Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 353 posts

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#311

Post by briandear »

Clubber wrote: post #234
skummetmaelk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing though, that is exactly what a late stage "free market" looks like. What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.

The end state of free market (as in free of government regulation, not free to compete) is monopoly. Capitalist societies understand that and regulate to ensure freedom to compete. Europe is much better at this than the US.

Uber gets effectively shut down in France, leaving my region with just taxis and no price competition. Try finding a non Air France nonstop between Marseille and Paris or Paris to Bordeaux. It doesn't exist. Try finding nonstop flights between Houston and Dallas -- there are five different airlines with nonstop service.

Air France has a practically guaranteed monopoly within France; the only reason that monopoly doesn't extend past its borders is that international air transport agreements would make it impossible for Air France to control the entire French air transport system.

Where's that freedom to compete? If one argues that "Europe does it better," I might argue that either that person hasn't ever lived and done business in the US and hasn't lived and done business in Europe. Anyone that suggests that competition is protected in Europe (or in my case, specifically France,) has no idea what they're talking about. Competing against entrenched players in agriculture, transport, infrastructure and technology is excessively difficult. In the US anyone that can buy an airliner, get the FAA inspections can essentially start an airline. In France such an attempt would be met with violence. Air France itself attempted to start a budget airline in 2014 and strikes essentially shut down French aviation for over 11 days.

Protecting competition would mean the that the government wouldn't abide the labor monopolies that hamstring companies attempting to compete.

France does have monopolies -- although most of those monopolies are in labor -- and labor monopolies, otherwise known as unions are just as destructive as any other form of monopoly.

Europe does not do it better -- they just do it differently.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#312

Post by briandear »

adventured wrote: post #272
Clubber wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end state of free market (as in free of government regulation, not free to compete) is monopoly. Capitalist societies understand that and regulate to ensure freedom to compete. Europe is much better at this than the US.

> Europe is much better at this than the US. By Europe, I think you mean 3 or 4 countries in all of Europe. Most countries in Europe entirely fail at what you're claiming and most are embarrassingly behind the US on: innovation, productivity, median incomes, unemployment, global & domestic corporate competitiveness, research spending (both public and private). I wasn't aware that Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Poland, Hung…

Why is this being downvoted? This comment is factually correct.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#313

Post by briandear »

llukas wrote: post #276
adventured wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe is much better at this than the US. By Europe, I think you mean 3 or 4 countries in all of Europe. Most countries in Europe entirely fail at what you're claiming and most are embarrassingly behind the US on: innovation, productivity, median incomes, unemployment, global & domestic corporate competitiveness, research spending (both public and private). I wasn't aware that Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Poland, Hung…

If USA is so innovative and Europe so backwards how come USA has trade deficit with EU?

The US has a $50 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Are we to argue that Mexico's business environment and economy is better and more innovative than the US? A trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#314

Post by eecc »

mozumder wrote: post #291
jessaustin wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm such a racist conservative that I voted in the primary for Bernie, and certainly would have voted for him again in the general if DNC hadn't been in the tank for Mrs. Superpredator, because he had the most credible argument for something, anything different . Congratulations on electing Trump instead! Congratulations, too, on hypnotizing yourself into really believing that there's no one to your own left. Pe…

I don't understand.. are you saying you're not interested in the differences between the two parties, or are you saying ther are no differences between the two parties? Because if it's the latter, do you think the 20 million additional people that receive health-care under Obamacare isn't a difference? Because, like Joe Biden said, it's a "big fucking deal". Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bern…

Wo-hoo... what's this name calling! Are you seriously accusing the latest American spin to socialism as xenophobic racists?! You serious?

So let's hear from you, what are we supposed to do? Respectfully defer to the pundits endlessly quibbling about the differences between D and R? That is also part of the problem, in case you hadn't noticed...

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#315

Post by Sacho »

costcopizza wrote: post #80

Drive through many American small towns and it looks the exact same. A strip mall with a Subway, a couple national fast food joints, and if you're big enough, Wal-Mart. There are literally 1000s of towns with this copy and paste setup-- how could this not be detrimental when money is going to a huge corporation every time?

Okay, let's replace Wal-Mart with a bunch of local businesses, and assume they both manage to get their work done with the same amount of workers and pay the same salaries. In that case, Wal-Mart actually seems to provide a benefit to the community - its reduced prices from economies of scale benefit all consumers, while the wealth generated by local businesses is concentrated in the business owners and only trickles down to the rest of the community if they choose to invest it there.

In order for Wal-Mart to be detrimental you would need to evaluate these factors:

- What is the percentage of local business owners among the populace that you are aiming for? You would want a majority/large minority of people to be business owners to reap the wealth benefits, but in Wal-Mart's case you're essentially transferring wealth from the poor strata to a new middle-to-high class strata of business owners.

