Old One
Arcane
But who's going to play Gary?
Good points and it was fun to read. Also, just like people who claim free markets are the best, they forget that free markets lead to monopolies that are the worst. I believe in boarders and sovereignty because I believe in diversity and geographical needs. Also, I want other countries to be fun to visit and be totally alien. I hate homogeny and conformity. Free markets are good with some regulations and laws stopping things very bad for free markets, such as illegal immigration lowering wages of a countr's citizens or creating a perpetual underclass. Same goes with boarders. Same goes for everything, including liberty, etc. As Tacticus states - the more numerous the laws the more corrupt the State.
I actually have a different perspective towards the free market and monopolies. I believe every monopoly in history has been the result of government interference in the market. Under a free market, eventually competition will rise up that does something better/cheaper and they will knock the king off the throne. However, if the government is propping up the monopoly, that is virtually impossible to do. The problem with the logic of using regulations to prevent monopolies is they often end up being exactly what creates and sustains the monopoly. That's because regulations quickly become a form of crony-Capitalism once the big business interests get involved with government. They then use the regulations, masquerading as being a deterrent against big business, as a tool to crush all competition. Thus, the government becomes an instrument of uplift and protection for them, because they can manipulate the laws/regulations to suit them and ensure that any competition cannot endure them. They have the lobbyists, lawyers and money to get around them. It can't be said about any start-up that tries to challenge them. There's a reason, for example, Wal-Mart lobbied for Obamacare even though it would cost them tremendously: they knew that it would be more harmful to their competition. It also gave them a scapegoat for not providing their employees with benefits.
One of the worst examples I can think of in recent history of anti-monoply/anti-Trust laws being ridiculous is in regards to Whole Foods. A few years ago, the FTC sued Whole Foods, saying they were a "monopoly in premium and organic food supermarkets," which is a concept they invented. They ended up having to sell 32 stores to comply with the FTC. They spent over $32 million dollars fighting it, won in the courts but the FTC has their own courts so after Whole Foods won in the regular courts they told them they were going to be taken to the FTC courts. They realized this was going to cost them at least $100 million dollars so they decided it was more cost effective to just close the stores. Now, a couple of years after this Whole Foods started getting into financial trouble as profits went down and people backlashed over their expensive prices. You see, other grocery chains had started carrying huge premium and organic food sections with selections at lower prices. The free market went to work and gave them competition. Now, hilariously, Amazon -- a company that is constantly labeled a monopoly -- has purchased Whole Foods. Ironically, if you Google "Amazon Whole Foods monoply" 90% of the articles are defending the purchase or saying it's not a monopoly and the FTC hasn't flinched. I guess Amazon has better lobbyists and connections in government.
Today you can get sued for being a monopoly if your prices are too low (predatory pricing), if they're too high (monopolistic prices) or if they're the same as competitors (collusion).
No one can win under that because no matter what you do you can be sued for being a "monopoly" and consider who made the "predatory pricing" law: big business with powerful lobbyists who wanted government to be used as a tool in case someone undercuts their prices to compete. They're big enough so that they can avoid the government coming after them for overpricing goods and even if the government did they can afford to beat it in court, while smaller companies cannot. The entire anti-trust system is rigged against competition and against the consumer. The free market doesn't have these issues.
If you care to listen, Tom Woods has an excellent Podcast covering this topic from this perspective: http://tomwoods.com/ep-232-the-robber-barons-and-monopoly/
But who's going to play Gary?
Look at Google and Facebook and Twitter. There was a time when the news would never refer to a product by name, now the populace are the ones creating and enforcing the monopolies. Everyone is so eager to the hip that they love turning a product into a commonly used verb, and the media and the government is helping them out by also using these product names as verbs.
And I disagree wholeheartedly with the free market's stance on monopolies. Historic monopolies lasted centuries and didn't change without wars. Also, in this global environment, with businesses looking for only short term gains, and the ability to lobby all the corrupt governments for their benefits, monopolies are far more hurtful to any market and the global population than ever.
Your Whole Foods example really bothers my sense of fairness. But, if the government wasn't corrupt this wouldn't have happened. Trader Joe or some other fucking pricks probably gave tons of money to the right people to "enforce justice."
What looks good on paper, and works on paper, doesn't translate well into today's world. People are to entrenched in their cults to care about anything besides what their cult leaders tell them - and why so many politicians can get away with murder. Before anything happens to allow global corporations more power we need to purge our government of corruption and have the left go through some sort of cult un-indoctrination program. And we need to start electing only severely autistic people who can pass some sort of test proving they are incorruptible and swear to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.
This is a pipe dream so I have to side against the big corps and global corps and against corporations. Just look at how the 50 year rule for public domain has been shit on by all the corrupt governments of the world, with the US leading the charge. I guess Funcom is sending cease and desist letters to people around the globe writing Conan stories or other Conan related stuff. Its bullshit.
John Goodman. Or Vin Diesel.But who's going to play Gary?
Crispin Glover.
John Goodman. Or Vin Diesel.But who's going to play Gary?
Crispin Glover.
Look at Google and Facebook and Twitter. There was a time when the news would never refer to a product by name, now the populace are the ones creating and enforcing the monopolies. Everyone is so eager to the hip that they love turning a product into a commonly used verb, and the media and the government is helping them out by also using these product names as verbs.
And I disagree wholeheartedly with the free market's stance on monopolies. Historic monopolies lasted centuries and didn't change without wars. Also, in this global environment, with businesses looking for only short term gains, and the ability to lobby all the corrupt governments for their benefits, monopolies are far more hurtful to any market and the global population than ever.
Your Whole Foods example really bothers my sense of fairness. But, if the government wasn't corrupt this wouldn't have happened. Trader Joe or some other fucking pricks probably gave tons of money to the right people to "enforce justice."
What looks good on paper, and works on paper, doesn't translate well into today's world. People are to entrenched in their cults to care about anything besides what their cult leaders tell them - and why so many politicians can get away with murder. Before anything happens to allow global corporations more power we need to purge our government of corruption and have the left go through some sort of cult un-indoctrination program. And we need to start electing only severely autistic people who can pass some sort of test proving they are incorruptible and swear to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.
This is a pipe dream so I have to side against the big corps and global corps and against corporations. Just look at how the 50 year rule for public domain has been shit on by all the corrupt governments of the world, with the US leading the charge. I guess Funcom is sending cease and desist letters to people around the globe writing Conan stories or other Conan related stuff. Its bullshit.
1. I actually don't think this statement is true at all. I can name tons of brand names people use as generic terms. Jet Ski, Bubble wrap, Jacuzzi, Chapstick, Crock Pot, Kleenex, Scotch Tape, Popsicle, Q-Tips, Tupperwear, Band Aids, etc. You pick up any kind of transparent tape or any sort of adhesive bandage and people call it scotch tape or band-aid no matter what, even though that's the name of an actual brand. This is the case because it's that well known. If 90% of the population currently uses Google to prefer internet services than of course they're going to say "Google it" just like they would "Put a Band Aid on it" or "Scotch tape it." But if it's government doing it, wouldn't that be an example of what I was talking about with government getting in bed with big business helping create monopolies (not that I think any of those companies necessarily are... before Google or Facebook existed Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL had all at one time or another been called monopolies... and what happened to them? They had a temporary competitive advantage, but ultimately were knocked from the top and then some).
2. I don't think there are any modern monopolies. I've watched so many businesses people said were monopolies either completely crash and burn or be knocked from the top. Temporary competitive advantage is a thing, but if it exists it's because they were the best. If you look at historical monopolies in the U.S. like the American Tobacco Company it is easy to see that it was government intervention and not the free market that caused it. Thomas DiLorenzo has done some wonderful writing about this subject.
3. I do agree that if the government wasn't corrupt the Whole Foods thing wouldn't have happened, but it wasn't the free market or capitalism that corrupted government, it was the opposite: it was government intervention and resulting crony-capitalism. It was the destruction of the free market.
In the end, I'm willing to bet you that in 20 years we'll have all new boogie man companies that get called monopolies and the ones we consider monopolies today won't be so fierce.
I could see John Goodman as Gary, mainly because the Gary described in those FBI files seems awfully similar to Walter from The Big Lebowski.
I don't disagree with anything you said completely besides point 1. The news and the government would never say Kleenex, they would say tissue. Or there would be a new generic verb to use, such as emailing or water skiing. When the news and government are both enforcing the monopoly of monopolies, and approving nonsense patterns because people know which pockets to line, the system is broken.
Look at the East India Trading Company, or the silk trade between China and Japan around the same time. Look at how corrupt the FDA is. How is that not a monopoly?
Also look at the Molly McGuire's and the actual wars the miners and mining corps had in Idaho. Teddy Roosevelt had to step in. Some things that work in a vacuum do not work in real life. A real free market requires no government intervention and no governments, because it needs the free movement of labor and resources. USDA was formed because people were being sold rotten meat. You and I may say - get the word out and people will stop buying from there and the place will close. But this is rarely true. People are dumb and want the government to protect them from their own stupidity. And more importantly, the news agencies are all controlled by global corporations and are more propaganda machines and manipulators than actual news outlets. The do not report on news that would hurt them, their world view, or their parent company. They feel free making up news and attacking relentlessly anyone who dare oppose them and their views.
In a different, smarter, much less corrupt world I agree with you. In our current world, I wish there was a law limiting the size of any business and having huge incentives for people to start competitive businesses when there is no competition. Free markets assume there is a choice and people make decisions. Monopolies leave no choices and people do not make decisions - they follow the crowd like lemmings. There is a running joke at work because I always say "look it up on the internet, or use a search engine to find it." I refuse to ever say "Google it." Fuck google. I never use google. And I'm made fun of for not using this piece of shit commy company filled with uppity dickheads as a verb.
When I was younger I would think a more libertarian approach to government would force people to be smarter and better informed. That will never happen as long as those who hate liberty are in control of the news and all the major corporations (who also happen to own the news).
