There's a flaw in deregulating corporations

[Steven Douglas]

One of the most aggravating problems people face in this regard is when they attack a law - a statute, regulation or even constitutional provision - and the courts will uphold the law on the basis that it could apply to corporations and other privileged entities.

Can you give any examples? (No, I'm not attacking you, I genuinely want to see some examples so I can understand the rest of your post).

Don't want to get too deeply into it, or cite specific cases, because there's already a Constitutional forum set up for it, but take most licensing as examples, and start with driving - the use of public roads by a free and natural person in a motorized conveyance of choice - a privilege or a right? Likewise, the requirement to purchase insurance based on court decisions which have declared driving as a privilege, and which have also declared that you are subject to and governed by what is essentially maritime law, under the Commerce clause of the Constitution, which means, and based on your application for a license, that you are acting in a corporate privilege status, and based on that application.

 

[SilverDollarStandard]

We need to enforce the most important regulation of all the US constitution only gold and silver coin tender in payment of debts. The biggest corporate monopoly right now is the federal reserve. Monopolies rely on government force. The FCC is the media monopoly. Wealth wouldn't be so concentrated in the big banks because they wouldn't have a ponzi scheme to get so rich off of. Competition would prevent monopolies.

 

[anaconda]

In a TRUE free market economy there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Why not? What about Microsoft?

 

[Demigod]

Why not? What about Microsoft?

what about it?

They defeated all of their competitors with a better product.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Yes, but as a larger entity, they're more capable of keeping prices low and service at high quality, especially if they outsource their actual production (and as a large entity they're more capable of doing so). The problem is that the capitalistic model falls apart when smaller entities are unable to compete, because then the company that has the monopoly can do whatever they want and people will still buy from them because there's nowhere else to go.

What is the problem with monopolies? That they can charge higher prices and offer poorer service to the customer without losing market share. If there are no government imposed barriers to entry in a field, the monopoly would have to have the lowest prices and best service to drive out the competition, and as soon as they raise their prices someone else would jump back in and compete with them again, bringing their prices back down again. The only way they could ensure keeping out competition is to continue to have low prices, which means they can't act as a monopoly anyway.

 

[angelatc]

The problem I see is what happens when a national/international corporation out-competes local businesses .....

Out-competes? So we need the government to step in and protect people who can't honestly compete? And you don't see a flaw in that plan?

 

[roho76]

If the market would have been unhindered by government for so long then we wouldn't have super mega corporations. These huge multinational mega corporations are a byproduct of corporatism which is the fault of bastardized government regulations that benefit the rich and squash all their competition.

Why can't people understand this very simple concept??? But instead, complain about the system and then support those who make the system what it is and it's blatantly obvious. That was a rhetorical question.

 

[Black Flag]

Why not? What about Microsoft?

Microsoft is no monopoly.
Ever heard of Linux?
Ever heard of Apple?
Ever heard of IBM?
Ever heard of Lotus? Novell? SAP? Peoplesoft? Oracle?

...and you think they have a monopoly?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I, like almost everyone at this board, agree that government-imposed regulation harms the market. Deregulating the banks would prevent recessions, deregulating the medical industry would make health care less expensive, etc. Consumers should rely on personal responsibility rather than government intervention.

The problem I see is what happens when a national/international corporation out-competes local businesses to the point of them having a monopoly over the market, or conspire with other corporations towards price-fixing, etc. When this happens, you can no longer make the argument "Well they should shop somewhere else", or "Well, they should work somewhere else" because that "somewhere else" has been out-competed by a larger corporation.

I can't see a way around this other than the government regulating large corporations. Any help?

Tax codes are in place to harm small businesses and to subsidize big corporations.Government creates the monopoly and prevents competitors from making corporations run for their money on the free market.

 

[anaconda]

what about it?

They defeated all of their competitors with a better product.

My point exactly. So aren't monopolies possible in a free market?

 

[anaconda]

Microsoft is no monopoly.
Ever heard of Linux?
Ever heard of Apple?
Ever heard of IBM?
Ever heard of Lotus? Novell? SAP? Peoplesoft? Oracle?

...and you think they have a monopoly?

What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.

 

[onlyrp]

I don't see how lack of competition is a problem. So that's not a "flaw".

 

[Black Flag]

What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.

First, monopolies are not defined by their market share - that changes hourly!

What the "un"justice dept. may or may not understand about what is a monopoly is moot.

They are not economists, but lawyers who enforce a law created by lawyers who were "paid off" to help another bunch of business men to attack another group of business men.

 

[Black Flag]

My point exactly. So aren't monopolies possible in a free market?

First, I'm sure you will agree to the reason why monopolies are bad.
They can control the price and push it higher which will tend to make the goods they supply overpriced and poorer quality and you, the customer, has no recourse to avoid this.


So how can a monopoly occur in a free market?

The company would have to price their product so low while maintaining the highest quality while at the same time capable of supplying sufficient quantities to fill the demand so that no other competitor has a chance.

The competitor couldn't compete on price.
The competitor couldn't compete on quality.
The competitor couldn't compete on delivery.

