This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: 5 Ways To Create A Monopoly

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Brian LaSorsa via The Ludwig von Mises Institute,

It’s hard to maintain monopoly status in a free market when you have to deal with all that competition and whatnot.

Between other companies’ low prices and new, updated products entering the market each day, it’s almost like Rich Uncle Pennybags is a thing of the past. But fret not!

The politicians of the world would like to offer anyone dead set on controlling an entire industry the chance to shine. So come one, come all — government agencies, cronies, and all their friends — as we present the five best ways to create a monopoly and to ensure you never have to compete again.

1. Regulations. When the cost of doing business is high, make it higher. Small firms can’t survive government imposed regulations while bigger firms can certainly bear the burden, at least temporarily. Taxes, mandates, and especially “safety regulations” (e.g., clinical trials at the Food and Drug Administration) will wipe out your competition before they even have time to ask what the new rules mean. Then hire a lobbyist in Washington. I’m sure he or she will come up with a good reason that the industry should adhere to stricter and more expensive guidelines.

2. Subsidies. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. But, when the government is paying for it, the lunch sure does taste free. Subsidies offer an alternative, consumer-driven focus to acquiring monopoly status. Arbitrary revenue-boosts from the government will allow you to reduce prices to essentially nothing, all while maintaining profitability. You can give away (what used to be) a $10.00 item for free and, with the help of $1 million in subsidies from our nation’s capital, you can stay afloat. Your competitors, however, will have to make do with reality. Even if they somehow manage to slash prices to $1.00 per unit, what kind of customer will pass up free? The subsidy doesn’t have to last permanently, either. It will only take a few weeks before your competitors begin to default on paychecks and other loans without transaction revenue.

You can also take this route without the government revenue injections if you have a contingency plan in the form of a bailout. Both you and your competitors will go bankrupt, but only one (fingers crossed it’s you) will receive CPR.

3. Nationalization. Shout out to government officials! This one’s for you. The easiest and most straightforward way to create a monopoly is to simply write the monopoly into law. Federal control over an entire industry — much like we’ve done with the United States Postal Service — is effectively the prohibition of competition from the private sector. But don’t ever reference the USPS. It’s a terrible (albeit realistic) example of a government monopoly, what with its inefficiency, perpetual deficits, and general lack of regard for any sense of advancement in mail delivery. Rather, tell everyone you want to monopolize “for the good of the people” and then talk about the Department of Education or some other public sector operation people don’t like to criticize in front of company.

4. Tariffs. Neighbors can be annoying. Some are loud and others are strange, but the absolute worst neighbors are the ones who compete with you in the marketplace (and then win). In the beautiful Southwest, this neighbor is Mexico. Companies south of the border produce certain commodities much more cheaply than American companies do, and they have the nerve to think that they can export their inexpensive products to the United States on a whim. We don’t think so. If Mexican companies sell sugar for $2.00 per pound and you charge $3.00, don’t let them satisfy customers like they own the place. Make sure they pay an import fee of $1.01 and it’s guaranteed you’ll win new business one cent at a time. Better yet, propose a complete ban on the sale of foreign goods in your state, city, and town until you’re so isolated from the rest of the world that no one has a choice to buy from anyone except you.

5. Intellectual property. If you have a good idea, why let anyone else have the same one? Take that idea, write it down in the broadest words possible, and send it straight to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, where public officials will (hopefully) grant you the exclusive right to use it. And don’t worry, if someone else thinks of the idea one day later ... too bad. You filed first. Even if someone halfway across the globe comes up with the same idea independently ... too bad. You filed first. Milk your monopoly for all it’s worth. Put a huge price tag on that beast and feel free to ignore quality. What are consumers going to do: purchase your exclusive product elsewhere?

We wish you the best of luck in your venture. You deserve it.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:35 | 4110096 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

 

 

You can get a sort-of monopoly by agreement...

We worked HARD to get our Korean suppliers (who at the time did not sell to Peru) to eventually give us the rights by selling a lot of their stuff.  Now we have a sort-of monopoly in Korean bearings.

