Official political correctness thread

Seve wrote:

and our most ardent free market politician, former Reserve Bank Govenator Dr Don Brash, certainly does think that a trade imbalance involving private sector debt is a concern.

Well it is nice that he is concerned, but just hope that the government doesn't step in to "help":affraid:

Seve wrote:

IMO you've been watching too much "Happy Days"

I've been stiffed a few times in my life, but it has nothing to do with being non-unionized. C'est la vie.

Seve wrote:

capitalism is based on consumption, the more the better
so if I go to a sports ground and don't buy a drink and a hot dog, even though I would like to, because I baulk at the price, because I know I am being ripped off, that's not good capitalism
in fact public pressure from consumer groups eventually forced businesses operating at the airport to lower their prices to that charged normally
now I can go to the airport and eat, rather than feeling hungry but not eating on principle
sports grounds are still a problem though, both poor quality and over priced - due to lazy monopolistic practise
no incentive to improve product beyond the minimum of edibility and no competition to keep the price down to the same level as the outside world.

This is very good. The consumer at work, influencing the market. I will happily complain to companies about pricing too. It's almost my duty as a consumer, but what I don't want is the government helping by sticking its nose into pricing issues. Yikes. Not to suggest you are suggesting such a thing but you do provide a good example of the options that consumers have, to try and force the best deal that they can get. Its a beautiful thing. Meanwhile I do pay the prices at the baseball park just like every body else. I just factor it into the overall price of the outing, including tickets, transport etc and what I might blow in a bar after the game. It's all part of the broader entertainment budget equation.

Seve wrote:

removing restrictive legislation in order to allow "parallel importing" has lowered the price of many consumer goods over here,

good work getting that restricted legislation removed :)

Seve wrote:

we must fight cartel and monopoly behaviour wherever we find it!
I'm amazed you don't embrace that

Ok well sign me up for the next fight, but right now I don't see any monopolies that I need to be fighting. But last time I checked it was government regulators that prevented a new telecom player from entering the market. The same regulator that adds other useless fees to my cable bill, but that battle is ongoing.The federal telecommunications regulator is a divison of "Hell On Earth Inc."

Seve wrote:

you seem to think the consumer exists to be milked by the supplier, as you were for most of your life, by the music industry?
wherever you find a product with no price variance across different suppliers, it's a sure sign of cartel behaviour and that the consumer is not getting a fair deal
super profits should be for those who provide a superior product or superior service, not for those who merely collude together to pervert market forces
I'm not suggesting that government regulation is the answer (although it may form part of it), I'm just pointing out examples of distortions in the market, which demonstrate how, in the real world, a free market often doesn't function as theory suggests it should
and that we need to acknowledge the existence distortions and perversions and work to eliminate them in some way

I appreciate that you express concern over pricing and I do too and I also very much appreciate that we don't need the government sticking its nose in, regulating prices. In fact that's not even on the horizon, so no worries there. Music industry pricing is something I've dealth with all my life. I simply buy where I see value. Consumer behaviour is not uniform though, nor can it be. Where I see value, others may not and vice versa. C'est la vie. As for free market theory, I don't give the theory a moments thought. As long as the market is free. ie bare minimum taxing and regulation. I'm happy. If I don't like something I'll protest with my wallet. I'm pissed off today because the price of grapefruits are up again. $1.49 each. I've never paid that. I draw the line at $1.29 each and even that's a rip-off. At that price, I compensate by cutting them in half or even thirds to bring down my average daily grapefruit cost Must be something going down in the grapefruit belt. Anyway I'm not buying grapefruits at all this week. That's my protest as a consumer. Going to switch to oranges instead for my daily citrus intake, but I much prefer grapefruits, so I am rather grumpy, but that's life.

However if the federal department-of-round-pinkish-citrus-product-regulation stepped in, supply would probably be choked within a week and prices would double. Hopefully the department-staff are catching up on their sick days and or vacation-time, or both and won't notice prices have gone up.

Sharky wrote:

Keynes was one of the most dangerous thinkers of the last century. You want an Einstein or Newton, look to Adam Smith.

Keynes was one of the great heroes of the twentieth century, saving western civilization from the brink of collapse. The dangerous thinkers were the market fundamentalists like Friedman, and the politicians who embraced his backwards economics.

Keynes is the patron saint of "stimulus."

From Mark Steyn's latest After America.

Keynesoffered up this characteristically offhand dismissal of any obligation to the future: " In the long run we are all dead." The Greeks are Keynesian to a man: the mob is rioting for the right to carry on suspending reality until they're all dead. After that who cares?

On another tired old saw, "Peak oil" fearmongering—the idea that we've reached the peak of oil production and that it's about to run out- sounds more like a fantasy scenario designed by statists to justify their fetish for higher taxation, greater government control, more regulation, and the mass switchover to expensive, pointless energy sources that don't work, such as wind power. Some levity from Dennis Miller, who says: "Relax. We'll replace oil when we need to. American ingenuity will kick in and the next great fortune will be made. It's not pretty but it is historically accurate. We need to run out of oil first. That's why I drive an SUV—so we run out of it more quickly. I consider myself to be at the vanguard of the environmental movement and I think individuals who insist on driving hybrids are just prolonging our dilemma and I think that's just selfish..."
Now that is politically incorrect. Imagine the tut-tutting if one were to speak like that whilst engaged with the correct thinking crowd.

But behind the humour, his point rings trueThe profit motive is far more effective in bringing a product to market than the machinations of government czars. Why allow government to bankrupt our economies with all its pointless alternative energy intitiatives and climate-change hysteria when historicially entreprenurial ingenuity and innovation will bring the next energy source to market, when its needed. In the meantime there are Alberta oil-sands resources to be developed and brought to market and jobs-and-prosperity to be had. Are you listening Obama? Robert Redford? Darryl Hannah and whoever else has the ear of this administration?

HJackson wrote:

Keynes was one of the great heroes of the twentieth century, saving western civilization from the brink of collapse.

Keynesian state recklessness is what brought us into this current crisis via market regulations, and thanks to the likes of Obama and Cameron, is still grinding us (those of who aren't a member of the political class) down with their crazed deficit spending.

How exactly are the likes of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sewell "villains" of 20th century economies? I can't quite see how laissez-faire capitalism is "backwards."

"In the long run, we are all dead."

Yeah, well you certainly help sign our death warrant, Johnny boy.

Sharky wrote:

HJackson wrote:

Keynes was one of the great heroes of the twentieth century, saving western civilization from the brink of collapse.

Keynesian state recklessness is what brought us into this current crisis via market regulations, and thanks to the likes of Obama and Cameron, is still grinding us (those of who aren't a member of the political class) down with their crazed deficit spending.
[/i]

Yeah, well you certainly help sign our death warrant, Johnny boy.

Cameron?
I thought he was the guy who was trying to cut spending?
:scratch:

Seve wrote:

Sharky wrote:

HJackson wrote:

Keynes was one of the great heroes of the twentieth century, saving western civilization from the brink of collapse.

Keynesian state recklessness is what brought us into this current crisis via market regulations, and thanks to the likes of Obama and Cameron, is still grinding us (those of who aren't a member of the political class) down with their crazed deficit spending.
[/i]

Yeah, well you certainly help sign our death warrant, Johnny boy.

Cameron?
I thought he was the guy who was trying to cut spending?

Empty promises. The guy's a TINO (Tory In Name Only).

Makeshift Python wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/high-school-basketball-co_n_1095995.html

Think this coach said these remarks because the student is black or because his grades are down?

Amazing, the school has a ready-made handy "Racial/Ethnic or Sexual Harassment Incident Report Form" ready to go when needed. Business must be good.

Sharky wrote:

brought us into this current crisis via market regulations

Please dont tell me the crisis is to blame because we had market regulations?

I'm not one for large amounts of government intervention, but if this crisis taught us anything we needed just that bit more regulation and responsibility in the market - if not from the government, then certainly from the market itself. Hopefully from the market itself, but if not, then also hopefully the government will step in to prevent things going so out of control again.

But that only really covers the housing/securitization side of it - treat the welfare state and other assorted problems as you will.

colly wrote:

Sharky wrote:

brought us into this current crisis via market regulations

Please dont tell me the crisis is to blame because we had market regulations?

To be frank, it's a little bit more complex than that. It was both housing market over-regulation and deregulation of the banks that lead to the collapse. I've brought it up before and won't go into now, though I understand Tiff's on night duty. He'll explain it.

tiffanywint wrote:

Meanwhile I do pay the prices at the baseball park just like every body else. I just factor it into the overall price of the outing, including tickets, transport etc and what I might blow in a bar after the game. It's all part of the broader entertainment budget equation.

except that in all those other markets you mention there is competition which ensures that you get the quality and value
tickets - you can choose to watch something else, another sport, a movie, a play or some other type of show, so there is a free market, with competition and choice
transport - you can choose your car, a bus, a train, a taxi…
bar - you can choose what sort of bar you go to and what brand of drink to consume
but once inside the stadium its like going behind the old iron curtain, you are a captive to barely edible food and exorbitant pricing, brought about by the monopolistic conditions, where there is no incentive to do better, because there is no choice, no competition, no "free" market...

