Rare that I appreciate an opinion piece from the NYT

[TPS]

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

You haven't described the ills of size other than size of its own.   Show how size equates to consumer harm.    I've said that government shouldn't be in the business of protecting individual companies, because the government is not in a good spot to know which companies to help or hurt.

 

Speaking of strawmen, you're assuming that bigger companies don't provide additional choices to the consumer, while the data is contrary to your position.   Is consumer in a better or worse position after Goose Island is sold to AmBev?

 

 

I did describe the harm.  Markets with a greater degree of competition tend to have lower prices than markets with less competition. 

Another bad example. GI doesn't compete with the mass beer market.  The microbrewery market is still a highly competitive market.  When the big boys take over a successful one to broaden their brand, that usually reduces their appeal.  Now, if AmBev buys Molson/Coors, that's a different story...

[GG]

11 minutes ago, TPS said:

I did describe the harm.  Markets with a greater degree of competition tend to have lower prices than markets with less competition. 

Another bad example. GI doesn't compete with the mass beer market.  The microbrewery market is still a highly competitive market.  When the big boys take over a successful one to broaden their brand, that usually reduces their appeal.  Now, if AmBev buys Molson/Coors, that's a different story...

 

Lower prices in more competitive markets are usually a short term phenomenon as players fight for share and sacrifice profits (see retail).  Over time, the weaker competitors die following that strategy.

 

Beer market is a good example, as is the soft drink market.  Craft brewers or local drinks cannot compete at all without making huge investments to expand markets and get shelf space.  By selling to a major company, they gain access to other markets and consumers benefit by expanding their options.   Otherwise, Goose would remain a niche brand in Chicago, and you wouldn't get it in Buffalo or LA.  Again, tell me how the consumer doesn't benefit from having their $15 case of Bud or $10 six pack of Goose nationwide?   

 

Consumers benefit not just from cheapest prices, but from having a wider variety of choices, and a higher probability that the product will be available to buy for a long time.

[TPS]

On 12/4/2018 at 5:28 PM, GG said:

 

Lower prices in more competitive markets are usually a short term phenomenon as players fight for share and sacrifice profits (see retail).  Over time, the weaker competitors die following that strategy.

 

Beer market is a good example, as is the soft drink market.  Craft brewers or local drinks cannot compete at all without making huge investments to expand markets and get shelf space.  By selling to a major company, they gain access to other markets and consumers benefit by expanding their options.   Otherwise, Goose would remain a niche brand in Chicago, and you wouldn't get it in Buffalo or LA.  Again, tell me how the consumer doesn't benefit from having their $15 case of Bud or $10 six pack of Goose nationwide?   

 

Consumers benefit not just from cheapest prices, but from having a wider variety of choices, and a higher probability that the product will be available to buy for a long time.

It is not a short-term phenomenon; it takes years for the process to shake out. Look at airline deregulation. It created a much more competitive industry and led to the creation of a lot of new regionals.  Competition caused some to fail, but the survivors then started to acquire others--both for new markets as you say, but also to reduce competition to gain more control over pricing and profits.  It's the nature of the system.  

 

Your beer example, again, isn't the issue.  No one is really concerned when a large firm buys a niche player where the niche market is pretty competitive, as micro brews are. The issue is when large companies acquire other large companies that lead to the top 3-4 controlling 70-80% of the national market.  Those handful of firms then use their economic power to influence any regulation in their market--regulatory capture.  And, again, the only thing that keeps them from acquiring each other is the threat of Anti-trust when you are left with the possibility of only 2 firms in the market.  Even captured politicians have difficulty making excuses for that (unless they're FOBs--Friends of Bezos....)

[GG]

On 12/6/2018 at 11:47 AM, TPS said:

It is not a short-term phenomenon; it takes years for the process to shake out. Look at airline deregulation. It created a much more competitive industry and led to the creation of a lot of new regionals.  Competition caused some to fail, but the survivors then started to acquire others--both for new markets as you say, but also to reduce competition to gain more control over pricing and profits.  It's the nature of the system.  

 

Your beer example, again, isn't the issue.  No one is really concerned when a large firm buys a niche player where the niche market is pretty competitive, as micro brews are. The issue is when large companies acquire other large companies that lead to the top 3-4 controlling 70-80% of the national market.  Those handful of firms then use their economic power to influence any regulation in their market--regulatory capture.  And, again, the only thing that keeps them from acquiring each other is the threat of Anti-trust when you are left with the possibility of only 2 firms in the market.  Even captured politicians have difficulty making excuses for that (unless they're FOBs--Friends of Bezos....)

