"Rentseeking"/"Crony-Capitalism"

[Einherjar86]

First: Without government/force intervention, there is no monopoly in the market. No product or service is going to appeal to everyone or be the best at everything in perpetuity, so there will always be competition forming.

I agree with the first sentence, but only insofar as the word "monopoly" is used. Gabriel Kolko provides the convincing argument that large corporations actually encourage government regulation because it prevents competition. So I agree, to an extent.

However, the abolition of government does not mean the abolition of force/coercion, and economic entities that possess a profundity of resources have the means (I would claim) to reinstitute their own brand of monopoly, under a moniker that would not be "government" but would be, in essence, very similar.

I think this is where you and I will eternally disagree; because I don't see competition forming with ease in a situation where one entity hordes the majority (or entirety) of resources.

Second: In the event that without government involvement, a particular product has so fully realized consumer need/demand/want, and so fully outstripped their competition's offerings, that they achieve an overwhelming share of the market in that product or service: So what?

My initial response would be: they can wield an overwhelming influence over the majority of individuals' private lives.

 

[Dak]

I agree with the first sentence, but only insofar as the word "monopoly" is used. Gabriel Kolko provides the convincing argument that large corporations actually encourage government regulation because it prevents competition. So I agree, to an extent.

However, the abolition of government does not mean the abolition of force/coercion, and economic entities that possess a profundity of resources have the means (I would claim) to reinstitute their own brand of monopoly, under a moniker that would not be "government" but would be, in essence, very similar.

I think this is where you and I will eternally disagree; because I don't see competition forming with ease in a situation where one entity hordes the majority (or entirety) of resources.

"Hoarding" resources is extremely difficult when you have to pay for the security out of your own pocket. Without government providing your muscle and/or legalizing your force, how would a "corporation" monopolize resources?

My initial response would be: they can wield an overwhelming influence over the majority of individuals' private lives.

If we are talking about consumer goods, I don't see how.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Hoarding" resources is extremely difficult when you have to pay for the security out of your own pocket. Without government providing your muscle and/or legalizing your force, how would a "corporation" monopolize resources?

I would claim by paying for it privately; but I agree that this would be expensive.

If we are talking about consumer goods, I don't see how.

For instance, they could dictate prices, control quantities, and make "necessary" upgrades; I was thinking of these sorts of things.

 

[Dak]

I would claim by paying for it privately; but I agree that this would be expensive.

Not that it couldn't happen, but it wouldn't happen for long. It would have no veneer of respectability to hide behind, merely brute strength/payoffs. Since it is unlikely that there is only one location/deposit of any particular resource, you must constantly be expanding your "spook" network to make sure no one has found some and using it to compete with you. Basically what world history/government has looked like since antiquity. The difference between a "business" engaged in these actions, and "governments", is mostly semantic. And every nation that attempted to follow that route, went broke (or is going broke).

In this video: Thomas Woods speaking with Stefan Molyneux, makes an excellent analogy between government and business, and how absurd it seems when the roles are reversed. For the analogy skip to roughly the 9 minute mark:

For instance, they could dictate prices, control quantities, and make "necessary" upgrades; I was thinking of these sorts of things.

No one has to buy consumer goods. Apple dictates the prices of Apple products. They limit quantities available at release. They release them in series (necessary "upgrades"). Owning an Ipad is not a "right". If you want an Ipad, you get stuck with Itunes. Consumer choice.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Aren't the roles basically reversed already? It seems to me that our "government" is just an organ of the mufti-national corporations and banks. That is my greatest concern: how to reign in the power these entities wield without stifling entrepreneurs.

 

[Dak]

Aren't the roles basically reversed already? It seems to me that our "government" is just an organ of the mufti-national corporations and banks. That is my greatest concern: how to reign in the power these entities wield without stifling entrepreneurs.

It's not possible to "reign it in" while leaving power structures in place. Also, your comment leads me to assume you didn't watch the clip, because that's not what was talked about. The roles aren't reversed, it is a collusion.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I skipped to 9:00 as you had recommended and watched about a minute or 2 of the video. Clearly I need to watch the whole interview to grasp the greater context.

 

[Dak]

The clip was strictly about the reverence government gets through education and media. The whole video is much broader.

 

[Einherjar86]

No one has to buy consumer goods. Apple dictates the prices of Apple products. They limit quantities available at release. They release them in series (necessary "upgrades"). Owning an Ipad is not a "right". If you want an Ipad, you get stuck with Itunes. Consumer choice.

