I'm glad the private owners of the broadband infrastructure can't just jack up the prices of using the network to other suppliers making them the only company available to customers.


Pesky regulations ruining things.

---

Jesus people, are you being deliberately obtuse? You asked for examples where no regulations=monopolies so I mentioned the trust busting of Roosevelt & I mentioned Standard Oil, both of which were the direct result of companies taking advantage of the lack of regulations to impose a monopoly and effectively destroy the free market.

Standard oil exploited bad state regulations and used wealth to influence and manipulate legislative advantages over competition. They didn't thrive because of a lack of rules and regulations they thrived because they figured out how to manipulate the rules with a board of trustees.


Don't get me wrong I don't advocate anarchy, of course some regulations are necessary to guide a free market. But TAM is arguing that regulations prevent a consolidation of power when in reality regulations are more often used to consolidate power.

---

Jesus people, are you being deliberately obtuse? You asked for examples where no regulations=monopolies so I mentioned the trust busting of Roosevelt & I mentioned Standard Oil, both of which were the direct result of companies taking advantage of the lack of regulations to impose a monopoly and effectively destroy the free market.

Standard oil exploited bad state regulations and used wealth to influence anfanipulate legislative advantages over competition. They didn't thrive because of a lack of rules and regulations they thrives because they figured out how to manipulate the rules with a board of trustees.


Don't get me wrong I don't advocate anarchy, of course some regulations are necessary to guide a free market. But TAM is arguing that regulations prevent a consolidation of power when in reality regulations are more often used to consolidate power.

---

Jesus people, are you being deliberately obtuse? You asked for examples where no regulations=monopolies so I mentioned the trust busting of Roosevelt & I mentioned Standard Oil, both of which were the direct result of companies taking advantage of the lack of regulations to impose a monopoly and effectively destroy the free market.

Standard oil exploited bad state regulations and used wealth to influence and manipulate legislative advantages over competition. They didn't thrive because of a lack of rules and regulations they thrives because they figured out how to manipulate the rules with a board of trustees.


Don't get me wrong I don't advocate anarchy, of course some regulations are necessary to guide a free market. But TAM is arguing that regulations prevent a consolidation of power when in reality regulations are more often used to consolidate power.

---

Jesus people, are you being deliberately obtuse? You asked for examples where no regulations=monopolies so I mentioned the trust busting of Roosevelt & I mentioned Standard Oil, both of which were the direct result of companies taking advantage of the lack of regulations to impose a monopoly and effectively destroy the free market.

Standard oil exploited bad state regulations and used wealth to influence and manipulate legislative advantages over competition. They didn't thrive because of a lack of rules and regulations they thrived because they figured out how to manipulate the rules with a board of trustees.


Don't get me wrong I don't advocate anarchy, of course some regulations are necessary to guide a free market. But TAM is arguing that regulations prevent a consolidation of power when in reality regulations are more often used to consolidate power.

---

Standard oil exploited bad state regulations and used wealth to influence and manipulate legislative advantages over competition. They didn't thrive because of a lack of rules and regulations they thrived because they figured out how to manipulate the rules with a board of trustees.


Don't get me wrong I don't advocate anarchy, of course some regulations are necessary to guide a free market. But TAM is arguing that regulations prevent a consolidation of power when in reality regulations are more often used to consolidate power.

 

Name the regulations that directly or indirectly result in monopoly or oligopoly.  I'm honestly curious as to which onese resulted in Walmart and Target.  Which regulations resulted in Comcast.  Which regulations resulted in Cardinal Health?  

 

Or...  Is it possible, in a free market without regulations, the natural trend is for companies to try and gain as much market share as possible.  So when one business begins to find success they either try to push out the competition or buy them out.  It's basic econ101, you guys.

 

As DF points out, it's very easy to find the regulations that directly break up monopolies...  Sherman Anti-trust... It's not very easy to find regulations that result in monopolies.  Now...  There is such a thing as entry into a market becoming more difficult.  But generally speaking, laws or regulations can reduce those barriers of entry.  Gov. subsidies can also help.  

 

But anyways, I'd like to know what the anti-regulation folks think would be the regulations that need to be dropped in order to break up these oligopolies.

---

A company with a large market share doesn't constitute a monopoly of even an oligopoly.  In the case of Wal Mart you have a company that produces goods or services that people need within a certain niche that has grown because of excelling within the model of general competition not necessarily unfair practices.  They also face competition from local providers, other low cost outlets, and online shopping experiences. 

 

In the case of Cable companies, they are basically regulated under the defacto natural monopoly theory governing the regulation of utilities and government owned infrastructure/rights of way.  This generally allows them to operate competition free aside from a phone company with pre-existing infrastructure entering the cable market. 

 

Regulations do not lower the capital requirements to enter the market, they increase them.  You can pass a record keeping requirement that will make it almost impossible for the guy cashing in his 401k to hire two or three none income producing employees to meet the cost of compliance with certain regulations.  The increased capital requirement associated with the cost of regulatory compliance is used as an instrument by many big companies to artificially truncate the amount of competitors that exist in their particular market sector. 