 

Why do you insist on using examples that prove my point?  You come from the economic theory that lowest prices are the only thing that matters in capitalism, while ignoring that making a consistent profit is most important.  That's why competition among many players may provide a short term benefit to the consumers, but in the end they lose because no private enterprise can run forever without turning a profit.

 

If you were right, then the regional airline boom that sprung from deregulation would still be thriving.  You do admit that competition caused most regionals to fail, which is exactly what is supposed to happen when smaller players try to compete in a highly capital intensive industry and they can't generate a profit.  Regional carriers cannot compete with the nationals because they don't drive enough traffic nor have the scale to buy cheaper fuel and planes.  They also can't compete on lucrative routes to larger markets and international flights.  The only thing they can do is try to charge lower fares, but that only results in a race to the bottom among all airlines and led to the inevitable shakeup.  The airline consolidation only happened when nearly every carrier went bankrupt and the only way to salvage the industry was to shrink the field.

 

You're also missing the broader picture of the beer market.  You think that it's a given that after a brewer bottles his batch it miraculously appears in the local stores and bars.  But in reality, that's where the massive scale of the nationals comes in.  How does the local brewer convince the distributor to carry his brand?  How does he convince the stores to allot shelf space for his six-packs and displace something else?  How does his new brew break into the line up of 6 taps in the local bar?  Now take that one local market and multiply by a couple of hundred, and tell me that the local guy doesn't need to either spend a boat load of money to grow his brand or to sell out if he wants to go big.   And those big players acquiring a smaller brewer does help the consumer because you get more choice.  If your theory was correct, by virtue of controlling 80% of the beer market, the top 2 conglomerates would easily charge $10 for a six pack of Bud and Coors.  But they don't.   Why not?

 

This has nothing to do with the predatory nature of the larger/established players, but everything to do with the nature of capitalism and trying to grow something from small to big.

 

The big players absolutely try to game regulations to stave off competition, the biggest being adding more regulations just for the hell of it because they know that smaller players can't afford the cost of regulatory compliance, let alone bear the cost of making the product itself.  

 

But even with all that, they are completely powerless against a tide of innovation that could take them down on any given day.  That's why governments shouldn't be protecting companies, because nobody knows in advance where that disruptive innovation is going to come from.

 

I continue to be blown away that we have a perfect example of sclerotic European economies that are the byproduct of protective regulatory states, and the response is that US should follow suit.

[Swill Merchant]

57 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Why do you insist on using examples that prove my point?  You come from the economic theory that lowest prices are the only thing that matters in capitalism, while ignoring that making a consistent profit is most important.  That's why competition among many players may provide a short term benefit to the consumers, but in the end they lose because no private enterprise can run forever without turning a profit.

 

If you were right, then the regional airline boom that sprung from deregulation would still be thriving.  You do admit that competition caused most regionals to fail, which is exactly what is supposed to happen when smaller players try to compete in a highly capital intensive industry and they can't generate a profit.  Regional carriers cannot compete with the nationals because they don't drive enough traffic nor have the scale to buy cheaper fuel and planes.  They also can't compete on lucrative routes to larger markets and international flights.  The only thing they can do is try to charge lower fares, but that only results in a race to the bottom among all airlines and led to the inevitable shakeup.  The airline consolidation only happened when nearly every carrier went bankrupt and the only way to salvage the industry was to shrink the field.

 

You're also missing the broader picture of the beer market.  You think that it's a given that after a brewer bottles his batch it miraculously appears in the local stores and bars.  But in reality, that's where the massive scale of the nationals comes in.  How does the local brewer convince the distributor to carry his brand?  How does he convince the stores to allot shelf space for his six-packs and displace something else?  How does his new brew break into the line up of 6 taps in the local bar?  Now take that one local market and multiply by a couple of hundred, and tell me that the local guy doesn't need to either spend a boat load of money to grow his brand or to sell out if he wants to go big.   And those big players acquiring a smaller brewer does help the consumer because you get more choice.  If your theory was correct, by virtue of controlling 80% of the beer market, the top 2 conglomerates would easily charge $10 for a six pack of Bud and Coors.  But they don't.   Why not?

 

This has nothing to do with the predatory nature of the larger/established players, but everything to do with the nature of capitalism and trying to grow something from small to big.

 

The big players absolutely try to game regulations to stave off competition, the biggest being adding more regulations just for the hell of it because they know that smaller players can't afford the cost of regulatory compliance, let alone bear the cost of making the product itself.  

