Proof That The State And Federal Governments Not Only Don't Give A Damn About Monopolies

[Geiseric]

http://www.com.state.oh.us/press/display.asp?ID=1225 (news story pulled off of /.)

Case in point. Statewide agreement. Individual communities can no longer control the bastards, its all up to the state. Which means everyone gets fucked over.

[thecoalition]

something about that just doesn't seem right. but hey, those with the deepest pockets shall inherit the government...

[Hexa]

Whoa guys wouldnt this be ANTI-MONOPOLOY.
Time-Warner is a NEW company when it comes to cable service. So right now by putting a new company into the video service prividing industry they would be reducing monopoly so that comcast is no longer the only one providing this service.

Either that or im totally wrong

[Sdzier2]

Not everywhere is bad. I know in Chicago they will not allow a single walmart to open because it will take away from community business. I think thats pretty anti monopoly to me....

[Geiseric]

Whoa guys wouldnt this be ANTI-MONOPOLOY.
Time-Warner is a NEW company when it comes to cable service. So right now by putting a new company into the video service prividing industry they would be reducing monopoly so that comcast is no longer the only one providing this service.

Its not clear cut monopoly, but what it is is the state taking control of who operates the local cable network away from the communitiy, which allows that company complete control, and the community has no power to fight back, it all must be done through the state. So it is a monopoly, in the sense that that small community has only one option, to continue to purchase from them, or not at all, no longer having the option to bring in a competing company on the existing network.

[NoPeace]

http://www.com.state.oh.us/press/display.asp?ID=1225 (news story pulled off of /.)

Case in point. Statewide agreement. Individual communities can no longer control the bastards, its all up to the state. Which means everyone gets fucked over.

umm dude just look at gas prices lol. thats a collective monopoly where a group of companies get to together and say "how about instead of fighting to get the lowerst prices, lets all group together and change all of our prices to fit within this range of prices and raise and lower together in order to control the prices range and make more money". even though that hasnt been seen before, it's still illegal and needs to be stopped but of course bush is sucking the gas companies balls and vice versa so they arnt doing shit.

[Geiseric]

Price fixing is nothing new, even when it comes across as gas cartels, making where the actually monopoly occurs ambiguous, there are plenty such monopolies very clearly appearing stateside, but it is non-the-less annoying to see it whenever it occurs, and further clarification of my dislike of capitalism.

[NoPeace]

Price fixing is nothing new, even when it comes across as gas cartels, making where the actually monopoly occurs ambiguous, there are plenty such monopolies very clearly appearing stateside, but it is non-the-less annoying to see it whenever it occurs, and further clarification of my dislike of capitalism.

however, there are multiple gas companies. the term monoply generally applies to a single company that buys out its competition in order to become either the most powerful supplier or the only supplier so that it can set the prices and control the market. the gas companies are not trying to buy eachother out but instead unifying together to create a single entity of multiple corporations so that the prices can be fixed. in that sense it is a new form of monopolization

[TheScotsman]

Not everywhere is bad. I know in Chicago they will not allow a single walmart to open because it will take away from community business. I think thats pretty anti monopoly to me....

i Totally disagree, this is protectionism in the first degree.

I absolutely hate china-mart, er, wal-mart in every way possible. But to remove them from competition is only to allow the over-priced, sub-standard businesses continue on the same course of hosing those forced to shop in a non-competitive environment.

I haven't been in a wally for well over 3 years. None are close, and I really don't need their garbage, but to not allow them to sell the UDS1.00/ton crappy cookies just lets everyone else charge overinflated prices for the same cookies. While I think some of their business practices are a bit questionable, you can not call them a monopoly. In a monopoly there is only one choice, and only that choice as a result of the companies controls. Essentially it leaves no options. (like dealing with the city utility goons... or buying your ale at the city muni... anyone else have to deal with a muni? sucks, eh?) In wal marts case there are other choices... the problem (for the other stores) is that they are not competitive. That is not a monopoly, but true capitalism in action. I have noticed that once a wall-mart shows up the locals either quit screwing the public, or go broke. I have trouble with wally, I find myself both hating, and admiring them at the same time... but they are not a monopoly.


now the disclaimer:
Any incoherence, rambling, or otherwise stupid comments are a result of the 10+ fuller's pride ESB's I found myself forced to save from old age.

[lemmiwinks]

Seems like a bad idea. I doubt the companies will exercise their monopoly rights to increase rates a lot or decrease service (at least in the short term), because doing so would probably anger the public and cause the companies to lose their power, but competition is always better.