:)

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:42 | 4110131 mvsjcl
mvsjcl's picture

Once you have the money printing monopoly, it's just a matter of time before everything else is sucked into your monopoly vortex.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:55 | 4110165 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

I agree, mvsjcl, that that is the most important monopoly! After the application of the methods of organized crime have worked to achieve that goal, then everything else easily follows thereafter. The vicious spiral of backing up legalized lies with legalized violence automatically runs away after the public money supply has been privatized.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:09 | 4110199 spine001
spine001's picture

The author is correct in several of his assertions, and I can say this from an insider perspective of an ex-corporate executve.

But he is WRONG in the intellectual property side. Furthermore, distortions to the IP law and recent changes affect severely the actual inventor in favor of the Corporation that OWNS the inventor by paying him a miserable salary.

I do take these things into account when I want to compete and enter markets with new cheaper technologies and know full well that if I affect the big ones they will kill me at the regulatory stage by forcing me to spend money I don't have, that's why it is key to find beach heads in markets they don't care about and where you can get local officials to align with you in protecting your interests.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 22:08 | 4110528 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

No, it is so much better, if like Walt Dismey, you steal your ideas from the public domain and then hold on to the patent for 100 years. Intellectual property rules are killing innovation in technology. Why? So, you can make a million bucks? 

If you have a good idea and you can't afford to develop it, we should all wait for some lawyer to send us a letter after millions are spent on development of an idea we thought was ours? 

Patent laws are innovation killers. Which is why tech companies spend more time in court, then in research.There is even a legal means around it now, create 2.0 and make them start the lawsuits all over again.

If you work for a corporation and develop an idea, they had nothing to do with the development? Really?

Patent laws do exactly what the author is talking about. Get rid of them all- then see just how well the corporations do when they have to compete.

 

 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 00:58 | 4110960 TwoShortPlanks
Fri, 11/01/2013 - 15:35 | 4112991 wkwillis
wkwillis's picture

I'm an inventor. When you get tired of paying 100$ a barrel for oil, let me know.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 23:19 | 4114475 PT
PT's picture

Do tell.

Sat, 11/02/2013 - 02:16 | 4114743 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

Monorail

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:36 | 4110266 prains
prains's picture

Architects in North America have a regulated monopoly and their business model is so fucking stupid no one with talent wants to stay in the business, you can be a millionaire one year and bankrupt the next. Architects are a great illustration of how to fuck up a monopoly

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 23:49 | 4110813 layman_please
layman_please's picture

north america is no exception. it's same everywhere in the world. architects basically still function as a medieval guild. i'm a young architect in europe and i'm still  trying to find a place to fit in without being too much in bed with the establishment.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 18:11 | 4113634 prains
prains's picture

It's an old school pyramid scheme, where the managing partner claims all the loot, the minute things go sideways he bankrupts the firm and disappears to start again elsewhere. The top of the pyramid loves to watch the underlings fight it out for their scraps. The ridiculous part is the industrial world is legislated to use architects and their stamped drawing for any major building yet they as a group can't share the wealth amongst themselves in what is a regulated monopoly and work together to pay a fair a decent wage. The most fucked up business model left in the world today, tantamount to modern sweat shops and people agree to it for the allure of being called an "Architect".......crazy

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 04:20 | 4111091 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

A monopoly by agreement is a cartel.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:33 | 4110103 Acet
Acet's picture

So true, all of it.

 

Really like the Intellectual Property bit - it's not obvious to most people that Intellectual Property is a completelly artificial government given monopoly on something of which there is no scarcity at all: ideas.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:01 | 4110182 Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

They just copied the playbook of my industry. The sickcare industrial complex.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 03:48 | 4111068 daemon
daemon's picture

"... monopoly on something of which there is no scarcity at all: ideas."

But there is a relative scarcity of "good" ideas .