 

But even with all that, they are completely powerless against a tide of innovation that could take them down on any given day.  That's why governments shouldn't be protecting companies, because nobody knows in advance where that disruptive innovation is going to come from.

 

I continue to be blown away that we have a perfect example of sclerotic European economies that are the byproduct of protective regulatory states, and the response is that US should follow suit.

America looking to Europe as a model to follow is like Amazon looking to Sears as a model to follow.

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Swill Merchant said:

America looking to Europe as a model to follow is like Amazon looking to Sears as a model to follow.

 

 

 

[TPS]

8 hours ago, GG said:

 

Why do you insist on using examples that prove my point?  You come from the economic theory that lowest prices are the only thing that matters in capitalism, while ignoring that making a consistent profit is most important.  That's why competition among many players may provide a short term benefit to the consumers, but in the end they lose because no private enterprise can run forever without turning a profit.

 

If you were right, then the regional airline boom that sprung from deregulation would still be thriving.  You do admit that competition caused most regionals to fail, which is exactly what is supposed to happen when smaller players try to compete in a highly capital intensive industry and they can't generate a profit.  Regional carriers cannot compete with the nationals because they don't drive enough traffic nor have the scale to buy cheaper fuel and planes.  They also can't compete on lucrative routes to larger markets and international flights.  The only thing they can do is try to charge lower fares, but that only results in a race to the bottom among all airlines and led to the inevitable shakeup.  The airline consolidation only happened when nearly every carrier went bankrupt and the only way to salvage the industry was to shrink the field.

 

You're also missing the broader picture of the beer market.  You think that it's a given that after a brewer bottles his batch it miraculously appears in the local stores and bars.  But in reality, that's where the massive scale of the nationals comes in.  How does the local brewer convince the distributor to carry his brand?  How does he convince the stores to allot shelf space for his six-packs and displace something else?  How does his new brew break into the line up of 6 taps in the local bar?  Now take that one local market and multiply by a couple of hundred, and tell me that the local guy doesn't need to either spend a boat load of money to grow his brand or to sell out if he wants to go big.   And those big players acquiring a smaller brewer does help the consumer because you get more choice.  If your theory was correct, by virtue of controlling 80% of the beer market, the top 2 conglomerates would easily charge $10 for a six pack of Bud and Coors.  But they don't.   Why not?

 

This has nothing to do with the predatory nature of the larger/established players, but everything to do with the nature of capitalism and trying to grow something from small to big.

 

The big players absolutely try to game regulations to stave off competition, the biggest being adding more regulations just for the hell of it because they know that smaller players can't afford the cost of regulatory compliance, let alone bear the cost of making the product itself.  

 

But even with all that, they are completely powerless against a tide of innovation that could take them down on any given day.  That's why governments shouldn't be protecting companies, because nobody knows in advance where that disruptive innovation is going to come from.

 

I continue to be blown away that we have a perfect example of sclerotic European economies that are the byproduct of protective regulatory states, and the response is that US should follow suit.

Make sure to read the entire interview...

 

https://promarket.org/regulators-do-nothing/

 

[Tiberius]

This is a good discussion between GG and TPS! 

Reminds me of the 1912 election 

 

 

Quote

 

Progressives and the Era of Trustbusting

Theodore Roosevelt is often given credit for launching the era of trustbusting, but he preferred government regulation of monopolies. His successor, William Howard Taft, wanted the courts to break up unlawful monopolies. Woodrow Wilson eventually adopted a combination of both approaches.

 

 

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-1-b-progressives-and-the-era-of-trustbusting.html

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Reminds me of the 1912 election

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

On 11/30/2018 at 5:48 AM, Joe in Winslow said:

Exactly. And this is why I actually agree with the left on one issue: We need campaign finance reform. No donations over a thousand dollars and NO corporate donations. Period. Also, lobbyists need to be banned, and violators imprisoned.

 

First, campaign finance reform is nothing more than a euphemism for the government suppressing political speech, which is incredibly dangerous, and the end of a truly free society.

 

Different mediums of speech carry different price tags, and they always will (taking out a newspaper add, a TV add, running a web based add initiative all have expenses to them and are all political speech).

 

Just because everyone can't afford to do something doesn't mean we should prohibit that thing.

 

Second, congress in comprised of rent seeking lawyers who aren't experts in much of anything, but are tasked with crafting complex industry specific law.  Experts representing industries and groups are required if we want law which makes sense.  That's what lobbyists are.

