Just a thought, but a fix for Oligarchys maybe?

[Wild Cobra]

I believe in capitalism, but there comes a time when to few get too powerful. Just pondering an idea, and would like to know what others think. What if we had a cap on businesses? What rules might we put in place? A few thought:

1) No business can buy their competition if it will cause them to exceed 10% of the market.

2) Business can exceed 10% of the market with growth, but gets taxed an additional 1% for every percentage they have above 20% of a market share.

Now of course, such changes would have potential problems that need addressed. Any one game?

[boutons_deux]

Monopolies and collusive cartels, an UNFREE market, are a (large) business' objective.

With no effective competition, one abusively extracts excessive wealth for very probably minimum quality, even shitty, often harmful products.

I repeat (since the top-level truths are simple and few):

There is no possibility of PROGRESS in USA towards regulations that prevent monopolies, collusion, cartels, due to WC's politicians protecting and enriching the 1% and corporations.

[Wild Cobra]

Monopolies and collusive cartels, an UNFREE market, are a (large) business' objective.

With no effective competition, one abusively extracts excessive wealth for very probably minimum quality, even shitty, often harmful products.

I repeat (since the top-level truths are simple and few):

There is no possibility of PROGRESS in USA towards regulations that prevent monopolies, collusion, cartels, due to WC's politicians protecting and enriching the 1% and corporations.
How about getting past your thoughts of impossibility, and think of what would help if we could get it implemented.

[boutons_deux]

How about getting pat your thoughts of impossibility, and think of what would help if we could get it implemented.

We got in this never-ending disaster for the 99% and nirvana for the 1% by YOU RIGHT-WINGERS cutting taxes and deregulating.

[Wild Cobra]

We got in this never-ending disaster for the 99% and nirvana for the 1% by YOU RIGHT-WINGERS cutting taxes and deregulating.
Well, if you are going to be a broken record about the 99%/1%, then I'm done with you.

[boutons_deux]

Well, if you are going to be a broken record about the 99%/1%, then I'm done with you.

and you IGNORE the real causes while dicking around uselessly how to fix the problems without touching the causes and the culprits.

[Wild Cobra]

and you IGNORE the real causes while dicking around uselessly how to fix the problems without touching the causes and the culprits.
Consider something.

Is the 99%/1% the problem, or the symptom?

[coyotes_geek]

I believe in capitalism, but there comes a time when to few get too powerful. Just pondering an idea, and would like to know what others think. What if we had a cap on businesses? What rules might we put in place? A few thought:

1) No business can buy their competition if it will cause them to exceed 10% of the market.

2) Business can exceed 10% of the market with growth, but gets taxed an additional 1% for every percentage they have above 20% of a market share.

Now of course, such changes would have potential problems that need addressed. Any one game?

I'm not game for something like this where we just come up with a formula and remove any and all consideration about individual circumstances. I think you need to look at each industry differently and make decisions as to whether or not consumers/taxpayers are actually being harmed. Five banks controlling 75% of their market bothers me and I think we need to chop them all into several smaller pieces. Two soda companies controlling 75% of their market doesn't bother me in the least.

I'm also not a fan of the 1% surcharge tax for each percentage of market share over 20%. Why punish a company for consumers overwhelmingly preferring their product over their competitors?

[Winehole23]

we have anti trust laws. have there been any significant US anti trust actions in the last ten years?

[coyotes_geek]

Depends what you consider significant. I can't think of the last time an anti-trust law was used to break up a company, but you do hear about anti-trust regulators intervening in mergers and acquisitions from time to time. AT&T's failed attempt to buy T-mobile being one example that comes to mind.

[Warlord23]

This is actually a good topic, especially coming from WC. Capitalism, when it was conceived, did not envisage corporations becoming colossal cross-border entities that can heavily influence lawmaking, play countries off one against the other to give them favorable conditions and generally try to avoid paying taxes and obeying country-specific regulations.

Theoretical models of "pure" capitalism do not account for a large number of anomalies that are seen in practice, which IMO need to be resolved to make capitalism fit for purpose. Some of these include:
- Oil companies that earn tens of billions in profit continue to get subsidies worth billions, because of lobbying in Congress. Small businesses get the shaft.
- Defense contractors influence lawmakers to keep expanding the military-industrial complex
- For-profit prisons, police/prison guard unions, pharma and alcohol firms lobby to keep marijuana illegal
- Unlimited donations which ensure that fundraising is more important than policy for lawmakers, and policy is shaped by the highest bidder
- A significant portion of the media is consoildated into a handful of conglomerates that drive the narrative around most issues; the aim is to keep the population divided while masking the similar objectives of both major political parties
- Companies flout basic norms of employee welfare and safety in dictatorships like China, which leads to job losses and low pay in developed countries where the rules are actually enforced.