 

 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 04:43 | 4111105 tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

Diane Feinstein will be deciding what's a good idea and what is not. Simply allowing just anyone to blog is unacceptable. Writing is for journalists...

http://tradewithdave.com/?p=17984

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 06:38 | 4111167 SunRise
SunRise's picture

Not when good ideas are compared to great ideas.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 04:18 | 4111090 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

Intellecual property should pass immediately into the public domain, with a fixed rate of return on revenue derived from the implementation of the idea for the lifetime of the inventor - non transferable - after which, it expires.

 

This provides incentives, and also allows public exploitation of new technology (with a slight premium to the inventor).

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:38 | 4111220 daemon
daemon's picture

"Intellecual property should pass immediately into the public domain, with a fixed rate of return on revenue derived from the implementation of the idea for the lifetime of the inventor - non transferable - after which, it expires. "

That sounds interesting, but how would you solve some of the potential problems the article points at, like :

"..., if someone else thinks of the idea one day later ..."

or

"... if someone halfway across the globe comes up with the same idea independently ..."

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:01 | 4111180 Oracle 911
Oracle 911's picture

-1 because some safety regulations are needed, for preventing food poisoning or fires caused by improper wirings e.g. electric cables are under-dimensioned, BUT current over-regulation is nod better either.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:39 | 4110117 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

6. Use NSA data to blackmail, subvert existing relationships, and destory the competition thru dirty tricks.

7. Never enforce the Sherman anti-trust act, and buy out your competitors with fiat straight from the Bernanke.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 06:55 | 4111176 Singelguy
Singelguy's picture

8. Collusion. Partner up with your biggest competitor and fix prices, supply, and distribution. You all make big profit and squeeze everyone else out.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:40 | 4110118 SillySalesmanQu...
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

Have a magical printing press, helicopters, be Ben Bernanke or Mrs. Debtfire, Chair the FED...and poof, instant monopoly.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:42 | 4110129 ThirdCoastSurfer
ThirdCoastSurfer's picture

Government mainly serves to fill a void.  When it's citizens cannot manage an issue on their own, when their greed and hate and ignorance collectively becomes too much to bear,  for too long, or by too many, like an untreated wound it allows the infection of government to enter the process. History (and especially the Bible) is repleat with examples of how mankind is incapable of self control and indeed, so is government,  so that the continuum constantly swings back and forth, to and fro. This epoch is just the last throughs of one end of the see-saw, enjoy the ride.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 23:25 | 4114496 PT
PT's picture

You tried to tell 'em, but some just didn't want to hear you.  I think you explained that quite well.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:47 | 4110130 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"It’s hard to maintain monopoly status in a free market when you have to deal with all that competition and whatnot."

Fucking Miller.  No, it's not.  That's what happens in a "free market."  They grow and destroy competition.  Without regulation, monopolists destroy their competitors by private force.  Monopolies are broken up by government.  Without it, they thrive.   Ask Teddy Roosevelt.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:11 | 4110198 Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

The closer a market is to being pareto efficient the less need ultimately to break up a monopoly. If government avoids creating barriers to entry and if everyone is given the same access to information, then monopolies simply cannot exist in a pareto efficient market.

Due to regulatory capture, most regulations tend to create barriers to entry to a particular market in the guise of safety. This is how monopolies flourish WITH regulation.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:22 | 4110233 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So the book says.   And there is no force without elected government.  So it is written, so it shall be done.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 01:18 | 4110977 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

"Due to regulatory capture, most regulations tend to create barriers to entry to a particular market in the guise of safety."

I'm serious, this should be in a textbook given to every 5th grader in America. If you want to peel the onion a little more, ask yourself why this information, in such a cogent form, isn't taught to every member of our "capitalist society" from the earliest day they can understand economics. One wonders about the carefully crafted curriculum taught to the future slaves.

This type of writing is dangerous, like a knife, like a blackjack, like a thunderbolt from the heavens.

 

 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 01:19 | 4110978 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

x

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 23:37 | 4114518 PT
PT's picture

After a while, people notice that the occasional house keeps burning down due to the same cheap wiring mistakes.  Sometimes, without regulation, everyone does not have the same access to information.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:14 | 4110235 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

This (monopoly) can never happen in a "free market". For once a monopoly or any other abheration of a free market has inforced itself, then at that instant a free market no longer exists.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:30 | 4110253 Ivan K
Ivan K's picture

You conflate economic force and political force. They are separate.

Economic force can only make you an offer. Political force points a gun at you.

Do modern (and Teddy Era) corps use both to their advantage? Yup. That doesn't mean it's right.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:41 | 4110265 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The oligarchs of the early 1900's had plenty of guns.  But the free market sounds fun  in Freshman class.  So we agree on that.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:59 | 4110304 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

"Economic force can only make you an offer"

Yeah: silver or lead?

Economic force can have the same authority as a government in domestic, social, economic, or military arenas. Actually it often does.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:18 | 4110380 therevolutionwas
therevolutionwas's picture

Give me one instance where economic force can have the same authority as government.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 00:01 | 4110823 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

International Swaps and Derivatives Association

Actually this has MORE authority than a government.

Greece is a great example.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 11:31 | 4111893 therevolutionwas
therevolutionwas's picture

That's private like the FED is private.  In name only.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 01:25 | 4110984 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

Coins were invented by the aristocracy as a method to pay their armies. They would then collect tax only payable in the coin of the realm. Think about it slaves. 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 04:49 | 4111108 tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

Does a Sunsteinian "Nudge" to involuntary organ donation count as economic? He is a behavioral economist and all.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 22:19 | 4110557 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Well LTER, provide an example. Every monopoly Teddy "broke up" was government sponsored. So, what happened? Cartels and foundations which allowed the same thing, but people like you were too stupid to figure it out. ANY government intervention results in less competition. Of course, you would need to understand economics to realize this. Thankfully, that isn't the case.

Better still, there is NOTHING wrong with a monopoly, if there are no barriers to entry or special treatment from government. If the monopoly results in an acceptable product at the best price, how is the consumer hurt? Can he not just refuse to use the product if the situation changes? If something better comes along?

No, you would have us believe it is the word monopoly that is bad. That is blatant propaganda, without any analysis.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 04:09 | 4111087 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

In area's where no special privilege exists, then monopolies must be maintained by govt intervention - regulation, subsidy etc.

 

Special privilege howevers exists in many area's that people are not aware of after cursory examination.  Rail and road for example - if there is an existing railway, then that is an effective monopoly, the same is true for a highway.  There are also monopolies like a dam on a river, that might be used for power generation.  Most of the time these monopolies exist due to the finite nature of land itself - whoever gets in first, or gets a go ahead installs a special privilege.

 

Because human beings are not responsible for creating land, nor rivers, or sunshine, or air for that matter - and we all require them to survive - then we all have an equal interest.  Apportioning ownership to the first guy who turned up is incredibly short sighted, reckless, unujust and also fails to consider a future filled with other human beings who could never have had that lucky opportunity to achieve a monolpoly because they turned up first.

 

Human property should be inviolate, but it needs to be more widely understood that real estate, water, air, the cycle of living things and sunshine (to name a few) are not human property - that in fact they are equal possessions of all human beings.  Human property is all things contingent upon the human being, their body, mind, speech and especially their labor and products of labor which are valued by other human beings.  Land is not private human property - and the idea of owning and monopolizing it will always lead to social inequality.  Rent is an income that requires no effort, and the value of rent is always dependent on the entire society - and has nothing to do with the guy who owns the land.  What is built on the land is property - but land is not.