 

The correct solution, Joe, is to limit what the government can give away.  When you prohibit influence peddling, the dollars sent as rent payments dry up, and the rest is protected.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

First, campaign finance reform is nothing more than a euphemism for the government suppressing political speech, which is incredibly dangerous, and the end of a truly free society.

 

Different mediums of speech carry different price tags, and they always will (taking out a newspaper add, a TV add, running a web based add initiative all have expenses to them and are all political speech).

 

Just because everyone can't afford to do something doesn't mean we should prohibit that thing.

 

Second, congress in comprised of rent seeking lawyers who aren't experts in much of anything, but are tasked with crafting complex industry specific law.  Experts representing industries and groups are required if we want law which makes sense.  That's what lobbyists are.

 

The correct solution, Joe, is to limit what the government can give away.  When you prohibit influence peddling, the dollars sent as rent payments dry up, and the rest is protected.

 

I suppose if you have a view that corporations are PEOPLE, then you could warp reality to have that kind of view. But a wise man once said that a corporation is an ingenious device to provide personal profits without personal responsibility.  I don’t think corporations should be legally treated as people with the same protection of law, nor do I think the wealthy should have influence on government in proportion to their wealth . 

 

Because, TYTT, in the end when you allow that, you destroy the system you’re seeking to protect.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I suppose if you have a view that corporations are PEOPLE, then you could warp reality to have that kind of view. But a wise man once said that a corporation is an ingenious device to provide personal profits without personal responsibility.  I don’t think corporations should be legally treated as people with the same protection of law, nor do I think the wealthy should have influence on government in proportion to their wealth . 

 

Because, TYTT, in the end when you allow that, you destroy the system you’re seeking to protect.

 

so you believe individual human beings surrender their natural rights when they enter into private contracts?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

so you believe individual human beings surrender their natural rights when they enter into private contracts?

 

No. But the moment you treat a corporation as a person with the same inalienable rights as an ACTUAL person you open the door to significant problems. Problems like banks using their wealth to influence government into spending BILLIONS of tax dollars stolen from ACTUAL people to keep their doors open after they are poorly managed. Sorry, i see NO moral value in that.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

No. But the moment you treat a corporation as a person with the same inalienable rights as an ACTUAL person you open the door to significant problems. Problems like banks using their wealth to influence government into spending BILLIONS of tax dollars stolen from ACTUAL people to keep their doors open after they are poorly managed. Sorry, i see NO moral value in that.

 

Joe, you're literally saying that there are types of contracts individuals can enter in to which forfeit their rights.  Corporations are comprised of people.  They money they earn is earned by people.

 

The reality is that you don't like the fact that people with more money can have an outsized political impact if they choose to spend their money on candidates or messaging, so you seek to restrict their freedom of speech.

 

Again, the solution is to restrict the governments ability to sell influence, so there is nothing to buy.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

22 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Again, the solution is to restrict the governments ability to sell influence, so there is nothing to buy.

 

Great. How do you propose to make that happen when the system that needs to change IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATIONS?

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

22 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Great. How do you propose to make that happen when the system that needs to change IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATIONS?

 

 

I could say the exact same thing about your argument.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I could say the exact same thing about your argument.

 

My solution: pass a law without regards to the wishes of corporations. Make it an EO if you have to, and have at least ONE election without corporate money to get people into office who aren't paid for.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

My solution: pass a law without regards to the wishes of corporations. Make it an EO if you have to, and have at least ONE election without corporate money to get people into office who aren't paid for.

 

 

How does such a law get passed?  You've already argued that it couldn't be.

 

Also, such an executive order would be unConstitutional, and immediately struck down by the courts.

 

It's also the act of a dictator ruling by fiat.  Can you think of any reasons why that might not be a good idea?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

How does such a law get passed?  You've already argued that it couldn't be.

 

Also, such an executive order would be unConstitutional, and immediately struck down by the courts.

 

It's also the act of a dictator ruling by fiat.  Can you think of any reasons why that might not be a good idea?

 

And so, we're left to merely accept plutocratic oligarchy. SO much better than dictatorship. Yeah?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Joe in Winslow

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And so, we're left to merely accept plutocratic oligarchy. SO much better than dictatorship. Yeah?

 

 

 

No, we're not left to accept it.

 

Yes, it is better than living under a dictatorship.

 

Freedom is both fragile and precious, Joe.  It's also exceedingly rare and difficult to achieve.  It took humanity thousands of years to achieve.  Don't be so quick to discard it.