Hey whatever happened to Tucobenedicto you remember him?

TheClark,

Your thesis is based on the premise that monopolists and the state always act in opposition to each other, but history shows the opposite. Coercive monopolies always require state cooperation to thrive; the railroad robber barons of the 19th century would've gone bust were it not for government largesse in the form of land grants, special legal privileges, and plain old corporate welfare (much of it directed by an Illinois lawyer/lobbyist by the name of Abraham Lincoln).

"Anti-trust" regulations are simply a weapon politically connected companies use to bully their more successful competitors, or politicians use to shake rich people down for 'campaign contributions' (an anonymous survey of Fortune 500 CEOs revealed that 70% gave political contributions because they feared retaliation in the form of regulations or anti-trust lawsuits if they didn't). Witness the infamous Microsoft anti-trust case, which evaporated as soon as Bill Gates 'got with the program' and started doling out millions in 'donations' (AKA 'protection money') to both major parties.

Oppressive monopolies would always fail in a genuine free market, because consumers would flock to unoppressive competitors. It is only when the state interferes with 1) regulations which prevent newcomers from entering the market, 2) criminalizing competition by creating legal monopolies (cable companies, telcos, etc.), or 3) showering the 'big boys' with corporate welfare to the point that the little guys can't compete.

Oppressive monopolies and the modern nation-state go hand in hand.

Yeah, WWII did end the Depression, but I was afraid to say that because you guys might call me a war-loving fascist.

Still. Unemployment parties? Come on! If you talk to someone who survived (yes, survived) the Great Depression, then they would tell you they are appalled at the fact that everyone is turning to the government for help. Back then, people were starving to death! They would have sold their soul for a job!

Just to let you know, I'm in the US right now and hot on the trail of the Sicarius-in-the-wall gang...

Tolstoy. My premise is the exact opposite of what you state. In practice, Governments have given franchises or helped establish and maintain monopolies for many reasons. As you have noted, it usually goes to the politically connected. This is a habit of those in charge that dates back to the dawn of civilization.

This practice of franchise is the very reason free markets don't exist in nature. Political power captures free markets were ever they pop up and are profitable. Also, free markets cannot exist in a situation of war or lawlessness. In the absence of a governing authority, control is by threat of, or use of, violence or by exclusive access to a product.

I would agree with each of your examples. They only reinforce my point. They are good examples of how the U. S. government is really a stooge for the large corporate oligarchs and politically connected interest groups in the country.

When some entity establishes a safe haven for trade - the nature of that market is dependent on the intentions of the controlling authority. Without exception, that authority seeks to profit from market control. Control usually runs to extracting monopoly rights or withholding benefit of the good from an enemy or foe. Progressive control or regulation would seek to maintain the market in as free a state as possible and keep it out of the hands of monopolist.

Please site an example of a long-standing free market that exists without the protection of a government or political framework.

My premise is that free markets are a theoretical constructs used to analyze market dynamics. They can exist for a time, but only as long as the prevailing powers (political, criminal, warring factions, economic competition) haven't figured how to capture them. I am suggesting that markets should be captured and protected from the economic forces external to the market that drive them to a monopolistic position. Also, that government should exercise restraint from establishing monopoly rights or special privilege in its effort to establish free markets.

Progressive regulation is something that should be used only to limit the ability of a player in the market to gain a controlling share of the market - no more than that. To create an environment were competition could take place. Real positive regulation should have a very small footprint and be focused on efficiency, social benefit, and fostering innovation. Also, they should be accessible to new players.

I will grant you this. Given that very few people understand this concept - versus to huge number of groups that want some monopoly rents from a government franchise - it is not likely to be implemented. This kind of regulation is probably a progressive's pipe dream as much as a long-standing free market is a conservative myth.

Every example of regulation you have used is an example of the opposite of a progressively regulated market. These are examples of the establishment and maintenance of monopoly rights by the politically connected. This is "regulation" of the market in an old school way - to seize control of the market for the benefit of a some few or class of people. It is a defect of our democracy that these players have the unequal influence that they do. This use of the term regulation in connection with the maintenance of monopoly is the "Newspeak" use of the term. Conservatives confuse these two different goals in regulation in an effort to block any government involvement in the market.

The examples you site are the number one argument for reform of campaign finance. These conditions under which political campaigns are run today did not exist in 1789. In those days money was not really a factor in campaigning. Personal connection and citizen participation was. We don't have answers to some of the contradictions of freedom of speech and association and the unequal ability of special interest (right and left) to drown out the voices of average folks. This is really another discussion. And it is true that any actions by the government (or any significantly larger player in the market) can foster some sort of special privilege. Receivers of this privilege will use political influence to retain it. This inadvertent creation of special privilege is a source of government inability to react to changes in markets as they evolve. I acknowledge that this makes government somewhat inefficient as a regulator.

during the seventies it was acknowledged that many of the regulatory schemes that had been developed over the course of time, needed to be changed or eliminated because of the evolution of the economy. However, much of the deregulation that was accomplished was to undo any ability of the government to maintain price taker or free markets. Most of this deregulation did not address any of the government’s practices of regulating the market to the benefit of government-sponsored monopolies. You sighted a number of examples where political influence was used to spare the privileged of any true deregulation.

Microsoft is a definite example of the de-regulation gone arye. An example of a period when regulation was a four letter word. We were in the mist of de-regulatory mood. Let's not stifle the technological developments being fostered by Microsoft. Obviously, that is a huge topic. Knowing something about computers and having been there, back in the day. I am not sure what one could point to as a specific Microsoft innovation to the technology. They basically begged, borrowed and mostly stole every innovation that one might point to as being brought to the market by Microsoft. They used their existing market position to bully or freeze out competitors. It was an open and shut case. Unfortunately, the government of the time did not believe in market regulation of a progressive model. They really waited till Bill Gates was too powerful to be effectively dealt with. Well, the horse is out why fret over the barn door.

I would agree with your concluding statement. Except, I would hold out that an alternative reality could be - but that would mean we have to get off our asses and do something about it. Do what was expected of us by the founding fathers. They would subscribe to one truth spoken by Newt Gingrich. “You can't trust anybody with power.”

I said before the 90% statistic comes form marcy kaptur. in the speech where she tells people to "be squatters in your own homes"

yes I remember tuco.
there was a conservative that knew what he was talking about. he argued with logic and good sense.
god I miss him now. no one is here to replace him. invictus? diplomat? pfft.

the way I dress varies pretty intensely. but I do wear this hat pretty much all the time.

if you really honestly think that the financial crisis is the fault of average jane american, theres not much I can do to convince you otherwise.


whoever it was that confused socialism with anarchism is an idiot. thats like confusing democracy with monarchy.
1 has a big government that controls most business. one has no government.

you'll never catch me flashman.
several goverment agencies have already tried

diplomat1824 - what exactly do you think unemployment parties are? The only ones I've heard about are specifically to try to get people together to network and find new jobs, they involve people who are hiring and people who have recently been laid off.

Maybe you're talking about something else, but I certainly haven't heard of anyone doing anything else and calling it an "unemployment party."

@Invictus - You are absolutely right, WWII as what really finally finished off the Depression. But it seems to me that that's an argument that the New Deal needed to be bigger and more ambitious.

WWII spurred HUGE government spending, and that's what got the economy moving again, but just think about how "wasteful" (but necessary to fight evil) so much of that spending was. We were building tanks and planes and ships that were, in all likelihood just going to be destroyed, even those that weren't destroyed can't do all that much for the economy once the war is over. Let's also think of all of the young men who were killed, and unable to add their productivity to the economy. Finally let's also not forget that during the war, the US was a pretty crappy place to be economically speaking, there was tremendous rationing of just about everything, all of that effort and spending was going into the war, where much of it would simply be destroyed. (Now I'm not arguing that doing any of that was bad, I absolutely believe that WWII was a just war, and it was absolutely necessary to fight it).

Now imagine if there hadn't been a war, but all of that spending had happened anyway, only on domestic projects? Just think how much more we would have gotten out of all of that spending if it had gone into roads and infrastructure and other goods and services that would actually help improve the overall economy, for years and years to come! Instead of building things that were just going to be destroyed we could have built things that would have instead added value to our lives and increased the countries prosperity for years and years to come!

Why is it so frequently the case that people argue that the only thing that got us out of the Great Depression was MASSIVE spending in the form of WWII, but then argue that spending now on domestic programs couldn't possibly work?

Well, how can you justify such outrageous deficits without a war? Even to fix the economy? I see what you mean, but I doubt people would be willing to throw THAT much money at government programs without the necessities of war.