 

This should be reflected in the fact that income derived exclusively from the privilege of use of any of the naturally occuring monopolies should be distributed to the rightful shareholders - that is the community, or more broadly the nation.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:04 | 4111182 Singelguy
Singelguy's picture

If you take a closer look at the emminent domain laws, you will see that no individual really has property rights. The government can take your land whenever it feels like it. Yet, even on vacant land, the "owner" is required to pay property taxes. If you are going to abolish official private ownership of land, then get rid of the property taxes as well. Oh, and if the land does not belong to you than you are not liable for anything that happens on it, so you can abolish the insurance as well.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:48 | 4110144 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

I liked this little video on the topic by Larken Rose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oHbwdNcHbc

How To Be a Crook

 

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:07 | 4110147 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

This whole Bankstering episode has altered my belief a bit. 

I now think that the US should have nationalized the Banks and IBanks.

They should have lopped off the top level of each bank and said to the next guy in line to be CEO (not lopped off) you have 3 months to clean up and Uncle Sam and the FED will help you and then you will be a real company again, Mr New CEO.  Watch how fast each of those sharks will turn on their bosses.

If TBTF, break them up and do the same thing with the remaining parts.  Use basic rules like Glass-Steagall to determine the boundaries.

Once the three months are up, you remove banking insurance for everything but savings accounts that are required by law to charge only low interest and have NO risk.  Outlaw fractional bankstering and return the banks covered by insurance to simple utilities.  The gambling IBanks need no US Insurance.

Does this mean I lose my Misesian secret decoder ring?

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:18 | 4110222 putaipan
putaipan's picture

black, hudson & keen.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 23:32 | 4110757 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Pardon me, the reference does not mean anything to me.  Expand?

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 02:31 | 4111020 Trucker Glock
Trucker Glock's picture

Black was the only name I recognized.   William Black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CqaHTygSc

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 03:54 | 4111072 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

Removing fractional reserve bankstering is not possible unless you sever the link between money and debt - in other words monetary reform.  If you abolish fractional reserve, and don't allow for some other method to at least temporarily increase the currency supply, then there will be a deflationary collapse as all the old existing debts eat the entire currency supply.

 

There are two quick a dirty methods to achieve the outcome (of a stable money supply), one is simply print off anough money to pay out the total govt debt and pay it out with crispy new notes, and then the govt can buy all the private debt from banks and as the debts are paid off print out new money at the same rate as the currency and debt cancel each other out.

 

Or if you are particularly viscous, which I highly endorse - you can just have a debt jubilee and wipe out all debts and creditors get to suck it up.  This of course has its own problems - but at the end of either of these processes you would be able to cease printing, and abolish fractional reserve.

On the other hand you could just remove legal tender laws and allow gold, silver and other currencies to circulate - and make it illegal for debtors to insist in repayment in other than FRN's - which would eat all the FRN's and leave many debts with no way of repayment.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 19:25 | 4111678 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

I cannot see how either of those solutions would work positively.

I do recognize that removing fractional bankstering would cause a recession/depression because it removes a large source of gas being applied to the flame.   I just don't trust ANYTHING about the banks and their use of gasoline to try and goose the economy.

The first is just printing....

The second is better but you still crash the economy

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:04 | 4110181 conspicio
conspicio's picture

How to create a monopoly? Jezzuz, just start a sports league, wrap it in bullshit faux jingoism, use public broadcast spectrum to vigorously enforce copyright, use the FBI to shut down any infringing websites, rape the taxpayers every chance you get, and call it football, baseball, or hockey.

 

Ummm, so can you tell I am not a sports fan...

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:13 | 4110211 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

The AMA got a monopoly on medicine in the United States by using all of the above and collusion ...  they took the side of the tobacco companies by claiming smoking was not harmful and therefore got the support of the huge tobacco lobbies. 

 

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 20:27 | 4110246 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

Stuck

you were right 40 years ago...now the AMA does shit for docs and has become a selfserving lobbying bunch of leftist pukes. Fewer than 1 in 5 physicians belong. The AMA does not need dues for support. The government rents it medical billing system.

The AMA is completely in bed with the government and does not give a shit about doctors...and vis versa...

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:05 | 4110250 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

LOL what? not only does deregulation help create monopolies but the large businesses band together and go after the guv'mint and the individual citizen. FDA? who the hell are they? They're bought and paid for by biotech and pharmaceutical companies.