tiffanywint wrote:

As for free market theory, I don't give the theory a moments thought. As long as the market is free.

but the market for music wasn't "free", it was perverted and distorted by the cartel behaviour of the music industry
music, like sport and art, is a "sentiment" driven market, which makes it more susceptible to unfair exploitation than more "empirically" oriented markets, like that for washing powder

tiffanywint wrote:

If I don't like something I'll protest with my wallet. I'm pissed off today because the price of grapefruits are up again. $1.49 each. I've never paid that. I draw the line at $1.29 each and even that's a rip-off.

fresh produce isn't a good example, as prices go up and down all the time, because the market is dominated by the weather, so other factors that may be at work are hard to discern
I still prefer the music analogy
back in the 70s if Led Zep came to town, the concert price might be X, but when Hogsnort Rupert came to town it was somewhat less, why? because Led Zep were more popular, the demand was greater
however on the record shelves, when a new Led Zep album came out it was the same price as the new Hogsnort Rupert album, but why on earth should that be?
when you buy a record, are you paying for a black revolving disc that makes a noise?
is all noise of equal value?
or are you paying to hear a particular artist that you like?
this is a demonstration of a market that was not "free" at all, it was a market perverted and distorted by the cartel behaviour of the record industry
behaviour that, one way or another, needs to be rooted out and eliminated wherever it is found

Seve, I don't know what you are going on about. I don't want Major League Baseball to have competition. There would be no Major League Baseball otherwise. The attraction is that the best players are all playing in one league. Long live the monopoly!

As for the music industry,again I apologize for not feeling victimized but still I don't have to buy the music if I don't want to. I can adjust my consumption accordingly and it will be different from someone else's consumption or perception of value, and the industry will adjust its business model accordingly. But who cares what a Led Zep album costs vis a vis Hogsnort. The price will always be what the market will bear, and the market seems to have born that price, quite well for decades now. Led Zep cds are everywhere and lots of people have made lots of cash peddling Led Zep. I am knee deep in Led Zep, from cd and LP collections to dvd and blu-ray, to books about the band, and my life is that much richer for it. Meanwhile grapefruits are still $1.49 each. I am not happy. As a discriminating consumer I continue my protesting against the current grapefruit business model. Today I had an orange, which I think might have cost more than buying the overpriced grapefruit and cutting it in half. Can't win. I surrender to the nanny state. Regulate my grapefruit pricing please. Even if the fixed-price doubles the cost per juicy orb, at least I will be spared the market volatility. Give me order. I can't handle the liberty.

Quote :

behaviour that, one way or another, needs to be rooted out and eliminated wherever it is found

And who exactly might be doing the rooting? I'm afraid to ask.

good quote from Mark Steyn's latest After America

"Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high. Big Government is the small option: it’s the guarantee of smaller freedom, smaller homes, smaller cars, smaller opportunities, smaller lives. — P.347"

TW - random question on your beliefs of having a truly free market: are you opposed to the idea of the "dirty float" in which the Fed buys its own currency to intervene when the market appears to be devaluing it?

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve, I don't know what you are going on about. I don't want Major League Baseball to have competition. There would be no Major League Baseball otherwise. The attraction is that the best players are all playing in one league. Long live the monopoly!

once again you've missed the point aka timmer
I'm not advocating more baseball teams, that would make no difference, because the decision as to which team you support is more likely to be based on the performance of the team, rather than the quality and value of food provided at the stadium (and rightly so!)
what I'm advocating is multiple contracts for selling food inside the stadium, because the economies of scale of having one contractor to supply food is out weighed by the effect of the monopolistic conditions on the quality of food offered and the price charged
with multiple contracts there could be a competitive free market for food inside the stadium and the consumer would benefit

tiffanywint wrote:

As for the music industry, again I apologize for not feeling victimized but still I don't have to buy the music if I don't want to. I can adjust my consumption accordingly and it will be different from someone else's consumption or perception of value, and the industry will adjust its business model accordingly. But who cares what a Led Zep album costs vis a vis Hogsnort. The price will always be what the market will bear, and the market seems to have born that price, quite well for decades now. Led Zep cds are everywhere and lots of people have made lots of cash peddling Led Zep. I am knee deep in Led Zep, from cd and LP collections to dvd and blu-ray, to books about the band, and my life is that much richer for it.

yes, but how much Hogsnort Rupert do you have?
and how much might you have if Hogsnort Rupert had been half the price of Led Zep?
how much richer would you life have been if you had heard "Pretty Girl" or "Auntie Alice Bought Us This"?

tiffanywint wrote:

