SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (607406)4/11/2011 1:09:49 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1579732
 
And why do you think corps have gov't support?

Because governments give it to them. Governments are big and active, and rarely try to limit themselves. Smaller less active governments would give less.

And yes because corporations lobby for them. That's hardly surprising, if the government is in the habit of hurting X, and helping Y, a lot of companies are going to work hard to be Y, and to make sure their competition is X. Corporations lobby for special benefits because governments operate in such a way that this rent-seeking works.

How are they getting gov't to assist them in being monopolistic when we have anti monopoly laws on the books?

Walmart isn't a monopoly. If your talking more generally most monopolies are caused by, or at least kept in place by, government action. Some of these actions might be be a net benefit, for example its probably worthwhile having a patent system even though patents create monopolies, but worthwhile or not its still government action creating or protecting monopolies. And not just monopolies, governments also restrict competition even when they don't create or protect monopolies, listening regimes can be an are used to restrict competition, so are extensive reporting requirements that new smaller startups would have a hard time meeting. Tariffs, and non-tarrif import barriers and many other types of laws or regulation also benefit entrenched incumbents by limiting free competition.

A $10 cup of coffee is outrageous.

Its not worthy of outrage. Someone has every right to not make and sell coffee in the first place. Doing so and charing a high price gives you more options not less.

Forcing you to pay that for coffee would be outrageous, bug giving you the option isn't forcing you to buy it.

Imposing restraint of trade so that you don't have a cheaper alternative isn't forcing you to buy from them (you can go without coffee) but in most contexts I'd still call it outrageous, but absent such restraint of trade, $10 coffee is either a low volume luxury good, or if its not perceived as a luxury good, its a good path for the coffee seller to bankrupt themselves by having no customers.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext