The socialists are coming for our nation's breasts

shooz · 02-22-2011, 10:08 AM

Wallstreet.
Pretty much a full on monopoly.

GeneV · 02-22-2011, 10:11 AM

Also, corruption of the state does not require a full on monopoly--only a large concentration of power.

shooz · 02-22-2011, 10:16 AM

Well, you have to maintain the illusion of competition.

GeneV · 02-22-2011, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by shooz

Well, you have to maintain the illusion of competition.

Defacto cartels can do that.

gokenin · 02-22-2011, 10:22 AM

Monopoly
Characteristics

Single seller: In a monopoly there is one seller of the good who produces all the output.[3] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single firm, and for practical purposes, the firm is the same as the industry.
Market power: Market power is the ability to affect the terms and conditions of exchange so that the price of the product is set by the firm (price is not imposed by the market as in perfect competition).[4][5] Although a monopoly's market power is high it is still limited by the demand side of the market. A monopoly faces a negatively sloped demand curve not a perfectly inelastic curve. Consequently, any price increase will result in the loss of some customers.
Firm and industry: In a monopoly, market, a firm is itself an industry. Therefore, there is no distinction between a firm and an industry in such a market.
Price Discrimination: A monopolist can change the price and quality of the product. He sells more quantities charging less price against the product in a highly elastic market and sells less quantities charging high price in a less elastic market.

I hate to burst your bubble shooz but there is no way "wall street" applies as a monopoly. You really should stop looking at the world through such a bias.

Parallax · 02-22-2011, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Microsoft, for one.

Monopoly does not mean you control every last dollar of the market, but that you have the power to dominate. The 91% for MS is pretty much there but it would take less than that.

Here are a few definitions that don't seem to support that:

Legal Definition of Monopoly

Monopoly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Monopoly power under the Sherman act

If, by definition, Microsoft is a monopoly; then it would seem they should be prosecuted under 15,1, 2. U.S. Code
the Sherman Act.

(I'm not a lawyer, but ~~I play one~~ like to argue with them on the internet

)

GeneV · 02-22-2011, 10:34 AM

Today, "monopoly" asit is clasically defined is not the usual issue, but "monopoly power," or the power to set or unduly influence prices or supply. Monopoly power does not require a single company market, but it is a very complex analysis, as is shown my this FTC paper. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGEQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F...eFxmv0YgCN_0_w

If wall street is a synonym for the NYSE, then I would suspect a good case could be made for its monopoly power, though I had never thought of it.

GeneV · 02-22-2011, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Here are a few definitions that don't seem to support that:

Legal Definition of Monopoly

Monopoly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Monopoly power under the Sherman act

If, by definition, Microsoft is a monopoly; then it would seem they should be prosecuted under 15,1, 2. U.S. Code
the Sherman Act.

(I'm not a lawyer, but ~~I play one~~ like to argue with them on the internet

)

The government did go after Microsoft. United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They were found at trial to be a monopoly and ordered to be broken up.

Not every monopoly is a crime, though and the appeals court overturned the remedy part without changing the holding that they are, in fact, a monopoly. I believe there was a settlement while an appeal to the SCOTUS was contemplated.

ConstIva · 02-22-2011, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Shooz:

Tried that.

Tried... either not enough or not smart enough.
The latter is more likely: our poiliticians lately didn't convince me of their brilliant wit (and knowledge).

Nesster, to my opinion, is absolutely right: "There are no other alternatives."

Nesster · 02-22-2011, 10:43 AM

I'm with you two: the term monopoly over reaches what's reality here... and only serves to weaken the analysis of the problem

shooz · 02-22-2011, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Defacto cartels can do that.

What Gene said. +

Too big to fail works for me.

Unless you prefer extortionist.

Nesster · 02-22-2011, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by shooz

What Gene said. +

Too big to fail works for me.

Unless you prefer extortionist.

That's more like it: corporate entities are so large and intertwined that it is to a host society's best interest to limit the risk somehow. Capitalism that works on a smaller scale - with many many independent operators - becomes inefficient and a risk when capital is overly concentrated.

Regulation and taxation are two ways: but it really doesn't matter as ANY such will be attacked at length and with fury by the affected industries.

Parallax · 02-22-2011, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

The government did go after Microsoft. United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They were found at trial to be a monopoly and ordered to be broken up.

Not every monopoly is a crime, though and the appeals court overturned the remedy part without changing the holding that they are, in fact, a monopoly. I believe there was a settlement while an appeal to the SCOTUS was contemplated.

Originally posted by Parallax

.......................

(I'm not a lawyer, but ~~I play one~~ like to argue with them on the internet

)

Even when I loose..................

shooz · 02-22-2011, 11:07 AM

Now we're getting somewhere.

I once suggested to a TPer that all actions and decisions of a publicly traded corporation be aired publicly. Full disclosure, top to bottom. Including those decisions made by wallstreet boards.

The response was a gaped jaw.

mikemike · 02-22-2011, 11:38 AM

I don't really see very many monopolized industries in the US except for pharmaceuticals where drug companies have a a legalized monopoly over patent drugs during the patent period.

I think a bigger problem facing the US competitive system at present is monopsonies like Wal-mart, big agrobusiness. There purchasing power compared to relatively small suppliers who produce the goods they sell allows them to dictate unsavory and short sighted production methods such as manufacturing in china with subpar materials and use of GMOs and fertilizers.

