Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[berlin]

I found this essay relevant to this thread, and quite amusing-

MONOPOLIES

 Austrians believe that the government destroys the market process for several reasons. Rockwell writes:
 "One obvious example… takes place at the Justice Department's antitrust division. There the bureaucrats pretend to know the proper structure of industry, what kind of mergers and acquisitions harm the economy, who has too much market share or too little, and what the relevant market is. This represents what Hayek called the pretense of knowledge.

 "The correct relationship between competitors can only be worked out through buying and selling, not bureaucratic fiat. Austrian economists, in particular Rothbard, argue that the only real monopolies are created by government. Markets are too competitive to allow any monopolies to be sustained." (1)
 The claim that governments cause monopolies defies the historical evidence. History actually shows the opposite: the more unregulated the market is, the worse the problem of monopolies.

 However, the Austrian claim is not wholly without merit. Utilities are examples of monopolies run or regulated by the government (although they are natural monopolies, and privatizing them doesn't work, as Britain found out in the 80s). Often companies persuade governments to erect barriers of market entry to potential competitors. Sometimes government subsidies allow one company to overpower its competitors. But such cases are usually the result of money-based lobbying, which is a corruption of the system. Corruption in the public sector no more "refutes" its central principle than does corruption in the private sector. The solution to corruption is to eliminate it by enforcing better laws. European democracies offer broad practical evidence that this sort of corruption can be greatly reduced.

 But this Austrian critique completely ignores another, more common type of monopoly: that which forms naturally on the unregulated market. There are many reasons for this tendency, ranging from "it takes money to make money" to the greater efficiency of large corporations. Without antitrust laws or some other countervailing market force, growing companies will not stop until they become monopolies or oligopolies.

 The height of monopoly growth and abuse in the U.S. coincided with its greatest period of laissez-faire, or government nonintervention in the market. Known as the Gilded Age (the period between the Civil War and World War I), this period saw the phenomenal rise of the Robber Barons and their great trusts (monopolies). John D. Rockefeller monopolized oil under his Standard Oil Company; J.P. Morgan dominated finance; Andrew Carnegie, steel; James Hill, railroads. Historians have well chronicled the ruthlessness of these men -- Morgan once remarked that "I don't know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do." Rockefeller's father once boasted that "I cheat my boys every chance I get, I want to make 'em sharp." These men lived for market conquest, and plotted takeovers like military strategy.

 In the late 19th century, trusts formed also in wheat, fruit, meat, salt, sugar refining, lumber, electrical power, rubber, nickel, paper, lead, gypsum, iron, cottonseed oil, linseed oil, whiskey distilling, cord manufacture -- and many others. Once a trust emerged, it would raise its prices and drop its quality of service, as well as engage in unfair trading practices that drove other firms out of business. The abuses of these monopolies became so great that they became a national scandal. So deep was antitrust sentiment that when both houses of Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, there was only a single dissenting vote! (2) But U.S. presidents did not bother to enforce it, and the monopoly problem continued to worsen.

 The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902. Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3) By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57 percent of America's total industrial production, and a single firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5) And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create U.S. Steel, the result was an international sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:

 "The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply." (6)
 The role of government in all this was to stand back and let this market process happen. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt launched his great "trust-busting" campaign in 1902 that this process was reversed. Actual enforcement of the Sherman Act reduced monopolies until the Roaring 20s, when laissez-faire policies again returned to Washington. Over that decade, about 1,200 mergers swallowed up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations controlled over half of all American industry. (7) The New Deal era ushered in yet another era of antitrust policy, again reducing the percentage of monopolies. This was followed by the Reagan era, a period which saw both massive deregulation and another frenzy of mergers and takeovers. In 1988, Federal Trade Commissioner Andrew Strenio remarked: "Since Fiscal Year 1980, there has been a drop of more than 40 percent in the work years allocated to antitrust enforcement. In the same period, merger filings skyrocketed to more than 320 percent of their Fiscal Year 1980 level."

 Two objections are possible here. The first is that these growing corporations may have captured government and then used it as a tool to capture the market. Those familiar with the Golden Age and Roaring 20s know, however, that governments were basically bribed to stand back and do nothing. They passed very little legislation that actively prevented any firms from entering the market and competing. The Reagan era was different, in that corporate lobbyists began using government as a proactive agent to discourage competition. Nonetheless, the periods of government trust-busting show the proper role of government, and its effectiveness in restoring market competition.

 The second objection is that a wave of mergers may result in a more natural and efficient equilibrium of larger players, and this could be beneficial for the economy. The result doesn't have to be a monopoly -- perhaps just an oligopoly. The problem is that at the top end, mergers become increasingly harmful to the economy, with monopolies merely representing the worst result. Even oligopolies engage in price-gouging and collaboration. A natural equilibrium hardly represents the best equilibrium -- as recessions and depressions show.