 


Centrally planned regulate/subsidize economies have been tried before in various forms.  They all fail.  Government regulation does not lead to increased competition and lower prices.  innovation and private investment does. 

 

At the turn of the 20th century the constellation of government entities consumed less than 20% of GDP and there was nothing resembling the regulatory regime we have come to know and love.  Roughly 90% of the country owned means of production.  Today the government consumes more than 45% of GDP, only 5% of all people own their means of production and we have the most oppressive regulatory regime this side of the EU.  There is a reason the word JOBS didn't start showing up en masse in state of the union addresses until the later part of the 20th century.  Most of the country has conceded the fact that they will more than likely work for someone else and that represents the dying breaths of the enterprise system as we understand it. 

 

One last thing, the market system allows for the most efficient allocation of resources.  neither the market nor a regulatory regime can overcome certain economic realities, specifically SCARCITY.  If a good, service or skill is inherently scarce then price will rise accordingly. 

---

So... nothing?


No regulation you can think of?


Also, having anti trust laws does not mean the economy is centrally planned.


The fact that you argue that having more market share does not constitute a monopoly or oligopoly proves that you should listen and learn more and talk less regarding this topic.


If a company owns 100% of the market, it's a monopoly!!!


If 3 companies each have 33% of an industry's market share, that market is an oligopoly!!!


As a company increases its share of a market, it will try to push out its competitors or buy them out sui that they can control the market.


This is econ 101 stuff, jj...

---

Classic response of the left. They ask a question, you give an answer and they deflect.


I didn't say that 100% of a market share was not a monopoly. I said that a company that has succeeded, competed fairly, and is growing as a percentage of the market isn't necessarily a bad thing that requires large scale intervention.


You weren't talking about anti-trust law. You talked about the general regulation of a sector of the economgand then subsidies to try and offset the cost of compliance. That IS central economic planning and it does fail.


If you can't have a discussion about the regulatory model for cable companies then what's the point? Its the opinion of the regulators you deify that certain sectors of the economy should exist free of competition. I dont agree with it but its the truth. If you can't acknowledge that then what's the point?

---

You answered my question??? Where exactly did you provide a regulation that results in oligopoly or monopoly. Name the regulation.


You didn't provide a regulation, you just talked about your lack of understanding about market shares, centralized economies, and then your wistful fascination with the gilded age at the turn of the 20th century.


You said a business that has a large market share does not constitute a monopoly or oligopoly. And of course, by definition that is wrong, as I pointed out.


Next, you took one sentence I mentioned in terms of governmental subsidies to help alleviate some barriers to entering a market as centralized planning. What a load of horse garbage. Providing a subsidy in order to drive competition into a market is not centralized planning, yet another inaccuracy by you that is basic econ 101


And when I'm taking about monopolies and oligopoly, I'm by definition discussing anti trust!!! Come on, man.


The cable monopolies are a price example that anti trust laws are being ignore at the federal level. Comcast has been buying out its competitors to consolidate the market.


You didn't provide a true answer.

---

You answered my question??? Where exactly did you provide a regulation that results in oligopoly or monopoly. Name the regulation.

 

You talked about Comcast.  I cited the regulatory structure that essentially makes it a state sanctioned monopoly (natural monopoly).  Cable companies generate about 3 billion dollars a year in franchise fees to state and local governments.  They also have to work out easements and rights of way to build the infrastructure required to deliver their services.  The franchise contracts and the access to public property to build infrastructure accentuates the natural scarcity of hard line cable service and creates a defacto oligopoly in which the only two providers that are even capable of providing service are the cable company with the political arrangements and the phone company that decides to branch into cable services.  

 



You didn't provide a regulation, you just talked about your lack of understanding about market shares, centralized economies, and then your wistful fascination with the gilded age at the turn of the 20th century.

 

Wistful fascination?  I have given basic stats about the allocation of the means of production crossed with the exponential increase in the regulatory power of the state.  For your position to hold true then their should be a direct correlation between the trend of regulatory power and the diffusion of the means of production.  Time and data has demonstrated that there is an INVERSE correlation.  

 

As for a centralized economy, when you decide to punish some companies while subsidizing others because #teenagerswithpublicpolicydegreesknoweverything then that constitutes a derivative of central economic planning.  

 

Also, i don't like getting too specific about the businesses that I am involved in online.  I spoke specifically about record keeping requirements.  There was one aspect of my business that deals with second hand goods.  There was a mandate to document every transaction individually and send all customer information and transaction history to the state under threat of jail time.  I have had friends of mine jailed, handcuffed, perp walked, and their pictures blasted on the 6 oclock news because they forgot to include a picture or took a copy of proof of ownership without filling it out properly.  1.) That's why Clinton should be under a jail cell.  2.) I have had to dramatically reduce my exposure to that part of my business to a.) limit the need for a full time employee just to monitor compliance, b.) limit exposure to liability.  