- Can local businesses employ more local community members and pay better wages? This is a possibility if you assume Wal-Mart is pocketing huge profits for themselves, which altruistic business owners would instead redistribute among the community in the form of wages. This expectation does not mesh with my experience but I don't know if there's any study on this, maybe I'm wrong.

- Can you evaluate whether the huge corporation is pocketing more money from your community than a collection of local businesses? While the huge corporation may make tons of money, what is the profit they extract from just your community, and how would it compare when replaced with local business? Obviously, you would allow for some leeway since at least the profits are going to some members of your community.

- Would consumers be willing to take a hit to their standard of living in order to support local businesses? I'm skeptical, as even in the entrepreneurial-friendly US(expected higher number of business owners per capita?) the rise of corporations has been eradicating local business.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#316

Post by pyvpx »

trafficlight wrote: post #29
pyvpx wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is TSI a CLEC?

Nope. We argued that we were providing data services under the FCC definition of utility. The only real person who got in our way was the city attorney. He said that internet didn't qualify as Montana Code (circa 1950) only mentioned telephone and telegraph. So we registered with the PSC as a telegraph provider...

I was going to ask about the telegraph part of the name...hah. very interesting!

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#317

Post by Network2020 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #267
cs702 wrote: post #4

"I started a manufacturing company in Little Elm, about 35 miles north of Dallas, to produce the first-ever automatically retracting syringe to eliminate the risk of nurses contracting HIV through accidental needle sticks. The syringe received rave reviews from nurses, hospital executives and public health officials, a major grant from the National Institutes of Health and robust private investment. But when my partn…

I am not sure how to pull this off in practice but I think it would be healthy for an economy if companies couldn't grow beyond a certain size. Once companies get too big they pretty much kill new and innovative companies. Just look at how quickly small companies in the 70s and early 80s innovated around personal computing and how little innovation is happening in the smart phone or search engine area now because Goo…

Hmmm I believe that the Google/Apple smartphone issue is squarely the result of developers (the same ones who complain about Android and IOS). Manufacturers could create smartphone after smartphone, but if developers don't build apps to make the phones attractive, consumers aren't interested in purchasing. Developers, unfortunately, are the ones blocking out other smartphone makers.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#318

Post by TFYS »

adventured wrote: post #272
Clubber wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end state of free market (as in free of government regulation, not free to compete) is monopoly. Capitalist societies understand that and regulate to ensure freedom to compete. Europe is much better at this than the US.

> Europe is much better at this than the US. By Europe, I think you mean 3 or 4 countries in all of Europe. Most countries in Europe entirely fail at what you're claiming and most are embarrassingly behind the US on: innovation, productivity, median incomes, unemployment, global & domestic corporate competitiveness, research spending (both public and private). I wasn't aware that Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Poland, Hung…

> If I was wrong, the results, the economic standing, for all those nations I listed, wouldn't be so horrible.

What you are saying about the economies of those countries might be true, but it's not necessarily because they are worse at regulating capitalism. The effects of the Soviet Union, the size of the countries, language barriers, sanctions on Russia, problems with how the currency works, etc are enough to cause the things you mention even if they are better at making their markets more dynamic and competitive than the US. Countries with five million people like Norway, Denmark and Finland simply don't have enough people to have multiple strong industries simultaneously.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#319

Post by mozumder »

eecc wrote: post #314
mozumder wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand.. are you saying you're not interested in the differences between the two parties, or are you saying ther are no differences between the two parties? Because if it's the latter, do you think the 20 million additional people that receive health-care under Obamacare isn't a difference? Because, like Joe Biden said, it's a "big fucking deal". Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bern…

Wo-hoo... what's this name calling! Are you seriously accusing the latest American spin to socialism as xenophobic racists?! You serious? So let's hear from you, what are we supposed to do? Respectfully defer to the pundits endlessly quibbling about the differences between D and R? That is also part of the problem, in case you hadn't noticed...

> So let's hear from you, what are we supposed to do?

You're supposed to pick a side, from the choices given to you, because that's how government works.

Government is not about getting what you want. Government is about picking from the limited choices given to you. Complaints about your limited choices go unheeded, because no one wants 300 million choices in government since everyone wants to be their own pretty princess that rules the country. So we, as a society, decided to limit you to 2 choices, and you can proceed from there.

So, which side are you on? R or D? Pick, because no one is on your side.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#320

Post by untangle »

flyingfences wrote: post #255
valuearb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are government monopolies created to incentivize inventors to share their inventions so others could build upon them. The fear was they'd hide their IP behind factory walls and innovation would be slow. Now patents are used by those who don't make anything and often don't even invent anything in order to blackmail those who do.

"Intellectual Property" is the use of the State's violence in an attempt to enforce an artificial scarcity upon something that is naturally non-scarce - information. It is inherently antithetical to a free society and always ends up hurting the everyman (and society at large) in the long run.

When I hear "IP" I now perceive "rent." Rent is drag and is a prime mover in income inequality.
Post reply on HN