But what do you have?

You have the cheapest good of the highest quality always available!

And this would be something you want to make against the law?????????

But let's go into why a monopoly is IMPOSSIBLE in a free market.

For a company to have the cheapest price for its good, while maintain the highest quality, and managing to supply all the demand requires all of its suppliers to supply the cheapest, best and abundant inputs!

You would need the cheapest labor, but they would need to be the best, and abundant to fill all the jobs necessary to build this good.
You would need the all the guys who build the parts to your product to sell the cheapest, yet the best, yet always able to supply their goods.

In other words, for a free-market monopoly in one good requires all the goods within the marketplace to be provided by free-market monopolies

Well, that is impossible - and thus, it is impossible to have a free market monopoly.

There is always some imperfection in the production, organization, structure, supply, labor, management, finance, etc. in every company that can be exploited by a competitor to the competitor's advantage.

Humans are imperfect, and a free market monopoly demands perfection, thus such a thing - a free market monopoly is the dream of every company ... the golden ring that all companies would love to attain but in a free market, monopolies sit beside the leprechaun's treasure at the end of a rainbow.


PS:
We are talking about market monopolies - not local monopolies.

Local monopolies can exist temporarily because -usually- the supply constraint is very high for any other competitor.

As long as this constraint is not artificial - that is enforced by government writ - this constraint will be naturally repaired by free market forces, which then will undermine the local monopoly and it will stop being such.

 

[specsaregood]

What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.

I seem to recall reading that the honchos at MS weren't in the habit of making political donations or lobby prior to the justice department lawsuits. They do now. Came off to me as one big shakedown. I know google took that lesson to heart.

 

[Athan]

I, like almost everyone at this board, agree that government-imposed regulation harms the market. Deregulating the banks would prevent recessions, deregulating the medical industry would make health care less expensive, etc. Consumers should rely on personal responsibility rather than government intervention.

The problem I see is what happens when a national/international corporation out-competes local businesses to the point of them having a monopoly over the market, or conspire with other corporations towards price-fixing, etc. When this happens, you can no longer make the argument "Well they should shop somewhere else", or "Well, they should work somewhere else" because that "somewhere else" has been out-competed by a larger corporation.

I can't see a way around this other than the government regulating large corporations. Any help?

You can't really deregulate beyond unreasonable regulations UNTIL you have hard/honest money. With fiat currency, you are required to have regulations in place to offset the abuse of the currency because it won't matter if they abuse consumers, they can continue business as usual with a manipulated credit market. Once you have hard/honest money, then you can rely more on contract and property rights because abuses will be met with with less income and the need to have built up the ability or history of trust to access credit and capital.

 

[fisharmor]

What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.

As stated, 90% is not a monopoly.
Also, I don't really agree with the premise of this thread (that large corporations are able to run small businesses out of business), but it's kind of hard to escape the idea that the only reason MS manages to hang on to its market share is because it's a large corporation.

If it was possible to get a media player on Linux that had all the necessary codecs already installed (without getting into jackassery like compiling from source, anyway), maybe Linux would have more market share.
If MS hadn't slithered their way into Netflix and had them using an MS product to show online videos, which doesn't exist on other OSes (besides mac), then maybe Linux would have a larger market share.
If developers of desktop applications didn't generally start with Windows and, even if it's possible to go cross-platform, still completely ignore other OSes, then maybe Linux would have a larger market share.
If MS didn't hand dicta to hardware suppliers that they're going to sell a copy of Windows with every new machine or they aren't going to sell Windows at all, then maybe Linux would have a larger market share.

All of these are directly caused by the fact that Microsoft has the largest market share, the largest profit margin, and the largest war chest.
It's hard not to see Wal-Mart the same way: we're the biggest and we're going to push everyone around and stay biggest.

 

[JohnLVT]

Corporations were introduced to rig the free-market. They are unnatural and should be dismantled. They are are dangerous and not wrth the bother offer no value to society and the world in general.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If it was possible to get a media player on Linux that had all the necessary codecs already installed (without getting into jackassery like compiling from source, anyway), maybe Linux would have more market share.

It is accurate to say that Microsoft and Apple each have tens of thousands of monopolies. These come in two forms: patents and copyrights. When big corporations compete in the same area, the are constantly suing each other and/or engaged in cross-licensing agreements to keep competitors out.

Another form of monopoly is the copyright which no longer exists for limited or reasonable amounts of time. More so, its enforcement is increasingly based on criminal law - so as to attack citizens - rather than civil law which would be better suited to keep corporations behaving nicely. You are also presumed guilty which is why DRM and capabilities to spy on or control how consumers use their equipment are constantly evolving.

The day may come when off-the-shelf consumer grade equipment will not be able to film the police (brutality is a live event):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...one-users-filming-live-events-smartphone.html

 

[fisharmor]

It is accurate to say that Microsoft and Apple each have tens of thousands of monopolies. These come in two forms: patents and copyrights.

It is kind of hard to discuss corporations without going Kinsella on everyone, isn't it.
IP is a pretty large piece of this puzzle.....