Conquer Club

Surely if they are demonstratably not in the best interests of the consumer they should be highly regulated?

Or is there something i'm missing?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amadoudiall ... rner-deal/

Lootifer wrote:Surely if they are demonstratably not in the best interests of the consumer they should be highly regulated?

Or is there something i'm missing?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amadoudiall ... rner-deal/

If you are being serious, looking at it that way, no you aren't missing anything, you are 100% in sync with Big Brother. If that is going to be the case, then whatever the government wants to control will be found one way or another to not be in the best interest of the consumer. And there is such a thing as "what's in the best interest for the government" and my government is not in the habit of putting the citizenry's priorities in front of it's own.

Monopoly regulation = Big Brother?

I feel like we as a society are buttfucked either way. Corporations and govt are near indistinguishable.

Army of GOD wrote:I feel like we as a society are buttfucked either way. Corporations and govt are near indistinguishable.

+1

Sounds like you guys would appreciate Marx's vision of government-less communes.

Lootifer wrote:Surely if they are demonstratably not in the best interests of the consumer they should be highly regulated?

Or is there something i'm missing?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amadoudiall ... rner-deal/

I fart in the general direction of all regulation.

And by 'all', I include the rule against competing against local internet providers.

For example, you can't run cables in a city which already has an internet provider--because of 'natural monopoly' arguments.

Once you eliminate the threat of potential competition--inadvertently by antitrust law, you only encourage greater monopolization.

Solution: let Comcast purchase AOL-Time Warner, but if the threat of competition was allowed (by law), then I wouldn't be concerned. The problem is that such competition is not allowed, so people are forced into an opinion between booing the purchase and supporting greater corporate control. This wouldn't be a problem if antitrust law was completely reformed (to remove power from the larger corporations).

mrswdk wrote:Monopoly regulation = Big Brother?

Is Comcast a monopoly?

I have no idea what Comcast is.

Army of GOD wrote:I feel like we as a society are buttfucked either way. Corporations and govt are near indistinguishable.

+50 Saxbucks

BigBallinStalin wrote:Solution: let Comcast purchase AOL-Time Warner, but if the threat of competition was allowed (by law), then I wouldn't be concerned. The problem is that such competition is not allowed, so people are forced into an opinion between booing the purchase and supporting greater corporate control

+50 Saxbucks

Example (from the article):

From Article that Doesn't Understand Rent Seeking wrote:Twenty states currently have laws that place significant restrictions on both public initiatives and public/private partnerships to create broadband alternatives. These bills are typically written by cable industry trade associations, with the aim of preventing the spread of projects like Google Fiber, which promise consumers far greater Internet speeds, unbundled from TV service, at reasonable cost.

EDIT - If the concern is competition for internet access and/or television, I live in the city where Comcast is headquartered and I have at least 5 different options for television and/or internet. So, not sure what the beef is here from a monopoly and control perspective. Take two examples from the article. First, there is an implication that because Comcast "controls" 35% of the internet access there is no ability for consumers to select another provider. Obviously that's not true, which is why the author implies the conclusion rather than states it. Second, the author notes that Comcast pressured Netflix. That seems to be par for the course with any company dealing with another company. I have no problem with that.

Am I understanding correctly BBS/TGD:

So regulation is not the answer (I could potentially agree), but since there exists other regulation that is more retarded than restricting uber-mergers, without fixing the rest of the system you would not support the merger? (TGD doesnt face the problem and BBS would never support regulation, but well, you know).

As long as the market is allowed to remain competitive (and this includes temporary 'monopolies' or concentration in certain markets), then I'm fine with mergers. Would I be against the merger since the system is not fixed? Mostly 'yes', but it depends because with political process/central planning (thus without prices, competition, and what not) I'm not sure of the outcome of that merger. It could be for the better or for the worse.

I just want to move the conversation beyond proximate concerns and toward fundamental concerns. Here's why this type of regulation is unnecessary and is used as a tool to restrict competition:

In the pre-antitrust Law days of the US, some companies tried merging and tried forming the ghastly Trust (cartel) to become more competitive than the newer entrants. It totally failed because they didn't have a mechanism for enforcing the collusion.

In the day of licenses and with the formation of anti-trust law, the entrant would face higher start-up costs or was beaten back with the power of the state. Most antitrust law, which is intended to prevent anti-predatory pricing/-price 'fixing'/-other sorts of misleading terms, is inadvertently used to file suits against one's competitors for... competing (i.e. offering products at lower prices, higher prices, or similar prices).

BigBallinStalin wrote:As long as the market is allowed to remain competitive (and this includes temporary 'monopolies' or concentration in certain markets), then I'm fine with mergers. Would I be against the merger since the system is not fixed? Mostly 'yes', but it depends because with political process/central planning (thus without prices, competition, and what not) I'm not sure of the outcome of that merger. It could be for the better or for the worse.

I just want to move the conversation beyond proximate concerns and toward fundamental concerns. Here's why this type of regulation is unnecessary and is used as a tool to restrict competition:

In the pre-antitrust Law days of the US, some companies tried merging and tried forming the ghastly Trust (cartel) to become more competitive than the newer entrants. It totally failed because they didn't have a mechanism for enforcing the collusion.

In the day of licenses and with the formation of anti-trust law, the entrant would face higher start-up costs or was beaten back with the power of the state. Most antitrust law, which is intended to prevent anti-predatory pricing/-price 'fixing'/-other sorts of misleading terms, is inadvertently used to file suits against one's competitors for... competing (i.e. offering products at lower prices, higher prices, or similar prices).

Pretty much this, although I would note in the bad old days with monopolies, I suspect there was as much government collusion as there is now.