Reply With Quote
Only took one page for Deptacular to make an abstract political thread all about himself and his imaginary trans/cuck/gimp coterie.
Nice work!
Cuck thinks it's about safety in numbers.
Only took one page for Deptacular to make an abstract political thread all about himself and his imaginary trans/cuck/gimp coterie.
Nice work!
Derp thinks there's numbers.
Derrrrrp
market concentration leads to anti-compe ive outcomes and also tends to concentrate political power. it might also be a drag on growth at this point.
the solutions are political and legal: anti-trust regs with real teeth.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...iglitz-2019-03The policies for combating economically damaging power imbalances are straightforward. Over the past half-century, Chicago School economists, acting on the assumption that markets are generally compe ive, narrowed the focus of compe ion policy solely to economic efficiency, rather than broader concerns about power and inequality. The irony is that this assumption became dominant in policymaking circles just when economists were beginning to reveal its flaws. The development of game theory and new models of imperfect and asymmetric information laid bare the profound limitations of the compe ion model.
The law needs to catch up. Anti-compe ive practices should be illegal, period. And beyond that, there are a host of other changes needed to modernize US an rust legislation. Americans’ need the same resolve in fighting for compe ion that their corporations have shown in fighting against it.
Just out of curiosity, what anti-trust regs don't exist now that you'd recommend?
In principle the ones we already have would work if there were the political will to enforce them as we did until the 1950s or so.
anti-trust prosecutions are political, not economic
this is only your second post in here...both one liners.
Your right clicker must be broken.
Fair enough. Interestingly, out of all the genres of commercial litigation, anti-trust cases usually are 1a/1b with securities class actions (in terms of dollar amounts). Possible incentive, but also possible abuse.
A monopoly decreases overall economy has it leaves all involved, except for the monopolist, which earns rent. Monopolies are, by nature, anti-compe ive, and anti innovative.
If the goal of a free market is the efficient distribution of goods, it is an inefficient distribution of goods.
there's a recent Elizabeth Warren policy related to platform monopolies I've not reviewed, but appears to be directly aimed at Amazon, FB and Google.
If you're trying to say monopolies are bad for startup companies trying to suckle at the teat someone else discovered, you could have said it better. What you posted doesn't make a lot of sense tbh.
Price to the consumer isn't everything. Monopolies hurt compe ion -- freedom of enterprise, to use a somewhat quaint phrase.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/t...an-amazon.html
“An rust Dilemma.” “The An rust Impulse.” “An rust in an Expanding Economy.” Shelf after shelf of volumes ignored for decades. There are a dozen fat tomes with transcripts of the congressional hearings on monopoly power in 1949, when the world was in ruins and the Soviets on the march. Lawmakers believed economic concentration would make America more vulnerable.
At the end of the an rust stacks is a table near the window. “This is my command post,” said Lina Khan.
It’s nothing, really. A few books are piled up haphazardly next to a bottle with water and another with tea. Ms. Khan was in Dallas quite a bit over the last year, refining an argument about monopoly power that takes aim at one of the most admired, secretive and feared companies of our era: Amazon.
The retailer overwhelmingly dominates online commerce, employs more than half a million people and powers much of the internet itself through its cloud computing division. On Tuesday, it briefly became the second company to be worth a trillion dollars.
If compe ors tremble at Amazon’s ambitions, consumers are mostly delighted by its speedy delivery and low prices. They stream its Oscar-winning movies and clamor for the company to build a second headquarters in their hometowns. Few of Amazon’s customers, it is safe to say, spend much time thinking they need to be protected from it.
But then, until recently, no one worried about Facebook, Google or Twitter either. Now politicians, the media, academics and regulators are kicking around ideas that would, metaphorically or literally, cut them down to size. Members of Congress grilled social media executives on Wednesday in yet another round of hearings on Capitol Hill. Not since the Department of Justice took on Microsoft in the mid-1990s has Big Tech been scrutinized like this.
Amazon has more revenue than Facebook, Google and Twitter put together, but it has largely escaped sustained examination. That is beginning to change, and one significant reason is Ms. Khan.
At the S.M.U. library in Dallas, Ms. Khan was finding inspiration from books that predated the price-based era of monopoly law.
In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, Ms. Khan published “Amazon’s An rust Paradox” in the Yale Law Journal. Her argument went against a consensus in an rust circles that dates back to the 1970s — the moment when regulation was redefined to focus on consumer welfare, which is to say price. Since Amazon is renowned for its cut-rate deals, it would seem safe from federal intervention.
Ms. Khan disagreed. Over 93 heavily footnoted pages, she presented the case that the company should not get a pass on anticompe ive behavior just because it makes customers happy. Once-robust monopoly laws have been marginalized, Ms. Khan wrote, and consequently Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy.
Amazon has so much data on so many customers, it is so willing to forgo profits, it is so aggressive and has so many advantages from its shipping and warehouse infrastructure that it exerts an influence much broader than its market share. It resembles the all-powerful railroads of the Progressive Era, Ms. Khan wrote: “The thousands of retailers and independent businesses that must ride Amazon’s rails to reach market are increasingly dependent on their biggest compe or.”
What I am saying requires a framework of basic macro-micro economics. "Rent" and "decreased utility" are specific to those fields.
Did you actually read the post before you submitted it?
This makes no sense.
Misuse of commas creates a mess instead of a message.Monopolies are, by nature, anti-compe ive, and anti innovative.
This is non sequitur. If monopolies lead to inefficient distribution of goods, it has nothing to do with the goal of a free market.If the goal of a free market is the efficient distribution of goods, it is an inefficient distribution of goods.
From Wiki:
In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority.
So a monopoly that arises from the most efficient distribution of goods and services, one that consumers were free to choose, is indeed the most efficient distribution of goods and services. It's certainly not the federal government.
Once the monopoly is established however (they don't just rise from nothing overnight) of course innovation stagnates because they naturally have no compe ion, so they would only innovate to cut their own costs. This is how all business operates. The goal of business is to capture marketshare. Capturing all of it denotes a highly successful business. It brings with it some concerns because some of the things that private industry controls are considered basic needs to Americans. Ergo the federal government steps in and forces these companies to break apart to provide the appearance of compe ion. I'm ok with that. It shows success for the company that they got that big and powerful to begin with. It's certainly a better model than having the federal government be the monopoly for all resources.
Last edited by DMC; 03-15-2019 at 01:12 AM.
I think there's indirect regulations that could also prevent too-big-to-fail scenarios building up, which a lot of times end up with monopolies or monopolist/duopolist behaviors.
Things like the Glass-Steagall Act didn't directly address anti-trust, but the firewall it imposed on banking ins utions reduced greatly the ability of banks to over leverage themselves in pursuit of market dominance.
America loves the free market, but there's nothing more sought after by the market than monopolies.
My Secured Credit Textbook was written by her. I hadn't thought about it, but it's funny that she gets some flack for being a "communist"Thank you, thank you. As Barry mentioned, before I was a Senator, I was a law professor. What he didn’t say is that I taught contracts, secured transactions, and bankruptcy – all courses related to the functioning of compe ive markets. I love markets! Strong, healthy markets are the key to a strong, healthy America.
Clearly not a commie, but her anti-trust and financial policies, low key as they're meant to sound, are some of the most radical ideas out there right now.
While other Dem candidates primp and preen, Sen. Warren is busy making policies.
For better and for worse, her policy shop is putting more meat on the bone than anyone else out there so far.
You probably didn't read it.
Looking at the website I don't think anyone else will waste their time reading it either
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions