New World Order

[guerilla]

It has to be a lot worse than no govt and laws for things to turn to anarchy. Usually has to involve No govt, laws ,morals, hope, income, pride, history of civility and then it turns into a shit storm.

That's chaos. Anarchy was known, prior to the 20th century, as natural order. A state that is uncontrolled, such as in the wild.

Have you ever gone mountain climbing, camping or hunting out in the middle of nowhere? Its amazingly civil. Even when some people have guns and knives.

Out there, there is no govt (unless someone is a govt employee) and no real law enforcement.

You get it. That's the main point. Humans self-organize and generally interact trillions of times a day without becoming violent or dangerous. The idea that we have to be protected from ourselves is pretty outrageous.

 

[dsm56]

You get it. That's the main point. Humans self-organize and generally interact trillions of times a day without becoming violent or dangerous. The idea that we have to be protected from ourselves is pretty outrageous.

I agree. How are humans still alive if these chaos theories would be true?

It is one of those myths spread by hollywood about how post-apocalyptic chaos worlds will be dominated by gangs that ransack the weak (I watched the road yesterday).

After all, we came from tribes of around 150 people that occasionally clashed, but managed to evolve and survive tens of thousands of years now.

 

[Moxie]

If its good to the USA for Walmart to be able to shuffle products around the world as if there are no governments, then wouldn't the extension of that be for them to be free to import workers? Get rid of the minimum wage and the borders and many American jobs would be filled for $1 an hour. This would lead to even lower prices. Something tells me that the average American wouldn't really like this scenario though.

 

[Ar Scion]

So you want to regulate them to freedom?
If your priority in business is sentimentality then you will probably not like free markets unless people's priorities change heavily soon(if buying local comes into style, Walmart will fade. By the will of the people).
If your priority in business is innovation, cheaper prices, and efficiency then you will like free markets.

Businesses are not rewarded for doing the same old thing.

This is absolutely ridiculous. "Our government is so in bed with corporations (by choice) that our only hope to stop the corporations is that same corrupt government?"

Beyond that

1. Most regulations have nothing to do with restricting lobbying(you seem to have switched topics).
2. You can't stop lobbyists with the very people they're paying.
3. Regulation is HOW businesses take over. Or do you think the health/auto insurance industries HATE having a product that's mandatory to purchase? Or that Pharmaceutical companies hate having a multi-million(billion?) dollar barrier for entry in legal fees alone? Or that broadcasting companies really loathe having the FCC own the airwaves? In the short term, some of this may hurt. But they're the ones writing the legislation, so they ensure their long-term goals(no new competitors) outweigh the short term loss (a bit of the capital they already have)
   

I really enjoy that you've managed to take 'regulation' and define it as 'the 2-3 campaign finance reform bills that have been passed in the last century'

If government wasn't interfering in the markets all the time, there'd be no benefit to lobbying.

As a society, self-preservation and the well-being of people comes first. That's why government is necessary and regulation is necessary.

Without human capital you cannot develop a market, start a business, develop a business plan, have services on which enterprise depends on, or develop any kind of infrastructure.

You NEED government. To dismiss it as universally meddling and corrupt is nothing more than blind idealism and myopic dogmatism. It's easy to talk shit about the government when you have a plethora of federal and state agencies protecting your rights and freedoms, keeping law and order, sending you welfare checks and having your back whenever shit goes down.

...yes, which is why you get government the fuck out. You make the businesses compete on even playing field.

There is hardly any room to compete in the search engine market- if the government were to pull out, will it suddenly become more competitive? Will we finally wake up to an economic utopia?

Of course not. Google and Microsoft will cut a deal and not let anybody else in. The result will be a monopoly (or a duopoly in this case) and all the wonderful side-effects including but not limited to killing off of competition, boosting barrier to entry for prospective competition, price fixing and customer-fucking.

In short, your claim is ridiculous and reflects the delusion of the principle behind it, namely that deregulation of markets is universally good and government regulation is universally bad.

I find it funny how your sweeping assertions have failed to touch upon the overall picture. A good start would be to address the specific problem brought up.

Namely that as businesses grow and markets mature the barrier to entry into a market is more likely to rise than fall and the result is more likely to be reduced competition.

How exactly is this a good thing?

 

[dsm56]

Of course not. Google and Microsoft will cut a deal and not let anybody else in. The result will be a monopoly (or a duopoly in this case) and all the wonderful side-effects including but not limited to killing off of competition, boosting barrier to entry for prospective competition, price fixing and customer-fucking.

You mean like how Altavista priced fixed and created barriers to entry? I could probably think of some better examples of what you are trying to prove, but how about you answer these questions.

1. How can search engines possibly create barriers to entry? Except for offering amazing service and evolving algorithms, which give you better and better value? Any new business that gives you better search results that google would destroy google with a bit of venture capital.

2. How is the government currently regulating Google and Microsoft? I am completely confused by your views. I cannot think of any regulation currently keeping Microsoft and Google apart. In fact, due to a free market, Google are slowly destroying the monopoly that microsoft has had on operating systems by building better software. This is a perfect example of how over time (even 20 years), if a monopoly stops giving value for customers, they will not be able to sustain their position.

 

[xmcp123]

As a society, self-preservation and the well-being of people comes first. That's why government is necessary and regulation is necessary.

Without human capital you cannot develop a market, start a business, develop a business plan, have services on which enterprise depends on, or develop any kind of infrastructure.

You NEED government. To dismiss it as universally meddling and corrupt is nothing more than blind idealism and myopic dogmatism. It's easy to talk shit about the government when you have a plethora of federal and state agencies protecting your rights and freedoms, keeping law and order, sending you welfare checks and having your back whenever shit goes down.

I'm not saying that government is universally corrupt, I'm saying that the bills that come out to regulate industry are nearly universally corrupt. In my opinion the only 'authentic' part of most regulatory missions is removing/restricting monopolies. Everything else is gravy for lobbyists. And even then: Monopolies are more likely to be created by regulations than they are to be restricted by them.

Believing that the state and federal agencies are protecting your rights, when very little evidence points to that is myopic dogmatism.

The legislation that was created for these industries was created for the benefit of the companies at the top. The little regulation that is well intentioned is mostly making up for faults within previous regulation, not faults within the market.
Show me an industry where the government is heavily involved, and I'll show you an industry with unhealthy monopolies or companies that are using that regulation to shut out competition.
Telecom? Check.
Health Care? Check.
Pharmaceuticals? Check.
Cable? Check.
Broadcasting? Check.

Try to break into any of these industries and you'll find that not only the legal paperwork is a significant barrier for entry, but that they're actually very poorly policed. Does anyone even pretend places like the SEC are competent? Madoff sure as fuck didn't seem scared.

There is hardly any room to compete in the search engine market- if the government were to pull out, will it suddenly become more competitive? Will we finally wake up to an economic utopia?

The government isn't heavily involved in the search engine market...
But there is room to compete in the search engine market, just not doing the exact same thing as Google. A lot of people(for example) see a lot of opportunity in real-time social search of things like twitter. Google sees the importance too (with the Caffeine update) but there's still room to come in.
Another great example is bing making progress with it's video search. Or meta-porn search engines. Or product comparisons (froogle never quite took off)

You can't challenge Google overnight. But you can take over a niche and expand into their market share over time.

Of course not. Google and Microsoft will cut a deal and not let anybody else in. The result will be a monopoly (or a duopoly in this case) and all the wonderful side-effects including but not limited to killing off of competition, boosting barrier to entry for prospective competition, price fixing and customer-fucking.

Yeah, Google and Microsoft will rule your ability to make a GET request over the HTTP protocol and save the results. The bastards!

In short, your claim is ridiculous and reflects the delusion of the principle behind it, namely that deregulation of markets is universally good and government regulation is universally bad.

You should probably show at least a single example of a government institution that truly looks out for the people and not businesses before you chisel that in stone.

I find it funny how your sweeping assertions have failed to touch upon the overall picture. A good start would be to address the specific problem brought up.

Namely that as businesses grow and markets mature the barrier to entry into a market is more likely to rise than fall and the result is more likely to be reduced competition.

How exactly is this a good thing?

There is an advantage to being the first to market. But it doesn't control things. Why do you think affiliates are able to exist?
I'll give you a hint: It's because we can change direction faster than large, bloated entities. The same principal (when the barrier for entry is not raised) works in a lot of industries. Infastructure related costs in many are a concern, but are not unreachable. But you have to be doing something new and worthwhile. The "Free market" is not the "Freedom" to immediately compete without an original idea. The "free market" is the idea that if your business plan is unique and original(and functional obviously), or can operate significantly cheaper than the competition, then you can succeed.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

2. How is the government currently regulating Google and Microsoft? I am completely confused by your views. I cannot think of any regulation currently keeping Microsoft and Google apart.

It's called the Sherman Antitrust Laws. That's the regulation keeping them apart.

 

[dsm56]

I find it very unlikely that with no regulation Google and Microsoft would merge. Google is trying to beat Microsoft on OS and Microsoft is trying to beat Google on search. They are competing.

But if you show me proof I will concede and admit you are right.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I find it very unlikely that with no regulation Google and Microsoft would merge. Google is trying to beat Microsoft on OS and Microsoft is trying to beat Google on search. They are competing.

But if you show me proof I will concede and admit you are right.

Most of the time it's a matter of larger companies buying their competitors, not necessarily a merger. Once you establish a dominant position, you simply buy out your competition before they become a threat. Antitrust laws attempt to prevent that through regulation.

 

[Ar Scion]

1. How can search engines possibly create barriers to entry? Except for offering amazing service and evolving algorithms, which give you better and better value? Any new business that gives you better search results that google would destroy google with a bit of venture capital.

It's a natural result of market share and profit consolidation.

Google made 2 billion dollars in profit in Q4 2009 alone. How much of their revenue do you think goes towards offering "amazing service and evolving algorithms"? Can startups compete?

Most promising startups are bought up the moment they appear on Google's radar. And if they manage not to get bought up, they still have to outmuscle a ten-figure a year operation with whatever chump change venture capital they have.

That's not necessarily fair or unfair and Google is neither good nor bad, but this kind of scenario is certainly a barrier to entry for competition. And every year the barrier gets higher as Google consolidates.

2. How is the government currently regulating Google and Microsoft? I am completely confused by your views. I cannot think of any regulation currently keeping Microsoft and Google apart. In fact, due to a free market, Google are slowly destroying the monopoly that microsoft has had on operating systems by building better software. This is a perfect example of how over time (even 20 years), if a monopoly stops giving value for customers, they will not be able to sustain their position.

I didn't say Google and Microsoft will merge. But in a completely deregulated market they will have the choice to collaborate, something they can't do now because we have anti-trust legislation.

Right now, Google and Microsoft have more to gain by collaborating than competing because sharing operations will cut costs enormously for both companies. It's just legislation that's getting in the way and making an effort to keep the markets more competitive.

 

[guerilla]

Most of the time it's a matter of larger companies buying their competitors, not necessarily a merger. Once you establish a dominant position, you simply buy out your competition before they become a threat. Antitrust laws attempt to prevent that through regulation.

Did you watch the video I posted on that?

 

[guerilla]

It's a natural result of market share and profit consolidation.

Google made 2 billion dollars in profit in Q4 2009 alone. How much of their revenue do you think goes towards offering "amazing service and evolving algorithms"? Can startups compete?

Most promising startups are bought up the moment they appear on Google's radar. And if they manage not to get bought up, they still have to outmuscle a ten-figure a year operation with whatever chump change venture capital they have.

That's not necessarily fair or unfair and Google is neither good nor bad, but this kind of scenario is certainly a barrier to entry for competition. And every year the barrier gets higher as Google consolidates.

But that is not a barrier to competition. What you're arguing is that success is a barrier to competitors coming into the market. But isn't success what we are striving for?

I didn't say Google and Microsoft will merge. But in a completely deregulated market they will have the choice to collaborate, something they can't do now because we have anti-trust legislation.

Right now, Google and Microsoft have more to gain by collaborating than competing because sharing operations will cut costs enormously for both companies. It's just legislation that's getting in the way and making an effort to keep the markets more competitive.

Actually, right now all they can do is form an duopoly where they share the market because they are terrified of gaining significant market share over the other, and being broken up by anti-trust.

Anti-trust is used to prevent firms from succeeding, and to create the sort of stagnation the D3 employed for decades.

 

[guerilla]

Namely that as businesses grow and markets mature the barrier to entry into a market is more likely to rise than fall and the result is more likely to be reduced competition.

How exactly is this a good thing?

You haven't proven the claim you have made. Is the computer industry coverging? Has the deregulated telecomm industry converged? Have cell phone manufacturers converged?

Those markets are maturing and continuing to be diverse. Why?

Less regulation.

Even if there was free market convergence, this would be a good thing, because as a market becomes less attractive to compete in, it means consumers are being served. You might not like Google or Microsoft, but no one has done a better job than them in their key markets.

You also should watch the Ron Paul/Dom Armentato video I posted. You seem to have positions based on popular mythology about anti-trust, and not on actual history or economics.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Did you watch the video I posted on that?

I was gonna wait until you responded to this post.

 

[guerilla]

We agree on most points, but:

After reading this,

No offense, but I think that statement is a little naive. I have satisfied my greed in all kinds of ways that didn't leave my fellow man (or overweight housewife with yellow teeth) better off. I took advantage of them and market inefficiencies to arbitrage my bank account into a better position and there was nothing noble about it. I was able to do that because the government hadn't stepped in to regulate anything and so I (and many others) had free reign to "love" my fellow man. And by "love" I mean they got jailsexed.

We're not on the same page. If you did something wrong to others only because you were not stopped by government, that is about your character, not mine. Our goals are not the same. You're not trying to be useful, you're trying to prey on people.

I don't need to be regulated because you act anti-socially. I don't need to be punished and taxed because you operate fraudulently (assuming that is what you did).

You're just trying to offload the moral responsibility for your actions onto people who don't make the same moral choices you do by asking to be regulated. By insisting you can't behave responsibly in the absence of a threat.

It is a little ironic that you would be for regulating the behavior you perform and seem to believe is wrong.

In a free market, if you defrauded someone by lying, you would be liable. The person who would pursue restitution would be the injured party. People would not be able to abuse their credit buying things from you, and when they get burned, walk away from their debt. So they would have to watch what they buy, and when they feel they were taken, they would look to get compensated, because otherwise they would be left holding the bag.

But that requires a more advanced look at markets than we can get to in this thread, and with people who aren't interested in discussing fact, but asserting fallacies or making claims that the other party is naive. If logic and history are naive, then all bets are off. And I have better things to do with time than go back and forth with unsupported positions.

 

[guerilla]

I was gonna wait until you responded to this post.

I think I just responded to it, but I don't understand why you are avoiding watching it. Regardless, I think after my last reply, you and I are done short of some major development in your argument or an epiphany.

 

[Ar Scion]

I'm not saying that government is universally corrupt, I'm saying that the bills that come out to regulate industry are nearly universally corrupt. In my opinion the only 'authentic' part of most regulatory missions is removing/restricting monopolies. Everything else is gravy for lobbyists. And even then: Monopolies are more likely to be created by regulations than they are to be restricted by them.

How are the bills nearly universally corrupt? Are they trying to maliciously hurt big businesspeople or rich people? Are politicians really that stupid to not realise that they depend on enterprise for the well being of their constituents?

Just wondering how you see this happening.

Believing that the state and federal agencies are protecting your rights, when very little evidence points to that is myopic dogmatism.

The legislation that was created for these industries was created for the benefit of the companies at the top. The little regulation that is well intentioned is mostly making up for faults within previous regulation, not faults within the market.
Show me an industry where the government is heavily involved, and I'll show you an industry with unhealthy monopolies or companies that are using that regulation to shut out competition.
Telecom? Check.
Health Care? Check.
Pharmaceuticals? Check.
Cable? Check.
Broadcasting? Check.

Try to break into any of these industries and you'll find that not only the legal paperwork is a significant barrier for entry, but that they're actually very poorly policed. Does anyone even pretend places like the SEC are competent? Madoff sure as fuck didn't seem scared.

Can you show me some evidence that regulations were legislated in order for certain big companies to benefit? If it happens, it's likely unethical if not illegal.

Corporations don't vote, people do so the only benefit a legislator could receive is campaign funds and bribes. Which should be illegal if it isn't already.

With paperwork there's two sides to the issue. On one side it's a real pain for corporations, but on the other peoples lives are in danger.

When you think about whether you want businesses to comply with extra paperwork and inspections or have a couple hundred people die from eating meat that wasn't inspected, what would you choose?

The government isn't heavily involved in the search engine market...
But there is room to compete in the search engine market, just not doing the exact same thing as Google. A lot of people(for example) see a lot of opportunity in real-time social search of things like twitter. Google sees the importance too (with the Caffeine update) but there's still room to come in.
Another great example is bing making progress with it's video search. Or meta-porn search engines. Or product comparisons (froogle never quite took off)

You can't challenge Google overnight. But you can take over a niche and expand into their market share over time.

It's possible to challenge Google given sufficient capital and good fortune. But the barrier to entry into the search engine market is already high and will only get higher. This is true regardless of whether you are competing with Google or anybody else in the search engine or any other market. With Google's revenue they can easily cover their bases, monitor their markets, pick out targets to buy out, engage in legal battles, stay on top of innovation and really pour the kind of resources needed into a product to knock it out of the park.

That itself is enough to choke out any significant competition right now or in the future.

You should probably show at least a single example of a government institution that truly looks out for the people and not businesses before you chisel that in stone.

There is an advantage to being the first to market. But it doesn't control things. Why do you think affiliates are able to exist?
I'll give you a hint: It's because we can change direction faster than large, bloated entities. The same principal (when the barrier for entry is not raised) works in a lot of industries. Infastructure related costs in many are a concern, but are not unreachable. But you have to be doing something new and worthwhile. The "Free market" is not the "Freedom" to immediately compete without an original idea. The "free market" is the idea that if your business plan is unique and original(and functional obviously), or can operate significantly cheaper than the competition, then you can succeed.

You know, here's where we see things differently. I won't even say we disagree, because on the fundamentals we're on the same page.

The difference is that I can see how the most unique, original and functional business plan can be shafted by a sufficiently resourceful competitor. The only thing that's not letting them is legislation.

You can come up with something, and another company can copy it, market it better than you and all of a sudden you have nothing.

Providing something that nobody else provides is not a matter of being Thomas Edison anymore. It costs money, time and resources. Big companies can afford this better than individuals like you and me.

Not right or wrong, fair or unfair. Just the reality of the situation. This ain't the Wild West.

 

[guerilla]

I'm protesting the outcome of unregulated competition.

Why?

One of the side-effects of Wamart's "massive inventory and low prices" is aggressive killing-off of mom-and-pop stores and grassroots competition.

If people can't compete, that means Walmart is doing the best job for the consumer. I would rather those mom and pops and grassroots go develop new markets, and find new opportunities to compete than to hang on, squandering labor and capital resources in an industry where they provide no value.

Progress is a bitch. It's not friendly to sentiment.

If you want to squander capital and resources, squander your own. Don't try to raise prices with regulation in order to create phony competition. It benefits no one.

This is equivalent to killing off free markets.

So driving prices as low as possible through competition is killing off free markets? What exactly is a free market? Is it one where mom and pops are guaranteed prices high enough to stay in business, or is it one where prices are driven as close to zero profit as possible?

This monopoly eventually reaches all the way to the government. In fact, it already has, with marketing lobbyists who influence legislation in order to benefit their businesses.

Those are two separate things. One is free market success, which I approve of. The second, is corporatism, which is anti-free market.

Don't conflate them, they are not synonymous.

What's stopping corporations from taking over government? Regulation.

Regulation is how they have taken over government. If you understood economic history, a highly regulated economy is what Mussolini called for with his fascist plan.

Without regulation, no civil politician would be able to compete with a McDonalds or Google-backed political candidate.

Which civil politician besides Ron Paul competes in American politics with only grassroots support? FYI, Ron Paul doesn't get corporate money, because he doesn't support regulation.

That was a rhetorical question.

Just so I'm not accused of avoiding the discussion, I'm informing everyone I am going back to work for a couple days. PM me if an urgent reply is desired.

 

[Ar Scion]

You haven't proven the claim you have made. Is the computer industry coverging? Has the deregulated telecomm industry converged? Have cell phone manufacturers converged?

Those markets are maturing and continuing to be diverse. Why?

Less regulation.

Even if there was free market convergence, this would be a good thing, because as a market becomes less attractive to compete in, it means consumers are being served. You might not like Google or Microsoft, but no one has done a better job than them in their key markets.

You also should watch the Ron Paul/Dom Armentato video I posted. You seem to have positions based on popular mythology about anti-trust, and not on actual history or economics.

Antitrust legislation still applies. As a result there is no convergence. If antitrust legislation was killed off corporations would be converging left and right because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. They will pool their profits together while laying off redundancies. It's a win-win.

tl;dr the video for me if you will. I already feel like I've spent too much time on this forum.

But that is not a barrier to competition. What you're arguing is that success is a barrier to competitors coming into the market. But isn't success what we are striving for?

"Success" needs to be defined. Is success simply making a profit? Is it growing as quickly as possible? Is it dominating your market? Is it making 1 trillion a year? Is it becoming the biggest corporation in the world? Is it having enough liquidity to buy entire countries? To perhaps rule the world?

My definition of success takes into account the idea that as human beings we work to live: put food on the table, buy clothes for the kids, roof over our heads. For a civilization to flourish, everybody needs to have this opportunity available to them. Not handed to them on a silver platter, but available to them, even if they have to work hard for it.

How do you define success?

Actually, right now all they can do is form an duopoly where they share the market because they are terrified of gaining significant market share over the other, and being broken up by anti-trust.

Anti-trust is used to prevent firms from succeeding, and to create the sort of stagnation the D3 employed for decades.

Say there was no anti-trust and the two companies started sharing resources and strategically collaborating. Would it make the market more competitive or less competitive?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

We're not on the same page. If you did something wrong to others only because you were not stopped by government, that is about your character, not mine. Our goals are not the same. You're not trying to be useful, you're trying to prey on people.

I don't need to be regulated because you act anti-socially. I don't need to be punished and taxed because you operate fraudulently (assuming that is what you did).

For the record, none of my campaigns were fraudulent. The terms were there for the reading and everything was legal - maybe not ethical, but that's a little subjective. Caveat Emptor and all that.

But that is my whole point about regulation, and the human nature argument. It's not about you or me, but about humanity in general. If you think all people will behave ethically, then you wouldn't need regulation. My entire argument about why capitalism needs regulation is because when greed gets involved many people do not behave in an ethical manner. I watched the video (all of them actually), but none of them address this one very simple reason why capitalism needs some regulation.

That's the whole point of my argument, and until you can ensure that humans will all of a sudden start behaving in an ethical manner where greed is involved, then there is no way that capitalism can exist without any regulations.