2. Subsidies.

Reducing prices to absolutely nothing? WTF? Next thing you'll say is by using computers we'll have the 4 day work week because so much productivity is going to happen in less time. It doesn't work that way. The name of the game is more product, more money, more work. Some corporations also get a free lunch by cutting wages and passing the savings onto the taxpayer with EBT and government health programs and pass the bill to the taxpayer. The bigger your business the bigger the burden. See the correlation?

3. Nationalization

Great idea! A bunch of tycoons have the capability to shut down an entire industry whenever politicians do something they don't like, or screw over the rights of the workers. Notice how bankers are all sleeping in the same bed? Obviously not.

4. Tariffs

I'd say the worst neighbor would be firms that outsource (and insource) their labor, then import their product and still manage to make more profit than a firm that does all of the work domestically at a loss. If you want to impose a tariff, it ought to be on domestic firms that outsource/insource rather than producing domestically.

What exactly is Brian's LaSorsa's background in economics? Does he even have one?

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:13 | 4110363 therevolutionwas
therevolutionwas's picture

Hey doctor selfdestruct;  The point of the article is that there is too much government.   Without  government a monopoly could not last.  How could it?   The same for all the other points.  If the government does not have the power to dictate what free people do, why in the hell would any corporation, bank, country, or whatever try to buy them off?  What is you background in economics; keynsianism?

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:33 | 4110423 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

Self-destruct. let's not forget the hyphen.

I caught the part that the author believes that there is too much government -except when he was talking about subsidies then he was like "free lunch".

...But did you understand what I wrote? I don't think you did so I'll give you a hint: Government/corporate collusion is bad.

 

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:41 | 4110464 therevolutionwas
therevolutionwas's picture

So you were in agreement with the article?  Didn't catch that, no.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 22:06 | 4110511 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

For the most part? No.

It's more like I see the importance of having some government regulation in regards such as keeping accurate books, protecting the environment, enforcing contracts, protecting intellectual property, and preventing the exploitation of workers.

I also see the dangers of monopolies and that it goes against the very concept of a free market. I also understand that a purely free market has as much of a possibility to exist as the worker's paradise (which cannot exist just so we're clear on my position).

You'll need SOME government, but as it stands right now when both government and corporation are sleeping in the same bed it creates a situation like we're seeing today. Though I blame this problem on the complacency on the majority of citizens since in a functioning representative government the people need to remain vigilant.

However, I do agree with intellectual property, which surprisingly enough you need government for that.

 

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 22:32 | 4110594 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

So, we obviously aren't regulating enough, right? Those big corps get caught by the IRS all the time, Huh? The ones the Attorney General said were too big to prosecute? Thankfully, the workers are being exploited, love canal was the last big clean-up and fracking is good for us! 

Please explain why you need SOME government, because your opinion so far is left wanting. Of course, it is the People's fault, because two hundred years of graft can't be the problem!

What a shill. Go back to the government shithole you popped out of and leave the serious discussion to The People.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 23:11 | 4110627 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

Care to point out where I even made the suggestion that we weren't regulating enough?

We can start there.

 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:56 | 4111245 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You give a laundry list of regulatory needs, all of which are highly regulated, but regulation has failed to solve the problem. Think much?

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 02:37 | 4111025 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

dork

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 03:40 | 4111060 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

I'll upvote that.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 22:08 | 4110533 Bazza McKenzie
Bazza McKenzie's picture

You are obviously unable to comprehend irony.  The author was certainly not advocating subsidies, except as ironic advice to those who want to use government to help them rip off everyone else.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 22:40 | 4110620 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

Sure I can, but this tastes more like "satire" to me.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:03 | 4110325 geologyguy
geologyguy's picture

Hey!  Monopoly!  I love that game!