 How do Austrians deal with the historical correlation between laissez-faire and monopolies? By denying it, of course. The presence of any government at all proves that their conditions of a free market were not met, so the entire correlation is rejected. This is like someone attempting to argue that not watering a plant will result in the fastest growth. And when you point out to him that there is a correlation between the amount of water given to a plant and its rate of growth, he dismisses these experiments on the basis that they all used water.

[BitterTea]

I'm on my phone so this reply will be terse, but there are two important critiques of the view expressed above.

1) Were these trusts providing better service at a lower cost than their competitors? Ultimately, that is the most important question.
2) Were their monopoly positions sustainable? That is, absent government intervention, wouldn't the ability of smaller competitors to more easily adapt to new markets and technologies allow them to efficiently compete with the trusts?

[Basiley]

so, actually nothing new/unique in BitCoin-related/affiliated society/economic "in general".
so groundless name-calling/cursing/FUD/black-PR in topicstart is groundless, IMO.

[berlin]

I'm on my phone so this reply will be terse, but there are two important critiques of the view expressed above.

1) Were these trusts providing better service at a lower cost than their competitors? Ultimately, that is the most important question.
2) Were their monopoly positions sustainable? That is, absent government intervention, wouldn't the ability of smaller competitors to more easily adapt to new markets and technologies allow them to efficiently compete with the trusts?

I think these three paragraphs address your questions-

Once a trust emerged, it would raise its prices and drop its quality of service, as well as engage in unfair trading practices that drove other firms out of business. The abuses of these monopolies became so great that they became a national scandal. So deep was antitrust sentiment that when both houses of Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, there was only a single dissenting vote! (2) But U.S. presidents did not bother to enforce it, and the monopoly problem continued to worsen.

 The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902. Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3) By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57 percent of America's total industrial production, and a single firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5) And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create U.S. Steel, the result was an international sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:

 "The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply."

[mike1210]

I found this essay relevant to this thread, and quite amusing-

Steve Kangas used to spread lies and disinformation on Usenet until he traveled to Pittsburgh one day and shot himself in a restroom outside the office of Richard Mellon Scaife.

As for monopolies, one of the poster children for evil monopolies was John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, whose great crime against humanity was slashing the price of refined petrol due to technological innovation. Standard Oil never had monopoly pricing power.

[mike1210]

Please don't conflate "anarcho"-capitalism with anarchism.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, even for the sake of improving your arguments, I'd recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

To smash private property, you need a state. Capitalism, on the other hand, exists independent of the state. Given what happened in Spain, where the first thing the so-called "anarchists" did was set up a police force with exclusive privileges to use violence, nobody buys the socialist "anarchist" line anymore.

[BitterTea]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

[mouser98]

for any given market sector, there is an ideal size for a company, where it achieves an economy of scale, without becoming overburdened with managerial inefficiency.  a freed market will reward the companies that find the correct size, and punish those who become too large.  thus, no monopoly is sustainable without government intervention.

[LMGTFY]

Please don't conflate "anarcho"-capitalism with anarchism.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, even for the sake of improving your arguments, I'd recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

To smash private property, you need a state. Capitalism, on the other hand, exists independent of the state. Given what happened in Spain, where the first thing the so-called "anarchists" did was set up a police force with exclusive privileges to use violence, nobody buys the socialist "anarchist" line anymore.

Off topic, but I'd be interested to learn more about this police force because it's not something I've previously heard about. I know that the Generalidad de Cataluna (the Trotskyist and Communist government in Barcelona, which the anarchists broadly supported) maintained the Civil Guard, and that after the PSUC (Communists) gained increasing power just before the 1937 May Days they brought in Assault Guards (to suppress first the Trotskyist POUM, and then the anarchist CNT/FAI), but so far as I know the only police were government police. And all of the militias - from CNT/FAI and POUM militias though to the International Brigades and other Communist militias - they all were armed, they all had the right to use force, so I'm not sure I understand "exclusive privileges to use violence" - the Spanish Republic was in the midst of a civil war against Fascism - the Republic in general, and the Generalidad in particular, all condoned widespread arming of the population.

[shady financier]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

[gene]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin.

[stillfire]

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin.

You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices. Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.

No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for. You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.

[Anonymous]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

That doesn't mean it isn't true. Objectively, these natural monopolies bring lower prices.

[shady financier]

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin.

You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices. Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.

No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for. You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.

Said with the fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic. Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power. It is ironic that those that profess to want life in a free society are nonethless happy to profit from the slavery of others. The sweat-shop worker and the endebted farmer are the victims of your so called freedom, never mind any loss of choice.

Fuck the weak, consume the poor, the world belongs to the powerful and freedom to the strong, this is the legend of the 'Libertarian', ally of the economic-slaver and the billionaire alike.

[BitterTea]

Said with the fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic. Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power. It is ironic that those that profess to want life in a free society are nonethless happy to profit from the slavery of others. The sweat-shop worker and the endebted farmer are the victims of your so called freedom, never mind any loss of choice.