Price fixing is nothing new, even when it comes across as gas cartels, making where the actually monopoly occurs ambiguous, there are plenty such monopolies very clearly appearing stateside, but it is non-the-less annoying to see it whenever it occurs, and further clarification of my dislike of capitalism.

however, there are multiple gas companies. the term monoply generally applies to a single company that buys out its competition in order to become either the most powerful supplier or the only supplier so that it can set the prices and control the market. the gas companies are not trying to buy eachother out but instead unifying together to create a single entity of multiple corporations so that the prices can be fixed. in that sense it is a new form of monopolization

The problem with oil is more OPEC, which is a cartel (basically acts as a monopoly), than a company like Exxon. Sure, they aren't helping any, but the big problem is OPEC.

Not everywhere is bad. I know in Chicago they will not allow a single walmart to open because it will take away from community business. I think thats pretty anti monopoly to me....

i Totally disagree, this is protectionism in the first degree.

I absolutely hate china-mart, er, wal-mart in every way possible. But to remove them from competition is only to allow the over-priced, sub-standard businesses continue on the same course of hosing those forced to shop in a non-competitive environment.

I haven't been in a wally for well over 3 years. None are close, and I really don't need their garbage, but to not allow them to sell the UDS1.00/ton crappy cookies just lets everyone else charge overinflated prices for the same cookies. While I think some of their business practices are a bit questionable, you can not call them a monopoly. In a monopoly there is only one choice, and only that choice as a result of the companies controls. Essentially it leaves no options. (like dealing with the city utility goons... or buying your ale at the city muni... anyone else have to deal with a muni? sucks, eh?) In wal marts case there are other choices... the problem (for the other stores) is that they are not competitive. That is not a monopoly, but true capitalism in action. I have noticed that once a wall-mart shows up the locals either quit screwing the public, or go broke. I have trouble with wally, I find myself both hating, and admiring them at the same time... but they are not a monopoly.


now the disclaimer:
Any incoherence, rambling, or otherwise stupid comments are a result of the 10+ fuller's pride ESB's I found myself forced to save from old age.

They may not be a monopoly, but they certainly aren't a positive factor on our economy. I would call it a conglomerate, and one big enough that they can use their power as a massive company to force smaller companies out of business. The smaller companies may not have better prices, but they're certainly better for local, and in turn national, economies.

[Sdzier2]

Seems like a bad idea. I doubt the companies will exercise their monopoly rights to increase rates a lot or decrease service (at least in the short term), because doing so would probably anger the public and cause the companies to lose their power, but competition is always better.



They may not be a monopoly, but they certainly aren't a positive factor on our economy. I would call it a conglomerate, and one big enough that they can use their power as a massive company to force smaller companies out of business. The smaller companies may not have better prices, but they're certainly better for local, and in turn national, economies.

This is exactly the reason they do it. In Chicago, there are many small shopes which have been a part of many communities for decades. By having a large retailer like a super wal-mart come in and drive all of the small shops out of business your taking money away from the community and sending it off to coporate america. The whole purpose is to keep all of those mom and pop stores open and keep the community thriving. I think its a great idea in my opinion.

[lemmiwinks]

Agreed. Plus you get some nice stuff that wouldn't be sold at a Wal-Mart, like a lot of cultural items.

[TheScotsman]

The "mom & pop" stores seldom, if ever have any form of employee health plan. The seldom employ the "average" worker in a full time role, (as a result of the unemployment tax requirements.) They avoid categories of people that would cause additional costs in the form of work comp. There is seldom much chance for any form of advancement.

I fail to see how keeping a substandard business in operation at the cost to both the employee, and consumer makes it "better" for the local economy.

Local operations that merit survival, do survive, and usually the better for the result. I would have no problem selling my pieces in a store up the street from a wal-mart.

My only real problem with the outfit stems from their Chinese sources of most of their goods. Although, even that really doesn't concern me in the long run. Any of us "old timers" here would remember in the early 1980's, the Japanese were importing much the same stuff, at prices far below similar USA produced items. The nation was sure the Japanese were taking over. Then came the 90's, and all the businesses moving to Mexico, and Korea. Now it's china, next I would venture it will be India.

You get what you pay for. If you want a 39.95 particle board table, or some bananas ready to turn black in 2 days, wally is the place. Eliminating wal mart does nothing but keeping people that can only afford the 39.95 particle board table from having a table. From what I have seen a superstore will close the rubbish, and improve the good locals.

any time any industry needs to be protected from competition it means the consumers are getting buggered.

[Geiseric]

The problem with that is the nature of corporations is to ensure zero competition, because that allows for price inflation. Small businesses in a healthy economy will create competition, whereas large corporations being less invested in communities, will do what is necessary to end competition becuase it is very costly to them, and then move forward to enact inflated prices.

BTW, I love how all my serious discussion threads allways spin out of control. (taps fingers together) Exxxcelent.