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 02:37 | 4111024 Trucker Glock
Trucker Glock's picture

It now comes with a printing press and a ream of colored paper.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:14 | 4110370 Reaper
Reaper's picture

There are free markets and government manipulated markets. The government chooses the winners, who couldn't win competitively. Forget luck or a better product, bribery or begging for help is more effective.

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 21:27 | 4110412 NDXTrader
NDXTrader's picture

The only way to creat a monopoly now is to find a favored liberal cause and start a company exploiting it. Pay off the right politicians and viola.

In all seriousness is this article serious? There is one answer: the right campaign contributions

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 23:36 | 4110771 adr
adr's picture

The best way to ensure a monopoly today:

Make sure there are only publicly traded retailers to sell product to. When a great consumer product comes along, buy it and then ride the wave for a few months. When you get your first numbers and realize the product is viable, have one of your publicly traded buddies knock the product off.

Then you dump the small company and the publicly traded piece of shit gets the revenue so the stock you got through a backdoor deal for putting the publicly traded corporation's product in your store in the first place gains value.

The consumer would have liked to have bought the original product, but since you don't carry it, and have the exact same thing from a more recognizable brand, they just buy the one you've got.

Everyone wins, as long as they bought the stocks of the company's you sell. If they bought the actual products, most of the time they lose because when you had your publicly traded buddy knock off the product, he cheapened it to the point it isn't even worth buying.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 01:32 | 4110992 icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

You can also create a monopoly by destroying every competing venture that might threaten your own, whether by military force or by privately leveraging laws in ways that were never intended. See: World War II, Microsoft 1990s litigation strategy.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 02:22 | 4111014 Trucker Glock
Trucker Glock's picture

Patents aren't the problem with IP.  The corrupt and ignorant juducial system is the problem.  And it doesn't matter who filed first, as it should be.  It matters who has the most money and/or connections.  Or, who can "convice" a judge that things in nature, such as a genome, are patentable.

Some say patents chill innovation.  I would argue patents spur innovation.  It drives people to solve problems in multiple ways to get around existing patents.  And, if you invent a novel process, method, mechanical movement, etc., you should be able to profit from it.

The idea of patents is good.  The judicial system is not so good.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 02:45 | 4111030 NickVegas
NickVegas's picture

Here is an interesting fact, the bubble sort is patented. Your argument is more government control thru the judiciary will allow a flourishing of ideas brought to market benefiting the consumer. It's always the same with the true believers, some piece is broken and if, in Never Never Land, we could just fix that piece, rainbows will appear in the sky, and the system will act as intended. I have a unicorn for sale too.  

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 11:53 | 4111980 Trucker Glock
Trucker Glock's picture

I didn't say anything you claim I said.  But, it's your story, tell it however you like.

No patents = Free Shit Army

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 05:10 | 4111110 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

ok, good article, good comments. I will go against the grain here and declare that there are unforeseen consequences if you join the old Liberalism call for "No Tariffs, no trade barriers, period": globalization

and globalization generates costs which are not generally included in the original transaction. moar is not always better

now try to convince me that I have to be happy about the Transatlantic Trade Pact between the US and the EU which Obama and Cameron so dearly want, which includes GMO food to be produced in the US and shipped to and consumed in the EU

meanwhile I'll be eating my breakfast of French cheeses, all made out of raw, unpasteurized milk, which my genetic setup allows me to digest without problems. then I suspect the whole drive towards pasteurization of milk and cheeses was always an issue about producers wanting to achieve a better market penetration

and if you find my attitude illiberal, I'll reply that I see myself as co-sovereign with all Peoples of Europe, and hold up the Rule of Law and the Rights of Nations to make their Own Laws

and if We, The Sovereign(s), don't want GMO food, and want laws that ban all or most of them in our territories, then that's it. with all it's illiberal, barbaric splendor

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 08:05 | 4111256 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Ricardo made the original arguments on comparatibe advantage and the austrian school on the benefits of no tariffs. That being said, the Transatlantic trade pact is governmental intervention in that process. We don't need treaties or customs houses, just free trade. No one is stopping the europeans from not bying GMO's.  Freedom in labeling, which we don't have, can solve your dilemma.

