The illusion of choice - who owns what

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Kittamaru, Sep 23, 2014.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Well it matters because one entity would controls pricing. So if one entity controlled pricing you would be paying more and quality would be lower because there would be no competition.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    But one entity doesn't control pricing. Prices vary from store to store, from city to city, from region to region.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    That wasn't the question you asked. One entity doesn't control pricing today. The markets for breakfast foods are competitive.

    Further prices will vary from market to market even with a monopoly as the monopolist seeks to maximize earnings. But prices will always be higher and quality will be less than one finds in competitive markets.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    The question I asked was, "If you have a choice between Cheerios and Special K, what difference does it make who owns the label?" My point is that I have a choice. Whether one or the other would be cheaper if they were made by small independent companies isn't relevant to that point. The choice I make is not based solely on price.
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Let me try to keep it simple for you. Would it matter to you if The product tasted like craps? Would it bother you if you didn't have a choice? At what point would price be a problem for you?

    You should care who owns companies because if those companies become a monopoly, you won't have the choices YOU have now.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    According to the OP they're already monopolies. I'm saying that that doesn't matter because I do have a choice between Cheerios and Special K, neither of them tastes like crap and I can afford whichever one I choose. If that situation "might get worse" in the future, then it "might become a problem". And pigs might evolve wings. For the moment, I'll stick to reality.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    And the OP is wrong, because, as I previously mentioned, there agency called The Federal Trade Commission which reviews mergers to ensure illegal monopolies do form.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    You said, "You should care who owns companies because if those companies become a monopoly, you won't have the choices YOU have now." Now you're saying that the FTC won't let them become monopolies? So no problem.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Right, no problem as long as the FTC does its job. The danger arises when wealthy interests use their wealth to buy legislation and regulatory bodies, giving those interests the ability to circumvent the law (e.g. The Great Recession of 2007-2009).
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2014
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    So, at worst, a short-term problem.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    No it's an ongoing problem. Good citizens must always be vigilant. Fra
    No, as evidenced by The Great Recession it is a petpetual problem which requires vigilance.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Government represents power, while business represents money, with money and power moving the world. Government grows power by getting larger and/or becoming more centralized. While business grows money by getting larger and more centralized; economies of scale.

    The last or rather the continuing recession began with Government or power. The democrats wanted affordable housing, like affordable health care, so all could own a house. The business sector initially rejected this request because they saw too many unqualified buyer who would default due to bad credit risk. Business saw the writing on the walls of having to absorb bad debt, lowering profits. The government power sweetened the pot and said they would guarantee the loans, letting the tax payer absorb the risk.

    Once this was guarantee was worked out, business became creative, and figured out innovative ways to get everyone in a home, since there was money to be made making loans and selling houses. There was a short term boom. Liberal revisionist history teaches from this point on, but does not set the stage for how this could happen; limited information for the low information voters. Business already saw what would happen.

    The reason this was allowed, was this allowed government to grow, adding more power to government, due to the need of more regulations. Power is not about efficiency. If you see five guys standing around a hole while one man digs, this is due to the needs of power. Five managers and one worker is more powerful, on paper than one manager standing around and five guys digging. That is less powerful on paper.

    Business is about money and profits, instead of power and would have five guys dig, or if one guy digging is enough, they would only have one manager. But if government is willing to underwrite business to use five managers standing around the hole, business will take them, but with then divert them to other tasks. This is more efficient, but sort of cheats the power system, giving it an excuse to grow to regulate this efficiency.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    EXCEPT, none of that is true...damn minor details again.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Power and money control things. However, power and money are separated by a buffer zone requiring each maximize themselves in different ways. Government leaders cannot openly use their position of power, to create wealth for themselves. Although they allowed themselves insider trading until they were caught. Power can do this more openly in dictatorships, but not very openly within democracies and republics.

    What they can do, legally, is tax the people and/or borrow money from the future, control this tax payer money, and then spend this money as they see fit.This spending is done in ways that benefit themselves; solicit campaign contributions from money with horse trading, fund PACS and give pork barrel.

    If Senator X gives Solar Power or Big Oil a large tax break, these companies are expected to kick back some of this for their next election. If you don't give you don't get it again. The amount given back as a contribution may only add to 1% of what they give from the tax payer money, but who cares, it is not their money, it is funny money. If you give Solar or Oil $20Billion in benefits and they kick back $20Million in donations, this is considered efficient for power. Power benefits by this wasteful math and low rate of return.

    Growing government means each level of power has more power=money to control, and therefore more leverage for their own indirect benefits, both in office and when the leave; campaign contributions, consultant/lecture work and other kickbacks. Growing power is wasteful of resources because more power needs more money and more resources to achieve the 1% yield. There is no incentive to decrease the size of government or the amount of money used, since this lowers the amount of power.

    Power stems from a military analogy. If you cut the funding to the army by 50%, it is harder to be as powerful a fighting force, for show or action.The same is true all levels of government; bigger is better in terms of show of power. If you cut the funding to EPA they are less of a threat and not a scary an army.

    The exception would be a more elite fighting force can be a very strong force, but they need to be more competent and more efficient; Navy Seals. However, if have a Navy Seal calibre work force, then power is often threatened, if it is not competent enough to lead such a force. The election process rarely picks this level of competence so a bigger and less competent work force is needed for a show of force, that is less threatening to the middle of the road leadership.

    Money is the opposite, in that money cannot be used to leverage personal power; directly, anymore than a position of power can be used to directly gain personal money. The divide between money and power has a buffer zone. Money, like power, will try to maximize itself, but in its own unique way, to better leverage the buffer zone.

    Money can't use it own power to force people to buy; mafia protection racket. They need to use Power to write laws ,like the Affordable Care, that can force people to buy medical stuff, whether they want it or not. Money can't do that on its own or else everyone with money would do it. It take a large donation using the 1% rule to get a large return to profits.

    In the free market, the way you make money is to lower costs, increase efficiency and make a better quality product. Unlike power that benefits by a bigger army of average people and resources, money benefits by a spartan force of people using the least amount of resources to produce the same quality output; navy seals. With the profit earned, you can rent to lease power to give you other market advantages in exchange for them getting money for donations and golden parachutes. This adds to the national waste via the 1% rule. The cost of medical care is not going down, due to power using the 1% kick back rule.

    I liked Mitt Romney because of his efficient business and money making experience, using a navy seal work force approach. He was going to bring this to government. Both parties got nervous, because this high level of competence in government would be very threatening to leadership that needs huge government for a show of competence. The tax payer does not need bloated bullies like IRS, EPA and Education to get the job don, if you had a Navy Seal Work force led by real leaders. Mitt did not need power to make money. Instead the 1% rule was used to direct the electorate to the less competent and the show of force via big government that benefits less competent leaders by the 1% rule.

    The better you understand money (business) and power (lawyers) the sooner one will realize that a navy seal government is possible with management leaders instead of charming confidence men/women leaders.
     

Share This Page