Meanwhile grapefruits are still $1.49 each. I am not happy. As a discriminating consumer I continue my protesting against the current grapefruit business model. Today I had an orange, which I think might have cost more than buying the overpriced grapefruit and cutting it in half. Can't win. I surrender to the nanny state. Regulate my grapefruit pricing please. Even if the fixed-price doubles the cost per juicy orb, at least I will be spared the market volatility. Give me order. I can't handle the liberty.

the simple answer is move to New Zealand, grapefruit grows pretty much all year round, you can have a tree in your garden, next to the lemon tree, that will keep you from ever having to buy it at the "market"
my other recommendation is to try a Pomelo, it looks like a giant mandarin and has the flavour of a grapefruit without the sourness

Seve wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

behaviour that, one way or another, needs to be rooted out and eliminated wherever it is found

And who exactly might be doing the rooting? I'm afraid to ask.

spoken like an Australian? I mean "root" in pig context, rather than the plant context, or the barracking context (North American), or the sexual context (Australian)
we all share this collective responsibility

tiffanywint wrote:

good quote from Mark Steyn's latest After America
Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high. Big Government is the small option: it’s the guarantee of smaller freedom, smaller homes, smaller cars, smaller opportunities, smaller lives. — P.347

fair enough, but what's that got to do with encouraging a free market with greater consumer choice and competition? (which leads to more innovation, better quality and cheaper prices)
rather than being satisfied with a distorted perversion of the free market, dominated by a few big players who use anti competitive business practises to put up barriers to entry for potential rivals
thus creating a cartel or monopolistic environment where there is no incentive for innovation, improving quality or lowering prices
and the consumer is a prisoner who's only choice is to buy a substandard, overpriced product or go without

colly wrote:

TW - random question on your beliefs of having a truly free market: are you opposed to the idea of the "dirty float" in which the Fed buys its own currency to intervene when the market appears to be devaluing it?

We have problems when the fed has to print more money to buy more money. That fuels inflation, drives up debt, and puts even more of a burden on the taxpayer.

When the world goes off the US dollar as its reserve currency, then the US economy is totally screwed and along with it the free world. Brush up on your Chinese.

Seve wrote:

once again you've missed the point aka timmer...
what I'm advocating is multiple contracts for selling food inside the stadium, because the economies of scale of having one contractor to supply food is out weighed by the effect of the monopolistic conditions on the quality of food offered and the price charged
with multiple contracts there could be a competitive free market for food inside the stadium and the consumer would benefit

I'm not missing any point. Ergo; how do the Toronto Blue Jays benefit financially from this scheme? I am sure they would appreciate the input, but you'd have to show them how it helps their bottom line. They've bills to pay and payroll to meet.

Seve wrote:

yes, but how much Hogsnort Rupert do you have?
and how much might you have if Hogsnort Rupert had been half the price of Led Zep?
how much richer would you life have been if you had heard "Pretty Girl" or "Auntie Alice Bought Us This"?!

Who knows, who cares. I'm a consumer. I want Led Zep. I don't want Hogsnort. I also don't want Avril Lavigne. I don't care if her cd's are a buck a pop. If Hogsnort wants my buck, they better find a way to get their music to my ears.

Seve wrote:

fair enough, but what's that got to do with encouraging a free market with greater consumer choice and competition? (which leads to more innovation, better quality and cheaper prices)
rather than being satisfied with a distorted perversion of the free market, dominated by a few big players who use anti competitive business practises to put up barriers to entry for potential rivals
thus creating a cartel or monopolistic environment where there is no incentive for innovation, improving quality or lowering prices
and the consumer is a prisoner who's only choice is to buy or go without

Encourage competition all you want. I applaud your efforts but I don't feel your pain.The Led Zep market has been well served these last 42 years and its had plenty of competition. Led Zep Inc has made lots of people, lots of money over the years.

As for anti-competitive business practises, if I was starting a new business next week, I think I might be looking for a niche and discouraging competition. What sane business wants to share the market? You are forgeting that what drives any business enviroment or model, is consumer behaviour. If you want a piece of the market, then find a way to attract the consumer. If the market is already well served, then find another market to exploit. There is no ideal market equation, other than whatever works. Businesses fail every week, because the consumer market for whatever was being peddled, has moved on.

My point being, you can't force competition. A good business tries to dominate its market. Competitors only survive if they can find a way to grab a share of the market. Ultimately consumers decides who gets their buck. Coke and Pepsi have dominated the cola market for centuries. Apparently its what consumers want? Is that "wrong?" The competition picks up whats left of the market and profits accordingly.

