force could follow.
Monopolies are not a product of capitalism. Monopolies can only exist when the state limits competition by either regulation, licensing, or other means.
Those are possible but also there is price fixing and selling at a loss to kill competition. Once competition is gone, they can put the screws to everyone.
It is like a casino. If you start out with enough money, the house always wins.
I can not think of a single example of a business that did not have competition without state involvement protecting that business. The casino is a great example. Only an idiot would do business with a casino, just like only an idiot would do business with a company that "puts the screws to them"
They have no problem just buying politicians to have the state tilt the table in in their favor.
It doesn't have to be the whole business being a monopoly such as we saw with the railroads and Standard Oil.
We actually see it all the time. Companies preventing vendors from selling replacement components. Software lock-ins for equipment that prevents you from getting service outside of their system. Constant changing of plugs to require you buy from one vendor.
It can also be through abuse of the patent and copyright system. The system is supposed to be a limited time protection in exchange for the things being eventually brought into the public domain. They have been leveraged into lasting in perpetuity.
How about companies buying up their competition?
Free and Open source software solves all of this. You have a choice of software, and components.... See my casino comment above. I will agree the patent and copyright system is problematic. Which is why the software I mention above is under CopyLeft licence. Again, vote with your wallet.
That's fine for a desktop computer but desktop computers are a small fraction of the market. The problem is with the computers in your car, television, tractor, heart monitor, and the thousands of other devices I could list.
Even for your desktop computer, if you are looking for someone to work for you, you want someone that can be productive without making a huge investment of time and money training them on some other software. That's why all those companies hand out software to all the schools and students so that is what the students learn with. That creates a vendor lock in. It is cheaper and easier to provide the software that the users are familiar with than train the users on something else. Once they have taken the market captive, it is almost impossible to displace them.
This is from the perspective of someone who is sitting at a Linux computer and retired from working with computers professionally and I am a big fan of free and open source software. There is a small segment of the users who can and will make that leap away from the ecosystem of Microsoft and Apple.
So, you are in agreement then. These are not monopolies, these are companies that invest and produce products that people voluntarily buy and use. Just like those that throw their money away to a casino. That sums up my argument quite well. cheers
Being a monopoly is not inherently evil on its own. It is the abuse of the power of the monopoly that is the problem.
There were people who voluntarily sold themselves into slavery. People voluntarily went to work in company towns. Some people voluntarily work in prostitution. Some people in the world voluntarily sell their organs to the highest bidder. That doesn't make any of them right.
We, as a society, define what are acceptable business practices. Some of the choices we make are capitalistic, some are socialistic, and some are communistic. None of them are wrong, it is just a choice we make. I think the communistic choice is right for a city park or a library where everyone can go and enjoy it without regard to their being able to pay for the privilege. I don't think that the police and fire departments should only serve those who can pay. Which things fit under that model is a decision we make collectively.
I have no problem with privately owned businesses. I also have no problem with a socialist employee owned business as long as they are not stealing other people's things. I would never join a union but I also support people's right to create one if they choose.
I am not going to argue whether something fits some pedantic definition of a monopoly. A de facto monopoly can exist when they capture sufficient market share. Again, that's not a bad thing unto itself. The problem is when they abuse people with the power that the monopoly gives them.
Similarly, I don't have a problem with someone marketing a $20 bottle of some kind of boutique water. Someone goes into a disaster area and starts selling regular water for $20 a bottle to people suffering from the disaster creates a different problem. We differentiate marketing from price gouging. One is legal, the other isn't. It is still selling water for $20 a bottle both ways.
1) You still haven't given me an example.
2) That doesn't make it wrong either, sometimes we do what is necessary while weighing risk and reward.. Free will, etc etc
3) Socialistic and Communistic practices are seldom choices. As they are backed by force.
4) You mean share holders?? How is that socialistic?
5) What the heck is a de facto monopoly? Playing fast and loose with definitions. It either "is.. or is not" (Yoda or someone)
6) There is no such thing as price gouging. There is supply and there is demand. Price controls always end in disaster. Often creating hoarding, or items not being put on the market for sale."Price gouging" creates competition. If you are forced to buy water bottles for $20 each, call me I will sell them to you for 19.. Free shipping!
There is no right or wrong beyond what we decide collectively. These economic models are just accounting systems. With capitalism, we pay individually and get what we choose. With socialism, we pool our money and decide what we should get back for it. With communism,we decide to spend our pool of money and expect nothing specific in return.
If you wish to base a government on any one of them without the others, it will suck. They all can screw people if left unconstrained. If you give up your power, all of them can result in force being used against you. Granted, the pure capitalist has private security to use force on you rather than the actual government.
No, it is not playing fast and loose with definitions, I am not just playing bait and switch. The Marxists also roll out that "it has never been implemented correctly" crap. If you want to nit-pick and separate a true monopoly with one sole source, they are hard to find because we take action against them collectively. It can also be a small group of companies that pretend that they are competitors with a wink and a nod. It can also be in the form of a cartel where they band together and force the members to adhere to policy.
If you believe that companies like Pfizer and Moderna were not abusing their monopoly by paying off the news media and government to extract billions of dollars, you have not been paying attention. If you don't believe that Microsoft as close to a monopoly on office software that you can get without going to jail, I don't know what will convince you. If you believe that companies like Tyson, John Deere, and Monsanto are playing fair with the farmers, I would hate to see what it would take for you to say is abuse.
If you don't believe price gouging exists, it is just ignoring the laws that we have specifically created to prevent people taking advantage of people during an emergency situation. It sounds like the people that try to play the whole "sovereign citizen" game to pretend that they don't have to follow the country's laws.
None of the examples you use above fit the definition.
You are playing fast and loose with de facto definitions.
monopoly
noun
mo┬╖тАЛnop┬╖тАЛo┬╖тАЛly m╔Щ-╦Иn├д-p(╔Щ-)l─У
pluralmonopolies
1
: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2
: exclusive possession or control
no country has a monopoly on morality or truth
тАФHelen M. Lynd
3
: a commodity controlled by one party
had a monopoly on flint from their quarries
тАФBarbara A. Leitch
4
: one that has a monopoly
The government passed laws intended to break up monopolies.
"It sounds like the people that try to play the whole "sovereign citizen" game to pretend that they don't have to follow the country's laws."
This is actually the closest thing you refer to that fits the definition. The state does have a monopoly on the legal and lawful use of force.
"I would hate to see what it would take for you to say is abuse."
An example of abuse would be using the above monopoly of the use of force, to take my private property. John Deer has not once threatened to put me in prison for not buying a tractor. However, if I refuse to pay taxes to fund abortion (for example) then force would be used, resist it, and risk deadly force could follow.