It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OldDragger
A simple question.
What is the goal of competition?
Is it not....to win?
What happens to your "free market" then.
This is why we have Anti Trust laws.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by OldDragger]
Only through non-competitive laws and regulations can a monopoly come about. Only through the force of government intervening in the market can a monopoly form.
Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by mnemeth1
To think that a free market cannot create monopolies is extremely naive in my opinion. One only has to take a brief look at the world to realize that this is not so.
Windows is a good example, another example is Rupert Murdochs Clear Channel, which runs a huge portion of the worlds media.
I realize these are not monopolies but what we are seeing at the moment is a very clear tendency for big companies to merge & absorb smaller ones.
To use your analogy of the gas station, if Shell has the only gas station for many miles & some guy opens one next to it & provides better prices,
then Shell has the resources to dump their prices so low that the little guy goes out of business.
Afterwards they can simply raise their prices again.
Originally posted by lordtyp0
No regulations = monopoly.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
I suppose I should also mention the benefit Wal-Mart brings to consumers as well.
Consumers only shop at wal-mart because they know the store offers consistently low prices on the products they want to buy.
So while mom and pop might get put out of business, consumers in the community are now paying far less for the same goods.
Without wal-mart selling those government suppressed goods from China, consumers would be spending more of their income to acquire the same goods.
So what is the end result?
Lower prices.
Gee, wasn't that my point to begin with?
How much would Wal-Mart be charging for a Chinese toothbrush if no one was allowed to compete with them?
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by lordtyp0
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
So lets look at your example of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart gets its products from China, a totalitarian state that suppresses wages by 47 to 85 percent below what they should be,according to the AFL-CIO's complaint about China's labor policies filed with the United States Trade Representative last year.
Without Chinese government coercion in the labor market, Wal-Mart and other major retailers that utilize Chinese labor for the products they sell could not deliver products so far below market costs.
We also have the Chinese government suppressing its currency value below what it should be in order to monopolize producer export markets.
Wal-Mart would not be wal-mart without totalitarian government intervening in the markets.
The US could correct these trade imbalance issues by doing several things, none of which involve "regulating" industry.
The US government has intentionally colluded with the Wal-Marts of the world to craft legislation, trade agreements, and taxation policies that specifically benefit the Wal-Marts of the world. More government intervention in the markets.
For example, Wal-Mart actually lobbied for minimum wage increases, because higher minimum wages make it far more difficult for domestic retail distributors to compete against them.
Wal-Mart loves big government.
Yes but it is lack of regulations that allows wal-mart to use overseas labor, trade agreements etc. constitute a release of regulation/easing of options.
The concept of regulation is to reduce options (generally unethical and or illegal options).
Everything now days is made in China. If the U.S. Gov tries to add tarifs to regulate and bring jobs back to the U.S. they are being anti-capitalist/anti-free market.
You response actually hurt your thesis statement of regulations creating monopolies. They have all their power because they get their supplies from a place with no worker protections, really no protections of any sort. Thus they are able to pull money in by the bucketload and destroy all competition.
No regulations = monopoly.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by lordtyp0
No regulations = monopoly.
Are you kidding me?
What do you think is preventing US producers from competing against Chinese labor?
You got China artificially suppressing labor costs.
You got the US government regulating the living tar out of domestic producers with insurance requirements, labor wage requirements, zoning policies, emissions restrictions, etc.. etc.. etc..
You got the Federal Reserve suppressing interest rates, killing savings which wipes out capital markets for long term investment in production.
The list of reasons why US production is so low is nearly endless and ALL of those reasons are a function of government regulation.
China DOES have a monopoly on production of consumer goods, but only because of tyrannical labor laws and because our own government regulates the living tar out of our own producers.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Yes but it is lack of regulations that allows wal-mart to use overseas labor, trade agreements etc. constitute a release of regulation/easing of options.
I actually define them as a predatory company-well on it's way of becoming a monopoly.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by OldDragger
A simple question.
What is the goal of competition?
Is it not....to win?
What happens to your "free market" then.
This is why we have Anti Trust laws.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by OldDragger]
OK.
So say I have a gas station, no competitors around for 200 miles in all directions.
How much do you think I can charge for gas?
Then a new gas station opens up across the street, how much can I charge for gas now?
Competition drives prices down and quality up.
"Competition is a sin." - John D. Rockefeller.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]