I think you are also overlooking that even brands that dominate market share, do have to regularly innovate and adjust to maintain that share. They can't just sit back or competition will cut into their share.

tiffanywint wrote:

I'm not missing any point. Ergo; how do the Toronto Blue Jays benefit financially from this scheme? I am sure they would appreciate the input, but you'd have to show them how it helps their bottom line. They've bills to pay and payroll to meet.

they are selling the contracts, so they make money either way
by offering a better overall experience they will attract more fans
if they already sell out every home game, then I guess they won't be that interested

tiffanywint wrote:

Encourage competition all you want. I applaud your efforts but I don't feel your pain. The Led Zep market has been well served these last 42 years and its had plenty of competition. Led Zep Inc has made lots of people, lots of money over the years.

I have no problem with "Led Zep Inc" who are musicians competing with other musicians, my problem is with the record company who distributes their music
it is the record companies that operate as a cartel, not the musicians

tiffanywint wrote:

My point being, you can't force competition. A good business tries to dominate its market. Competitors only survive if they can find a way to grab a share of the market. Ultimately consumers decides who gets their buck. Coke and Pepsi have dominated the cola market for centuries. Apparently its what consumers want? Is that "wrong?" The competition picks up what's left of the market and profits accordingly.

yes you can, that is what anti trust legislation is all about
once again I encourage you to read a bit more about the other Roosevelt (Teddy)
I dispute the validity of your Coke & Pepsi analogy
it has been decided that Coke and Pepsi form part of a much wider and larger beverage market, which includes fruit juices, cordial, bottled water etc
therefore their domination of the carbonated drink sector has been accepted as not being a cartel or monopoly

Seve wrote:

they are selling the contracts, so they make money either way
by offering a better overall experience they will attract more fans
if they already sell out every home game, then I guess they won't be that interested

I'm sure the jays would appreciate the feedback

Seve wrote:

I have no problem with "Led Zep Inc" who are musicians competing with other musicians, my problem is with the record company who distributes their music.it is the record companies that operate as a cartel, not the musicians

If the record companies are indeed operating as an illegal cartel, then someone needs to report them to the anti-trust or anti-competition bureaus, but so far they have been "getting away with it"

tiffanywint wrote:

it has been decided that Coke and Pepsi form part of a much wider and larger beverage market, which includes fruit juices, cordial, bottled water etc
therefore their domination of the carbonated drink sector has been accepted as not being a cartel or monopoly

There is nothing illegal about achieving a monopoly business as long as one obeys the rules. Rather, Coke and Pepsi enjoy their status as business enterprises in good standing, simply because they don't break the anti-trust laws, not because they are part of a broader beverage market. They behave legally and properly which is why they are not considered to be acting as an illegal "cartel."

From the U.S. Sherman Act with regard to multi-firm conduct, the Act addresses conduct by prohibiting "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce. Conduct falls within the scope of this prohibition only if some form of agreement or concerted action can be proven."

Even single player domination of a market is not anti-thetical to the US competition laws

From the Sherman Act which necessarily has separate provisions for both single and multi-company conduct. Regarding single-company conduct the Act provides this important provisio "This prohibition does not condemn monopoly per se but only monopoly that has been acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct."

Monopolies are perfectly legal. You cannot force competition and there is no regulatory impetus to do so. Only consumer behaviour can drive viable competition. Regulators only prosecute illegal conduct, which is spelled out in the act.

The US competition laws at least, are actually quite sane and business friendly, but I get your concerns about competition. The more the better for us consumers.

Sharky wrote:

colly wrote:

Sharky wrote:

brought us into this current crisis via market regulations

Please dont tell me the crisis is to blame because we had market regulations?

To be frank, it's a little bit more complex than that. It was both housing market over-regulation and deregulation of the banks that lead to the collapse. I've brought it up before and won't go into now, though I understand Tiff's on night duty. He'll explain it.

I look forward to the explanation, because as far as I can see the mess was caused by the irresponsibility of an unregulated banking system, and everything else is effectively fluff.

Sharky wrote:

and thanks to the likes of Obama and Cameron, is still grinding us (those of who aren't a member of the political class) down with their crazed deficit spending.

Deficit spending isn't really crazed, especially at a time when the economy requires stimulation. I also fail to see how a strategy for growth grinds down anyone - especially those in the population who, unlike modern politicians who are still largely drawn from well-off backgrounds, require growth to produce jobs to put food on the table. The problem with defecit spending is failing to adjust your fiscal policy after the economy has bounced back, but it isn't in itself a bad thing.

Sharky wrote:

How exactly are the likes of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sewell "villains" of 20th century economies? I can't quite see how laissez-faire capitalism is "backwards."