None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism, but it is a by-product nevertheless. Each of them contribute to economic and social division and inequality.

[boutons_deux]

we have anti trust laws. have there been any significant US anti trust actions in the last ten years?

anti-trust prosecutions are highly political. Clinton went after MS, then dubya's judge let them off. We aren't EVER expecting any anti-trust from any Repug DoJ.

[boutons_deux]

Depends what you consider significant. I can't think of the last time an anti-trust law was used to break up a company, but you do hear about anti-trust regulators intervening in mergers and acquisitions from time to time. AT&T's failed attempt to buy T-mobile being one example that comes to mind.

anti-trust broke up ATT, but it has coalesced into a single company again, and now is the dominant partner in the US telecom cartel that delivers shitty service for exorbitant prices compared to other industrial countries that are "socialistic".

Unregulated capitalism and finance are ALWAYS screw jobs for the 99%.

[coyotes_geek]

anti-trust prosecutions are highly political. Clinton went after MS, then dubya's judge let them off. We aren't EVER expecting any anti-trust from any Repug DoJ.

What's Obama's blue team DOJ been up to?

[coyotes_geek]

anti-trust broke up ATT, but it has coalesced into a single company again, and now is the dominant partner in the US telecom cartel that delivers shitty service for exorbitant prices compared to other industrial countries that are "socialistic".

Unregulated capitalism and finance are ALWAYS screw jobs for the 99%.

We don't have unregulated capitalism.

[boutons_deux]

This is actually a good topic, especially coming from WC. Capitalism, when it was conceived, did not envisage corporations becoming colossal cross-border entities that can heavily influence lawmaking, play countries off one against the other to give them favorable conditions and generally try to avoid paying taxes and obeying country-specific regulations.

Theoretical models of "pure" capitalism do not account for a large number of anomalies that are seen in practice, which IMO need to be resolved to make capitalism fit for purpose. Some of these include:
- Oil companies that earn tens of billions in profit continue to get subsidies worth billions, because of lobbying in Congress. Small businesses get the shaft.
- Defense contractors influence lawmakers to keep expanding the military-industrial complex
- For-profit prisons, police/prison guard unions, pharma and alcohol firms lobby to keep marijuana illegal
- Unlimited donations which ensure that fundraising is more important than policy for lawmakers, and policy is shaped by the highest bidder
- A significant portion of the media is consoildated into a handful of conglomerates that drive the narrative around most issues; the aim is to keep the population divided while masking the similar objectives of both major political parties
- Companies flout basic norms of employee welfare and safety in dictatorships like China, which leads to job losses and low pay in developed countries where the rules are actually enforced.

None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism, but it is a by-product nevertheless. Each of them contribute to economic and social division and inequality.

also, large corporation create "small businesses" to capture govt contracts intended exclusively for small, independent businesses. Just another laugh at the Repugs when they say estate taxes hurt small businesses, while Repugs do nothing about F500 divertng small business contracts.

[boutons_deux]

"None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism"

the ONLY "intended" consequence of capitalism is to make a profit. All other consequences, good and bad, are secondary.

[Th'Pusher]

This is actually a good topic, especially coming from WC. Capitalism, when it was conceived, did not envisage corporations becoming colossal cross-border entities that can heavily influence lawmaking, play countries off one against the other to give them favorable conditions and generally try to avoid paying taxes and obeying country-specific regulations.

Theoretical models of "pure" capitalism do not account for a large number of anomalies that are seen in practice, which IMO need to be resolved to make capitalism fit for purpose. Some of these include:
- Oil companies that earn tens of billions in profit continue to get subsidies worth billions, because of lobbying in Congress. Small businesses get the shaft.
- Defense contractors influence lawmakers to keep expanding the military-industrial complex
- For-profit prisons, police/prison guard unions, pharma and alcohol firms lobby to keep marijuana illegal
- Unlimited donations which ensure that fundraising is more important than policy for lawmakers, and policy is shaped by the highest bidder
- A significant portion of the media is consoildated into a handful of conglomerates that drive the narrative around most issues; the aim is to keep the population divided while masking the similar objectives of both major political parties
- Companies flout basic norms of employee welfare and safety in dictatorships like China, which leads to job losses and low pay in developed countries where the rules are actually enforced.

None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism, but it is a by-product nevertheless. Each of them contribute to economic and social division and inequality.

I've got a simple, solution for all of these issues: remove all money from politics. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I'm also not a fan of the 1% surcharge tax for each percentage of market share over 20%. Why punish a company for consumers overwhelmingly preferring their product over their competitors?
If that's the case, then it in a way, becomes a voluntary tax. The product prices would climb as the tax liability increases. At some point, a balance would be achieved.