This is true; but don't you agree that products like cars, cell phones, computers, etc. are rapidly becoming cultural necessities, and those who choose not to purchase them also thereby are forced to choose exile from their society/community?

 

[Dak]

Excluding cars, no. Outside of a large urban area, you can easily make the argument for a car (or going back further in time, a horse) being a necessity, but excluding government intervention (outlawing older/simpler vehicles), I don't see how that makes a difference for the argument.

 

[Einherjar86]

The freedom of choice seems, to me, to be just as jeopardized by a corporation possessing all resources for the manfacturing of a specific commodity as by government regulation of resources. Taking the example we were speaking of; a person in a removed rural location might wish to purchase a car, but not use the wireless provider that manufacturer has contracted with. If a single corporation eventually provides cars for the entire population, that isolated person might have no choice but to purchase the car and the provider that installed their product in it.

 

[Dak]

First you need to explain how the "Umbrella" corp manages to monopolize all resources for making cars, and also why said consumer *must* use the wireless provider chosen for the car's feature. Who is going to make him pay? And even in that scenario, why can't the consumer just drive an older vehicle from pre-monopoly days to wait out for competition?

 

[Einherjar86]

"pre-monopoly days"

Grassroots movements could always make the effort to start their own manufacturing plant; I'm not saying it's impossible, only highly unlikely once a large manufacturer already has a steady output and access to resources. This corporation would likely do all it could to stifle the competition; although I don't know exactly what methods it would use, I imagine they would include everything from drastically cutting their prices to sabotage against a competitor.

If a user doesn't pay for the wireless provider the car manufacturer installs, I have to imagine there would be repercussions. We know programs like On-Star can remotely cut the power to your vehicle. If someone doesn't pay their full bill, I think it would be similar to a renter who doesn't pay his rent.

Your final point makes perfect sense; I just question the efficacy with which an individual could successfully exist while refusing such conformity. Even if you disagree, I believe that we live in a society and culture that progressively attempts to homogenize its entire population. I can only speculate as to how far such homogenization will eventually reach, but I think it could potentially govern most aspects of our lives.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I don't think homogenization could go much further.

 

[Dak]

There is already a swell of anti-consumerist backlash.

You are describing problems absent government, where a corporation acts in an identical fashion to a government. While this is possible, it is extremely difficult to achieve without the "pomp" of popular government to hide behind.

People are up in arms about the privacy invasions by business, or bailouts of business, etc etc. Yet when the same things are done by government (Patriot Act, Post Office bailout, etc.) These things are lauded and demanded by many.

It all the same shit, it's a matter of perspective on whether it uis "good" or bad. Since, especially in America, we have been conditioned to think that "government" is good and a representation/part of the population, they generally get a free pass, or at best looked at with apathy.

Edit: Pretty sure I posted it before, but there is a "Philosoraptor" that says " If Libertarianism would benefit megacorporations, why don't megacorporations support libertarianism". So on point.

 

[Dak]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/17/how-job-creators-are-fighting-back/

Article from Stossel, pretty relevant to this discussion.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I seriously don't get how guys like Stossel and Napolitano stay employed by Fox. I understand why they keep Alan Combs around (to appear to be "fair and balanced"), but I would think people who promote critical and independent thought would fly in face of Fox's agenda.

 

[Dak]

Napolitano I really don't know. Stossel I can understand. Since the viewerbase is already so dumbed down into eating the "small government" rhetoric from the GOP/their mouthpiece, anything Stossel says just gets mentally twisted by the viewer into justifying his GOP support.

 

[Dak]

Whirlpool looking for rentseeking

One of the ways that Whirlpool Corporation celebrated its 100th anniversary last year was to file petitions against two of its main South Korean competitors for “dumping” washing machines onto the market on Black Friday. Whirlpool claimed that Samsung was selling their 3.7 cubic-foot top-loading washing machines at a wholesale price of $363.18, way below the $751.46 Whirlpool says it would cost them to make the same product. Consequently, Samsung and LG Electronics sold thousands of their washers over the Black Friday weekend, taking substantial market share away from Whirlpool.

In its complaint, Whirlpool demanded an investigation into their rivals’ practice of “dumping” washers at prices that Whirlpool couldn’t match, and then demanded sanctions — tariffs — against the offending competitors and their products.

It’s worked before. Last March Whirlpool filed a similar petition about their competitors dumping high-end refrigerators and the Commerce Department agreed, applying a 37-percent duty on those refrigerators as well as forcing those competitors to post bonds if they didn’t raise their prices to “fair value.”