I'm not in a position to speak fully of the evils of monetarism, but feel free to head up north and speak to some of the people left unemployed by the work of the unsympathetic Thatcher and Howe. Laissez-faire is inhuman, and doesn't even make theoretical sense in a society dominated by the large corporation and the trade union, where prices and wages - even without the intervention of government - are never again going to be determined impersonally.

Sharky wrote:

Empty promises. The guy's a TINO (Tory In Name Only).

What is a Tory nowadays? Thatcher's monetarism was hardly in line with the tradition of the Conservative Party, nor was Macmillan's Keynesianism or Baldwin's compassionate capitalism. Cameron is just the latest leader of a party that has never had a fixed and easily defined identity, and I see no reason to reject his pretense of Toryism as being any less legitimate than those of his predecessors.

Some would claim Disraeli and Churchill as the epitome of British Conservative identity. Which is great. As long as you live in the 19th and 20th century.

tiffanywint wrote:

I think you are also overlooking that even brands that dominate market share, do have to regularly innovate and adjust to maintain that share. They can't just sit back or competition will cut into their share.

of course they do, we are not talking in absolutes, however the incentive to innovate is reduced in a market without competition
like corruption, the negative aspects of monopoly conditions seep in over time
bad habits will inevitably develop in any situation where some of the checks and balances have been removed

tiffanywint wrote:

If the record companies are indeed operating as an illegal cartel, then someone needs to report them to the anti-trust or anti-competition bureaus, but so far they have been "getting away with it"

too late now, they've already been punished by the internet

tiffanywint wrote:

There is nothing illegal about achieving a monopoly business as long as one obeys the rules.

what "rules" are you referring to?
I understand there are rules to try and discourage monopolies
certainly over here, when one big player makes a bid for another, where that might be considered to then put them in a monopoly position in a market, the purchase goes to the securities commission, for review and approval, before it is allowed to go ahead
my impression is that most western countries have similar legislation in place?
in any case, we are not talking about the laws of nature here, the rules are whatever man decides they should be
IMO if there are not already rules in place designed to discourage monopolies, then there need to be
because of the negative economic effects I have outlined previously

tiffanywint wrote:

From the Sherman Act which necessarily has separate provisions for both single and multi-company conduct. Regarding single-company conduct the Act provides this important provision "This prohibition does not condemn monopoly per se but only monopoly that has been acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct."

as the saying you have quoted goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely" that doesn't just apply to government, but in any circumstance
sooner or later a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct"

tiffanywint wrote:

The US competition laws at least, are actually quite sane and business friendly, but I get your concerns about competition. The more the better for us consumers.

phew!

HJackson wrote:

I look forward to the explanation, because as far as I can see the mess was caused by the irresponsibility of an unregulated banking system, and everything else is effectively fluff.

not quite, it is called the "credit crunch" after all
back in the 70s governments used to play with the interest rate to stimulate a flat economy and get re elected, which led to inflation problems
then came the late 80s and anti inflation became the catch cry, with control of interest passing to the reserve bank, with strict inflation guidelines
that was supposed to be the panacea of all ills, and it seemed to be, for a while
but it took away one of the tools politicians used to make themselves look good, so they had to try and find other ways of influencing the economy
for example, in little old, under populated New Zealand, IMO successive governments have used immigration to fuel a slow economy over the last 20 years
when the economy slowed they would let more people in, resulting in a boost to the domestic economy from house building etc
in the US it seems they found away to influence mortgage lending, so that more (risky) loans were made, and the domestic economy was stimulated as a result
the banks colluded by concocting complicated mathematical risk spreading theory to allay concerns about the risk, much as they had done with "junk bonds" in the 80s
much akin to suggesting that if you put a dollar on every number on a roulette table you will somehow come out ahead
of course, that didn't happen, and here we are!

Sharky wrote:

How exactly are the likes of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sewell "villains" of 20th century economies? I can't quite see how laissez-faire capitalism is "backwards."

because their theories harken back to an earlier time, pre the socialist era of the mid 20th century
however that does not mean the theories are "backward" in the sense of not being primitive, as economics is better represented by a pendulum or bell curve, rather than a line moving continually from left to right

HJackson wrote:

Deficit spending isn't really crazed, especially at a time when the economy requires stimulation...The problem with deficit spending is failing to adjust your fiscal policy after the economy has bounced back, but it isn't in itself a bad thing.