Globalization is not new, how it is controlled by corporations is. This is done with the consent and strong arm of the government. Hell, in the US, we an't even sue Monsanto, they are officially above the law.

If you really wanted to ban GMO's, the people wouldn' buy them, and they would eliminate themselves from your market.You don't need a law, just free will.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 12:19 | 4112018 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

excellent answer, yet too dogmatic for my (political) tastes

I get reminded about how free the Gauls lived, and how their tribal elders started to worry about their warriors selling their daughters and sisters (legally their property) to the Romans in exchange of wine. one slave for one amphor of wine. very free, and very drunk, and very violent. lots of fights and deaths. then they weren't used to this - for them - potent drug

they forbade that trade. less because of the women's sakes as for the men's sake. I suspect I would have done the same. would proper labeling have solved their dilemma?

the Roman Wine Cartel financed (and lobbyied for) Julius Caesar's expedition. one million deaths, another million enslaved, free trade at last

globalization is not new, no. yet the interests that propel it don't even need the corporation vehicle. it's just very handy

Ricardo was right. free trade is economically efficient. yet I'm not going to do certain things only because it's efficient

beware propaganda in all it's forms

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 05:09 | 4111120 daemon
daemon's picture

"5. Intellectual property. If you have a good idea, why let anyone else have the same one?"

I don't have a precise example at this moment, but I remember hearing about stories of people who spent a lot of energy/time to develop some very good ideas, that were "stolen" by others who could enrich themselves with them .

Wouldn't you like to protect the inventors ?

Wouldn''t the idea of abolishing private property be some kind of "socialism" ?

 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:11 | 4111188 BidnessMan
BidnessMan's picture

Right or Wrong, patents are part of the US Constitution.

United States patent law is authorized by Article One, Section 8(8) of the U.S. Constitution which states:

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

 

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 08:09 | 4111263 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Lots of things are part of the Constitution, I like the fourth amendment and the tenth, but I don't get to enjoy those. Selective enforcement makes the Constitution a worthless document.

Further, the time was limited, but Congress keeps changing that. Try to keep up.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:04 | 4111183 theprofromdover
theprofromdover's picture

The intellectual property one is wrong.

They'll grant you a patent for just about anything, even a copy of someone else's patented idea. But then you need your heavyweight lawyers to go to bat for you (forever) -at a very high price. It is the lawyers that count in the IP rights issue. He who has the deepest pockets wins.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 07:11 | 4111189 theprofromdover
theprofromdover's picture

There is an unwritten ambition here. 'They' want to remove all independent spirits, they need a pliable population.

They think they can do that by wiping out all small independent businesses and small employers. They want to wipe out the cash economy, and want it all through the banks. They want to pull your taxes straight out of your employers account. They can then take what they want.

They want giant corporations, and giant banks, don't really care what they charge, or what profits they make. If they keep the workers in line, then everything will be fine.

By the way 'they' isnt the Government, they is the Industrial Complex. Govt. no longer exists, it is a branch office of Wall St and the Boardrooms.

Fri, 11/01/2013 - 09:33 | 4111484 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Asian (Japanese, Taiwanese) companies used to (and probably still do) use Gov subsidies to compete for contracts for Western tech products.

When their Gov picks up 80-90% of the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) costs, and the US Gov does not, guess where the new generation of an (innovation-driven) tech product gets developed? In the US (in-house or external), or offshore in Asia?

When the Development costs are much lower than in the US (because of these subsidies that lead to a Mfg. contract), well, so does the final product. Slowly but surely the design and manufacture of high-tech products moves offshore, and ironically enough (thanks to focused lobbying), the US Tax Code actually aids & abets US corps that want to offshore.

Yet it's billed as "Good for business" and "Sound MBA principles". The real question is: Good for whom and how many, and do 'MBA principles' include National Interest or just those of your company's execs and shareholders and their short-term profit maximization?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!