Fuck the weak, consume the poor, the Earth belongs to the Powerdful, this is the legend of the 'Libertarian'.

I love that you're afflicted with the same "fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic" as those you criticize. Where would Walmart be without transportation costs subsidized by the government in the form of public roads and highways. It is because of statism, not in spite of it that large corporations flourish. Remember, the corporation itself is a government legal fiction.

Additionally, without a taxpayer subsidized police force, entities with large amounts of capital would have to pay the full costs of securing that capital. It would be expensive to be wealthy.

[benjamindees]

Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power.

However much I might be inclined to agree with you, WalMart clearly just exploits the differences between two of the largest and least competent governments on Earth, via the loophole of global free trade.  The Western farmer is 'screwed' because WalMart has opened a market of a billion consumers, while the Western retailer is screwed because WalMart can exploit those billion consumers as manufacturers.  But they can only do this because both governments have abrogated basic responsibilities and instead of preventing abuse and trade imbalance, sanction it.

[berlin]

Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power.

However much I might be inclined to agree with you, WalMart clearly just exploits the differences between two of the largest and least competent governments on Earth, via the loophole of global free trade.  The Western farmer is 'screwed' because WalMart has opened a market of a billion consumers, while the Western retailer is screwed because WalMart can exploit those billion consumers as manufacturers.  But they can only do this because both governments have abrogated basic responsibilities and instead of preventing abuse and trade imbalance, sanction it.

http://memecaptain.com/i?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanpolitics.com%2Freaganmakessillyface.gif&tt=&tb=Yeah+that%27s+right%2C+say+my+name+bitch%21

I agree with you, government must not abrogate its responsibilities as the Libertarians demand, and people should not abrogate their responsability to hold government accountable.

I think the governments job is indeed to provide public goods like transport infrastructure and law-enforcement, to uphold the social standards that decent people believe are above the market, healthcare and education? Hell yes. We demand the government we pay for makes itself useful to us and that these expenditures are not exploited by the selfish interests of would be Robber-Barons while we the people abandon ourselves to the delusions and fantasies of the Austrian School.

There is a higher principal than power and money.

Capitalism is an animal, a useful animal to be sure, and the human must be its rider, not its grateful slave. We do not allow these corporate creatures of private power to consume everything in site and shit everywhere, we put the leash on the animal of capitalism and we say you cannot go there, you cannot eat that. You stay in your enclosure and apply yourself within the bounds of marginal social benefit and if you threaten the interests of the community of people we whip your ass and keep you in your place and say "Stay in your hole, dog, our highways and legal systems are not for you to fuck us with".

Yes, make money, innovate, but our children and the children of developing nations and our economic freedoms and the ecosystems of our planet are not yours to consume.

[stillfire]

Capitalism is an animal, a useful animal to be sure, and the human is its rider. We do not allow these corporate creatures of private power to consume everything in site and shit everywhere, we put the leash on the animal of capitalism and we say you cannot go there, you cannot eat that.

Talking about capitalism like it's an animal is rationalisation. Capitalism is the true will of the people, much more so than the lobby lead government. The people vote every day with their wallets at Walmart. You disagree with the will of the majority but you don't want to see that reality, so you dress it up in colourful metaphors and cover your ears.

In your own metaphor, the animal is going exactly where people want it to. You're a poacher killing it against the will of the many.

I like choice but I also like democracy. Hence I don't use violence to force the cost of choice unto others, but instead I pay for it by buying innovative and better rather than cheaper at every turn.

[berlin]

Capitalism is an animal, a useful animal to be sure, and the human is its rider. We do not allow these corporate creatures of private power to consume everything in site and shit everywhere, we put the leash on the animal of capitalism and we say you cannot go there, you cannot eat that.

Talking about capitalism like it's an animal is rationalisation. Capitalism is the true will of the people, much more so than the lobby lead government. The people vote every day with their wallets at Walmart. You disagree with the will of the majority but you don't want to see that reality, so you dress it up in colourful metaphors and cover your ears.

In your own metaphor, the animal is going exactly where people want it to. You're a poacher killing it against the will of the many.

I like choice but I also like democracy. Hence I don't use violence to force the cost of choice unto others, but instead I pay for it by buying innovative and better rather than cheaper at every turn.

Wait a minute, I'm confused. You seem to be on my side then.

Maybe it's because I know that lobbies are funded by rich corporations and the like that bend the government to their will, and I am against this, whereas you think (unless I'm wrong) that the problem is that there is a government in the first place. Am I right?

[BitterTea]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. You seem to be on my side then.

Maybe it's because I know that lobbies are funded by rich corporations and the like that bend the government to their will, and I am against this, whereas you think (unless I'm wrong) that the problem is that there is a government in the first place. Am I right?

Without a government, there is nobody to lobby. Governments just grant privileges, tax, and use actual or threatened force against non-violent people. Every desirable function of government is better provided by private entities. That is my position.