exactly, historically different policies have worked in different circumstances
I recall reading "Iacocca" by Lee Iacocca, in the warm afterglow of his revival of Chrysler in the 80s, when he and Reagan were hailed as demi-gods
he remarked the difference between the "cost cutting", "accountants" approach to the crisis, which failed
the pie was getting smaller and the response was a simplistic cut costing approach, which included cutting costs in the areas of the business that actually needed increased spending in order to provide a response to the crisis, and so the company continued to spiral downward even further
as compared with his own "stimulating", "sales and marketing" approach, increasing spending on development of new and improved models, in order to grow the pie
the whole Cameron v Brown philosophical discussion revolves around "was the economic recovery still to fragile to with stand the cost cutting measures proposed"
the sustainability of the deficit is a big concern, but will a recession only be exacerbated by further cost cutting in the public sector and become a downward economic spiral to depression?
this has been the issue since 2008

HJackson wrote:

I'm not in a position to speak fully of the evils of monetarism, but feel free to head up north and speak to some of the people left unemployed by the work of the unsympathetic Thatcher and Howe. Laissez-faire is inhuman

exactly, it's all very well for economists to sit in their ivory towers or the wealthy to sit by the pool
it's only human to try and avoid the sort of extreme social dislocation that occurred in the 30's or in the North of England etc in the 80s
who knows maybe disaster is inevitable, but we have to try all other avenues first
whether we end up with another 30s depression in 2008 or 2013, the misery won't be any worse and all debts will be written off anyway
but at least we will have tried to avoid it, rather than embracing it, as Laissez-faire proponents would have us do

HJackson wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Empty promises. The guy's a TINO (Tory In Name Only).

What is a Tory nowadays? Thatcher's monetarism was hardly in line with the tradition of the Conservative Party, nor was Macmillan's Keynesianism or Baldwin's compassionate capitalism. Cameron is just the latest leader of a party that has never had a fixed and easily defined identity, and I see no reason to reject his preteens of Toryism as being any less legitimate than those of his predecessors'.

being a Tory / conservative usually means standing for restraint, not rushing into things, keeping things much as they are or returning toward the way things were at some earlier time
however the 80s saw the radicalisation of conservatism, they followed the socialist example and adopted an unproven set of extreme economic dogma, which they pursued with quasi religious zeal
they systematically destroyed Britain's industrial base and waited for something to "miraculously" spring up in it's place, due to market forces… and so far (apart from the occasional boutique company) the people of the UK are still waiting
IMO crushing the unions was the good part of what they achieved, but in doing so they threw the baby out with the bath water and Britain has never really recovered

HJackson wrote:

as far as I can see the mess was caused by the irresponsibility of an unregulated banking system, and everything else is effectively fluff.?

Nothing is "fluff" in this context. Every dodgy legislation adds up and snowballs into something grotesque. Understanding the sub-prime mortgage crisis is fundamental to understanding the current recession. Looking at the banks and sod all else is being short-sighted, to say the least.

HJackson wrote:

Deficit spending isn't really crazed, especially at a time when the economy requires stimulation.

Yes, but it requires stimulation from business, not the dead end of the state.

HJackson wrote:

I'm not in a position to speak fully of the evils of monetarism, but feel free to head up north and speak to some of the people left unemployed by the work of the unsympathetic Thatcher and Howe.

Oh believe me, I've been given that sermon enough times already. My father is religiously anti-Thatcher (lived and worked in Whitby and Leicester during those years), so I didn't grow up in an easy environment to hold right-wing views. "There's no such thing as society" quote taken out of its original context, "how could I have brought up a right wing son", "If Thatcher was on fire I wouldn't piss on her to put her out", "Thatcher has Alzheimer's. Great news. I hope that c*** dies a slow and painful death," et al.

I will admit she made some terrible errors of judgement. Replacing the fair and meritocratic two teir system with the joke that's comprehensive schools, introducing the national curriculum through the Education Reform Act of 1988, outsourcing industries to the continent, and most of all destroying the crumbling shipping, car and mining industries of the North and having nothing substantial to replace them, resulting in communities being torn apart. She had a Pyrrhic victory at best.

But digression aside, that isn't monetarism in itself.

HJackson wrote:

Laissez-faire is inhuman

Warts and all, laissez-faire capitalism is human. Very human in fact, and maybe that's why the neo-classical economists object to it, because like human nature itself, it is flawed. The sound principle it's based upon is freedom - that is, economic freedom. The freedom to both exploit and be exploited. To yield and lose.

HJackson wrote:

What is a Tory nowadays?

Good question. I'd say a true Tory (a very rare breed, soon to be made extinct) is someone who supports low taxation, deregulation, small government, keeps out of the public's lives (no "Big Society"), defends the UK's interests in Europe, wants out of the EU, want to keep the GBP, supports sensible energy policies (i.e. shale gas), says no to wind farms, maintains a healthy skepticism of man-made global warming, and is in favour of legalising marijuana and prostitution. Ok, maybe not the last one. That's just me.