[Wild Cobra]

This is actually a good topic, especially coming from WC. Capitalism, when it was conceived, did not envisage corporations becoming colossal cross-border entities that can heavily influence lawmaking, play countries off one against the other to give them favorable conditions and generally try to avoid paying taxes and obeying country-specific regulations.

Theoretical models of "pure" capitalism do not account for a large number of anomalies that are seen in practice, which IMO need to be resolved to make capitalism fit for purpose. Some of these include:
- Oil companies that earn tens of billions in profit continue to get subsidies worth billions, because of lobbying in Congress. Small businesses get the shaft.
- Defense contractors influence lawmakers to keep expanding the military-industrial complex
- For-profit prisons, police/prison guard unions, pharma and alcohol firms lobby to keep marijuana illegal
- Unlimited donations which ensure that fundraising is more important than policy for lawmakers, and policy is shaped by the highest bidder
- A significant portion of the media is consoildated into a handful of conglomerates that drive the narrative around most issues; the aim is to keep the population divided while masking the similar objectives of both major political parties
- Companies flout basic norms of employee welfare and safety in dictatorships like China, which leads to job losses and low pay in developed countries where the rules are actually enforced.

None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism, but it is a by-product nevertheless. Each of them contribute to economic and social division and inequality.
I'm glad someone understands it. I would never want to do away with capitalism, but it is growing into something very bad. Worse yet, it gives the Socialists, Communist, Marxists, etc. reason to change our system and try to destroy capitalism.

[ElNono]

Theoretical models of "pure" capitalism do not account for a large number of anomalies that are seen in practice, which IMO need to be resolved to make capitalism fit for purpose.

Pure capitalists will tell you that this isn't a pure capitalist model, and on a pure capitalist model, there would be no economic government intervention, which means the problems you listed wouldn't exist (ie: subsidies, tax breaks, etc).
Because companies wouldn't stand to gain any kind of market distortion from politics that would give them a competitive advantage, it would be less enticing to 'grease those hands'...

What these models fail to account for is that the system is run by greedy, power hungry humans...

[coyotes_geek]

If that's the case, then it in a way, becomes a voluntary tax. The product prices would climb as the tax liability increases. At some point, a balance would be achieved.

Still not a fan of the idea. Why should consumers be punished through higher prices just because they happen to preferring a product that more than 20% of their fellow consumers also prefer?

[boutons_deux]

"the system is run by greedy, power hungry humans.."

so HEAVY govt intervention is necessary to prevent monopolies, cartels, and to protect human health water, air, land.

[coyotes_geek]

Good thing governments are never run by greedy, power hungry humans...........

[boutons_deux]

Good thing governments are never run by greedy, power hungry humans...........

... who are, in USA, financed by the corporations, 1%, etc so any "serious" candidates are primary-ed to exclusion. The political system is a closed class, operating on money, to extract taxpayer wealth.

[coyotes_geek]

Which is proof why heavy government intervention doesn't work. The harder government works to control those with money, the harder those with money will work to control government.

[boutons_deux]

Which is proof why heavy government intervention doesn't work. The harder government works to control those with money, the harder those with money will work to control government.

aka, America is fucked and unfuckable.

[coyotes_geek]

Pretty much.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol nihilists.

[Wild Cobra]

Still not a fan of the idea. Why should consumers be punished through higher prices just because they happen to preferring a product that more than 20% of their fellow consumers also prefer?
Well, how would you try to correct the problems?

[coyotes_geek]

lol nihilists.

I would reject your establishmentarian attempt to categorize me, but what's the point?


Well, how would you try to correct the problems?

First step is to determine whether or not a specific oligarchy is indeed a problem. Not all of them are.

If/when we find one that is, use the Sherman act to break them up into smaller pieces to increase competition.

[boutons_deux]

lol nihilists.

TB :lol ... has NOTHING to say about how to unfuck the unfuckable America.

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol ... has NOTHING to say about how to unfuck the unfuckable America.

It's hard to rebut infant-speak like unfucking unfuckables. Responding to you is like talking to retarded chihuahuas.

[TeyshaBlue]

I would reject your establishmentarian attempt to categorize me, but what's the point?
:lol

[LnGrrrR]

If that's the case, then it in a way, becomes a voluntary tax. The product prices would climb as the tax liability increases. At some point, a balance would be achieved.

Some would argue that tax would be "unfair" to that business. They are being taxed more heavily for being "better".

I'm not sure I want to defend that argument, but it's definitely out there somewhere.

[LnGrrrR]

Also WC, thanks for the conversation. It's certainly a thorny problem, but it's good practice to think about solutions and why they may or may not work.

[boutons_deux]

still waiting for anybody with a reasonable suggestion to unyoke the corportocracy from the necks of the 99%