Or at least they used to...

At the most base level, I am doing this because property is theft, and government is tyranny

@Invictus

"Well, how can you justify such outrageous deficits without a war? Even to fix the economy?"

Even to fix the economy!? Yes, to fix the economy. We should just let things keep spiraling downward and let people suffer without jobs and homes, just because you don't want to spend money to fix the problem? "Without a war?"

It worked last time. Only this time the spending will be less wasteful. It will add value more directly to the economy, and will go into things that will have much more lasting value.

I guess you just have more faith in bureaucracies than I do.

Right on Brother DrOct.

Well based on how terrified of any kind of government bureaucracy you seem to be, I'd say yes I do.

I agree that government bureaucracy isn't great in general, but I just don't think it's nearly so bad as you seem to think it is, it's generally there for a reason, and it's something that can be improved.

Besides, if it's the only way to get out of this mess, then I'm all for it, even if it involves the hated "government bureaucracies."

I've had much bigger problems dealing with corporate bureacracies

oops, that last line was part of an earlier draft of that comment. It's true but is kind of out of context there...

Thanks TheClark, I've very much enjoyed reading what you've been saying in this thread, and agree... pretty much completely. Which is why I haven't said much in response, because I don't feel like I have much to add!

"I was always under the impression that Capitalism died with the great depression and we haven't had a shadow of a true, robust Capitalist society since then. Is that not the case?"

Yes, that's true, but now when most people talk about capitalism they're referring to neo-classical Keynesian economic theory, which is mostly what I was referring to, and is the predominant school of economic thought. It's what DrOct is referring to when he says that the Depression was solved by increased spending, and what Invictus appears to be agreeing with. The fabled laissez-faire free market hasn't really existed for quite some time now.

Otherwise, I quite agree with TheClark, as anyone who's read my previous posts on similar topics will know.

It has been said, many times, many ways, Government is a necessary evil. As for dis-functional government, democracies have a way to fix bureaucracies - just fix them.

But, instead, the U. S. electorate has voted into office a party that must prove its ideology correct at all cost. Dismantle the government and run what's left so ineptly that the people eventually will agree that government sucks!

Why don't they want an effective government. It is not bad for business. They profit from it like everyone else - but it cramps their style, I suppose. Their egos may not deal very well with being told what to do.

A bureaucrat telling a narcissistic personality what to do brings out some wicked pathological reactions to submitting to authority.

"I said before the 90% statistic comes form marcy kaptur."
Sic, who is this woman, and why should we believe she didn't make up the number?

You also still haven't given us a reason to believe that 95% of foreclosures "are illegal". If you want to persuade us, do it with supported facts. Otherwise, you sound like a wacko who just says anything off the top of your head.

I get my statistics from FOX News.

Bloody troll.

Any seconds for the youtube suicide request? I know you're out there.

No. And there shouldn't have been the first. Suicide isn't a joke, and you shouldn't ever tell some one to do it, joking or not. Just stop.

DD, it was 90% were illegal I think. 95% was not the fault of the homeowner. "95% of the people being foreclosed on, it is not their fault. "

"Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who represents Northern Ohio's Ninth Congressional District , is currently serving her thirteenth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. She is the senior-most woman in Congress and is one of only 90 women out of 535 members of the 110th Congress."

I certainly didn't find any of Sicaruius's made up stats on her website.

dude. I gave a link for the video like a looooong time ago.

a foreclosure is illegal if the deed is not in the sherrifs hand when he comes to evict you.
thats one of the mnay ways foreclousres are illegal, but this is the biggest single reason, as the banks lose deeds as they bundle up foreclosures and trade them off

anyway I dont really give a shit about marcy kaptur.

I am doing this because I believe it is right.
bank apologists like you do a very poor job of convincing me otherwise

You quote mk's invented statistics, but don't give a shit about her? lol

By what law must the deed be in a sheriff's hands? Is that local, state, or federal law? Can you give reference a specific we can verify?

sorry..."a specific law" that we can verify? I'd really like to read the law to verify your claim. Tell me what law it is, so I can do that.

DipperDon, I hear that carbon monoxide makes you smarter. To achieve the proper holistic effects, one must run one's vehicle in the garage with the door closed.

Close your eyes and count backwards from 100.

Good luck.