HJackson wrote:

Thatcher's monetarism was hardly in line with the tradition of the Conservative Party

Not of the recent past, but Thatcher's line of can be traced back to numerous true blue conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph, Thomas Sewell, and of course Adam Smith. She rightfully thought that Heath and other post-war PMs had lost touch with what conservatism meant, and was determined to bring back, in the modified form of Thatcherism.

HJackson wrote:

Cameron is just the latest leader of a party that has never had a fixed and easily defined identity,

"I am big, it's the pictures that got small!"

I'd argue there is a fixed and very simple identity to conservatism. In other words, just because there might be a number of lousy Sean Connery impersonators in the world, that doesn't disprove the existence of Sean Connery.

HJackson wrote:

and I see no reason to reject his pretense of Toryism as being any less legitimate than those of his predecessors'.

That is relativism rearing its ugly head again. That assumes all forms of Toryism are equal, simply because there's a huge variety. That is a fallacy.

Kennon wrote:

Some would claim Disraeli and Churchill as the epitome of British Conservative identity. Which is great. As long as you live in the 19th and 20th century.

That assumes their entire identity as conservatives is inapplicable to the 21st Century. Foolish assumption.

Seve wrote:

what "rules" are you referring to?

I'm simply talking about the law,legislation.

Seve wrote:

I understand there are rules to try and discourage monopolies

but the rules or rather laws aren't in place to discourage monopolies per se. Monopolies are permissable. The Sherman Act is quite clear on this. It does not wish to penalize honest successful business.

Seve wrote:

as the saying you have quoted goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely" that doesn't just apply to government, but in any circumstance
sooner or later a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct"

Your jumping to a big conclusion there, and discussing monopolies in very abstract terms. However I do have faith in the market and our antitrust laws. If the market allows a single player to achieve concentration, so be it. The market has spoken.If any player is engaging in illegal conduct, well that's what we have our anti-trust laws for, and other laws for that matter. The system is resonably functional. I'm sorry I cannot share your fear of monopolies. Even anti-trust laws allow for their existence.

I might however be afraid if government for example, declared that only company A that was sympathetic to their political agenda, would be allowed to participate in a certain market sector, but thats what we have in China. Our western big-government mandarins aren't quite there yet. Again if one is afraid of monopoly behaviour, government is what you need be wary of. It's much easier for governments to create monopolies, than businesses that must contend with the vagaries of market dynamics.

When there are big problems in the economy, the fingerprints of government can be found all over them.

Thus,the smaller government is, the better off we all are. The less candy in the government store to give away, the better. However the candy-store has been bursting at the seams for so long, I think our western economies are doomed. Like children screaming "its not fair" the entitled classes are rioting for more and more candy. The appetite is insatiable. The rot is entrenched. Gobble up as much as you can I guess, while its still there, and then as our friend Keynes says, " we all die anyway".

When the dictators take charge, after government spending has collapsed our free societies, there may be a silver-lining in the dark cloud; quite possibly the opportunity for heroism. Most of us have led fairly complacent peace-time lives. After the fall, there might be that opportunity to make like our friend James Bond and fight the good fight for freedom, all over again. We may emerge better men for it.

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

as the saying you have quoted goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely" that doesn't just apply to government, but in any circumstance
sooner or later a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct"

Your jumping to a big conclusion there, and discussing monopolies in very abstract terms.

no bigger than the conclusions you've been jumping to
about the degree of "good faith" to be found in the market
and the degree of corruption in government etc

Seve wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

as the saying you have quoted goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely" that doesn't just apply to government, but in any circumstance
sooner or later a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct"

Your jumping to a big conclusion there, and discussing monopolies in very abstract terms.

no bigger than the conclusions you've been jumping to
about the degree of "good faith" to be found in the market

Au contraire, you flat out said that "a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct" You can't say that. That does not follow. Rather that's your jaded opinion.

Forgive my faith in the market, capitalism, free-enterprise, self reliance etc. It's just that government regulation, stimulus, programs, spending etc, scares me far more than the vagaries of a free-market place. I think the havoc that sovereign-debt is wreaking on our western economies bears out my fears. Governments everywhere are reluctantly turning towards austerity measures, looking for ways to reduce spending, and incurring the wrath of the entitled classes. I fear things will only get darker, maybe real dark, before they get better. I think the horses have left the barn. The decline is well underway. The fall is imminent.

On a brighter note.:) Found grapefruits at $1.29 today so I snatched up a couple. As a consumer protest though, I will be reducing my consumption by dividing each orb into quarters, and thus stretching two fruits over 8 days. This might be good practise for the shortages that are to come.