You said a business that has a large market share does not constitute a monopoly or oligopoly. And of course, by definition that is wrong, as I pointed out.

 

<div style="font-family:arial, 'sans-serif-light', sans-serif;font-weight:lighter;font-size:xx-large;">mo·nop·o·ly

<div style="font-size:large;">məˈnäpəlē/

<div><i>noun</i>
 
<ol class="">[*]

<div>1.

<div>
<div>the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional <b>monopoly on</b> furs"
 

<div style="font-weight:lighter;font-size:xx-large;">ol·i·gop·o·ly

<div style="font-size:large;">ˌäləˈɡäpəlē/

<div><i>noun</i>
 
<ol class=""><li>

<div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div style=";">
<div>a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers
 
 
<b>United States antitrust law</b> is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. (The concept is called competition law in other English-speaking countries.)
</div>
</div>
</div>

</ol></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol></div>
</div>
 

Let's use these definition to unpack the point that i was trying to make.  A monopoly is exclusive control of the market.  Oligopoly is a state of limited competition in which the market is shared by only a few entities.  Now, let's discuss the example that you used: Walmart.  Walmart is essentially a distribution hub for a large array of goods and services.  Let's take deodorant for example.   Walmart sells a @#% load of deodorant.  Do they have exclusive control over the flow of every speed stick in the country?  no. Are there other brick and mortar institutions that can provide that good at a competative price?  yes!  Are there some that are more conveniently located?  Yes.  Are there some providers that can deliver this product to your house without you having to drive?  yes.  So not only does Walmart not have EXCLUSIVE control over the flow of deodorant, they still face a considerable and diverse constellation of competitors that are fighting for market share.  So does that mean that because Walmart sells A LOT of deodorant that they are competing in an unfair way and should be subject to government intervention?  Ofcourse not!

 

That's why in antitrust law there is a general concept of ensuring FAIR COMPETITON to the BENEFIT OF THE CONSUMER.  I stated quite clearly that in my opinion that Walmart derives their market share because of success in the arena of the free market not in abuse of it.  Placing an arbitrary limit on potential market share when a company is legitimately providing goods and services that people want like and need at a price they can afford is antithetical to the benefit of the consumer.  You would be ensuring a large portion of the consumer base would be robbed of a choice of a provider that has proven itself in favor of producers that would be inheriting shares of the market not based on their merit or ability to meet consumer need.  

 

You are free to disagree with the idea that Walmart's market share is as a result of success in the arena of fair competition, but you cannot attribute my position to a lack of understanding of the basic terms and principles in this discussion.  

 

Next, you took one sentence I mentioned in terms of governmental subsidies to help alleviate some barriers to entering a market as centralized planning. What a load of horse garbage. Providing a subsidy in order to drive competition into a market is not centralized planning, yet another inaccuracy by you that is basic econ 101.

 

as stated above, it may not denote a FULLY centralized economy but it as example of CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING.  you are using the power of the state to promote one consumer choice over another.  That is prone to create distortions in the market at the expense of the tax payer.  This is also with little to no accountability on the part of the politicians making the decisions especially at the federal level.  How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent on things like green energy through companies like solyndra.  More often than not it just evolves into a defacto money laundering scheme with subsidies given to prospective campaign donors in the merry go round of public policy.  


And when I'm taking about monopolies and oligopoly, I'm by definition discussing anti trust!!! Come on, man.

 

You have to forgive me.  You started a thread talking about trump BANNING NEW FINANCIAL REGULATIONS.  That is talking about the general regulation of the market.  you didn't (and he isn't) saying that he plans to repeal or no longer enforce anti-trust laws for banks.  you have used the term REGULATION a lot in several areas, not just the concept of anti trust.  

 

You also failed to denote the fact that the most massive financial institutions in this country were assembled with the direct blessings of the CLINTON administrations treasury department.  You also fail to mention that the OBAMA administration helped codify certain entities as TOO BIG TO FAIL in the legislation passed after he took office and this is after the passage of TARP legislation that obama supported and voted for in his run for the presidency.  I, like many, would have supported measures to break up some of the institutions that had run themselves into the ground and put the economy as a whole into functional insolvency.  Not only did the dems support propping these same bad actors up at the time of the crisis, JEFF IMMELT WAS GIVEN A POSITON ON THE JOBS COUNCIL!!! 


The cable monopolies are a price example that anti trust laws are being ignore at the federal level. Comcast has been buying out its competitors to consolidate the market.


You didn't provide a true answer.

 

LOL, you're so keen to try and find any wart on the private market, but you can't intellectually admit the inefficiencies in the regulatory system you blindly follow.  

</div>

 

You can lie about me, you can hate on me, you can name call me, you can do whatever you want.   But we both know that deep down, in places you don't like to talk about at dinner parties, you know you can't fade me!  

 

Now you stay classy Sandiego!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.............  

 

THAT JUST HAPPENED!!!

---