02-22-2011, 10:37 AM	#98
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax Here are a few definitions that don't seem to support that: Legal Definition of Monopoly Monopoly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Monopoly power under the Sherman act If, by definition, Microsoft is a monopoly; then it would seem they should be prosecuted under 15,1, 2. U.S. Code the Sherman Act. (I'm not a lawyer, but ~~I play one~~ like to argue with them on the internet ) The government did go after Microsoft. United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They were found at trial to be a monopoly and ordered to be broken up. Not every monopoly is a crime, though and the appeals court overturned the remedy part without changing the holding that they are, in fact, a monopoly. I believe there was a settlement while an appeal to the SCOTUS was contemplated. Last edited by GeneV; 02-22-2011 at 10:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Democrat Socialists of America	designinme_1976	General Talk	91	12-07-2010 05:27 AM
you had to see this one coming	gokenin	General Talk	7	08-23-2010 12:51 PM
Obama's health care law will increase the nation's health care costs	Artesian	General Talk	187	05-20-2010 10:18 AM
WOW! What thighs and breasts!	Thumper473	Post Your Photos!	10	02-17-2009 02:11 PM
What's Coming	Rush2112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-27-2008 09:02 AM

02-22-2011, 10:08 AM	#91
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Wallstreet. Pretty much a full on monopoly.

02-22-2011, 10:11 AM	#92
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Also, corruption of the state does not require a full on monopoly--only a large concentration of power.

02-22-2011, 10:16 AM	#93
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Well, you have to maintain the illusion of competition.

02-22-2011, 10:17 AM	#94
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by shooz Well, you have to maintain the illusion of competition. Defacto cartels can do that.

02-22-2011, 10:22 AM	#95
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899	Monopoly Characteristics Single seller: In a monopoly there is one seller of the good who produces all the output.[3] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single firm, and for practical purposes, the firm is the same as the industry. Market power: Market power is the ability to affect the terms and conditions of exchange so that the price of the product is set by the firm (price is not imposed by the market as in perfect competition).[4][5] Although a monopoly's market power is high it is still limited by the demand side of the market. A monopoly faces a negatively sloped demand curve not a perfectly inelastic curve. Consequently, any price increase will result in the loss of some customers. Firm and industry: In a monopoly, market, a firm is itself an industry. Therefore, there is no distinction between a firm and an industry in such a market. Price Discrimination: A monopolist can change the price and quality of the product. He sells more quantities charging less price against the product in a highly elastic market and sells less quantities charging high price in a less elastic market. I hate to burst your bubble shooz but there is no way "wall street" applies as a monopoly. You really should stop looking at the world through such a bias.

02-22-2011, 10:30 AM	#96
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV Microsoft, for one. Monopoly does not mean you control every last dollar of the market, but that you have the power to dominate. The 91% for MS is pretty much there but it would take less than that. Here are a few definitions that don't seem to support that: Legal Definition of Monopoly Monopoly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Monopoly power under the Sherman act If, by definition, Microsoft is a monopoly; then it would seem they should be prosecuted under 15,1, 2. U.S. Code the Sherman Act. (I'm not a lawyer, but ~~I play one~~ like to argue with them on the internet )

02-22-2011, 10:34 AM	#97
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Today, "monopoly" asit is clasically defined is not the usual issue, but "monopoly power," or the power to set or unduly influence prices or supply. Monopoly power does not require a single company market, but it is a very complex analysis, as is shown my this FTC paper. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGEQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F...eFxmv0YgCN_0_w If wall street is a synonym for the NYSE, then I would suspect a good case could be made for its monopoly power, though I had never thought of it.

02-22-2011, 10:42 AM	#99
ConstIva Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 102	Originally posted by Shooz: Tried that. Tried... either not enough or not smart enough. The latter is more likely: our poiliticians lately didn't convince me of their brilliant wit (and knowledge). Nesster, to my opinion, is absolutely right: "There are no other alternatives."

02-22-2011, 10:43 AM	#100
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	I'm with you two: the term monopoly over reaches what's reality here... and only serves to weaken the analysis of the problem

02-22-2011, 10:47 AM	#101
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Originally posted by GeneV Defacto cartels can do that. What Gene said. + Too big to fail works for me. Unless you prefer extortionist.

02-22-2011, 10:57 AM	#102
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by shooz What Gene said. + Too big to fail works for me. Unless you prefer extortionist. That's more like it: corporate entities are so large and intertwined that it is to a host society's best interest to limit the risk somehow. Capitalism that works on a smaller scale - with many many independent operators - becomes inefficient and a risk when capital is overly concentrated. Regulation and taxation are two ways: but it really doesn't matter as ANY such will be attacked at length and with fury by the affected industries.

02-22-2011, 11:05 AM	#103
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV The government did go after Microsoft. United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They were found at trial to be a monopoly and ordered to be broken up. Not every monopoly is a crime, though and the appeals court overturned the remedy part without changing the holding that they are, in fact, a monopoly. I believe there was a settlement while an appeal to the SCOTUS was contemplated. Originally posted by Parallax ....................... (I'm not a lawyer, but ~~I play one~~ like to argue with them on the internet ) Even when I loose..................

02-22-2011, 11:07 AM	#104
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Now we're getting somewhere. I once suggested to a TPer that all actions and decisions of a publicly traded corporation be aired publicly. Full disclosure, top to bottom. Including those decisions made by wallstreet boards. The response was a gaped jaw.

02-22-2011, 11:38 AM	#105
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	I don't really see very many monopolized industries in the US except for pharmaceuticals where drug companies have a a legalized monopoly over patent drugs during the patent period. I think a bigger problem facing the US competitive system at present is monopsonies like Wal-mart, big agrobusiness. There purchasing power compared to relatively small suppliers who produce the goods they sell allows them to dictate unsavory and short sighted production methods such as manufacturing in china with subpar materials and use of GMOs and fertilizers.