Things aren't going to be workable until there is a major power shake-up. I think there will be civil war and then a major economic collapse and vacuum. And since we manufacture basically jack and shit in the US the absolute worst case scenario would be a libertarian approach to government since that vacuum will be filled by global corporations at a time we need small business to start, flourish, and manufacture the US back to the top. I think the only chance for a bright future after the war and collapse would be ensuring no large corps are allowed in the US and stopping corps from growing at a small percentage of GDP. It kills me to have believe only heavy handed, anti-corp government would work given what I want society and the government to be, but I don't see another workable solution that doesn't result in the same lemming cult mentality and super corrupt governments pandering to way too powerful corps. Government is fire and should always be treated as such. It has to be constantly contained and controlled lest it spread and destroy everything. I know you don't believe in totally free markets so I am hoping you can see somewhat empathize with how I see the current situation as being unworkable.
Not to mention that whenever a war happens typically eventually the populace gets tired of war and looks to someone, who usually ends up being a military despot, to end the war by any means necessary. Liberty rarely survives.
It went again journalistic standards to promote products or name products that are integral to the story. If the company was part of the story it would be named along with their main product. So they would say tissue if it wasn't news about the company who makes Kleenex, such as - "ACME, the makers of Kleenex tissues, blah blah." This is well documented in old journalistic standards books.
Also, government employees were not (and I honestly don't think the regulation ahs change) allowed to promote commercial products in their function as a government employee, which included unnecessary naming of a product. Now they do it constantly. Its along the same idea of political campaigning as a government employee, or giving gifts worth over $20 (or around 20, I'm not positive this is the exact amount but it is about this) to a government employee or superior if you are a government employee.
I wasn't using the USDA as a good point of a government monopoly - I used it to make a point (that wasn't clear at all and I think I got sidetracked) that people willingly and happily create monopolies with no resistance at all. They cheer for it and love it. The USDA was not made for altruistic reasons. It was made to increase the power of government and have leverage over a powerful industry. And people cheer for it and want more of it.
To keep this short, we agree in things in theory. If I am understanding you correctly you think removing all regulations regarding monopolies would be a good move and help the free market which in turn helps enrich the people who live within the free market, or at least indirectly improve their quality of living.
I am saying that, given how corrupt the government is, how easy it is for big corp lobbyists and other special interest groups to buy regulations that hurt most people, and how prominent and loved most of the corporation monopolies are right now, and the major government are willing to allow and enforce pattern rights to simple processes that go 100% against allowing competition and 100% for enforcing a specific company's monopoly. All along with a "news" media that is bought and owned by a specific anti-free market ideology and owned by major global corporations, we basically have no meaningful anti-monopoly regulations already. At least currently it takes a lot of bribe money and power and a little effort to make a monopoly. Nothing has to change for the system to not work any less effectively or efficiently. Removing these regulations will change nothing and not help people at all. The current world and all it's systems are so broken and people are so entrenched in their cults nothing will ever get better without a major war.
Besides the war that made the US and every war since the US has been in? Or most countries in WW1 and WW2. WW2 actually turned Japan from a military despot ruled society into a major free market democracy.
But even if that was true, it would 100% be for the best in the long term. Since we have no production here, and the decadence the US citizens have and are oblivious to, war and economic collapse will not be enough. We will need to live under the yolk of very hard and very punishing tyranny for a while to get the last vestiges of stupidity and pussiness out of us as a society. Then we will rise up and throw off the yolk of oppression again and start over and make a new better DoI and Constitution and much more succinct and clearly stated and explained Bill of Rights and fix the clear and obvious errors in our current society that just leads to stupidity, people loving to and cheering when they give up liberty, all the doublespeak, and corruption.
If I was Snake Plissken at the end of Escape from LA I would hit the button. What would you do?
Although with the rising threat of an EMP attack, something we are totally unprepared for... someone else might.
I Look at what happened to Taco Bell with the "pink slime" thing -- and that was just a made up term!
ABC News and Beef Products Inc. reached a settlement in a $5.7 billion lawsuit that claimed a story ABC ran in 2012 misled viewers and caused hundreds of layoffs.
On Wednesday, ABC announced it had reached an "amicable resolution" with BPI. The terms of the settlement are confidential, the Sioux City Journal's Nick Hytrek reported.
BPI's attorney, Dan Webb, said the settlement "vindicated" the company and its "lean finely textured beef," the product that ABC dubbed "pink slime" in its 2012 reports, according to Hytrek.
"Although we have concluded that continued litigation of this case is not in the company's interests, we remain committed to the vigorous pursuit of truth and the consumer's right to know about the products they purchase," ABC said in a statement.
Lawyers made their opening arguments less than a month ago in a trial that could have resulted in a verdict of as much as $5.7 billion if BPI had won.
In the suit, BPI alleged that ABC misled viewers by calling its lean finely textured beef "pink slime." LFTB is a common ingredient in beef products and is safe to eat, which ABC noted in its reports. However, even with assurances that the ingredient, made from the trimmings of a cow and treated with ammonia to kill bacteria, wasn't dangerous, the phrase "pink slime" turned off customers, the lawsuit claimed.