25 Responses to “Too Big To Fail Bank Bill Killed By Bought Politicians”

1. 

   CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @luvcheney1 The point of a monopoly is that once it is established it cannot be challenged. Competition does not just “Return” you obviously have no concept of “Market Entry” Once a monopoly is established it is extremely difficult to enter the market.

2. 

   CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @luvcheney1 The Govt protects utilities to keep their infrastructure impact at a minimum and maximize effeciency. But at the same time if left unattended electric companies could charge rediculous amounts.
   Breaking up a company that becomes too big is completely sensible. Once a corperation controls the market they can force the hand of anyone they want. And it ESPECIALLY makes sense when the banking industry can collapse the entire economy just because its assets are large enough to risk ours.

3. 

   CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @luvcheney1 Competitors wanted to transport oil by Pipe. SO officials instructed the railway to deny their competitors rights to put a pipeline on or over railway grounds. When they tried to transport the oil from one side of railway land to another to manually pipe it. SO instructed railways to place empty boxcars and make the path blocked.
   Not to mention SO made its way to the 90% share NOT by cheaper oil, but by buying up rival competitors.

4. 

   CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @luvcheney1 Again. You simply have no concept of market entry mechanics. There is a huge difference between opening a coffee shop on the street corner to compete with starbucks and trying to create an entire infrastructure to make an oil company.
   Capital is not free to move. It’s subject by those who have power. A monopoly can lock out competition because it controls the market. Stop being ignorant.

5. 

   luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   Banks, hedge funds held mortgages that went bad, because housing lost value. Please explain how 1 big bank with 100 bill in worthless mortgages is worse than 10 smaller banks with 10 bill each in worthless mortgages. You still have 100billion in bad mortgages. WHY there was a housing bubble ( no bubble, no bust) would be more instructive. Who pushed for lower lending standards, and who provided the increased credit that enabled home prices to keep rising? Someone had to own the mortgages.

6. 

   luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @CommandoDude Dude, IF there was no more competition, and the monopoly was “ripping us off”, you dont think someone would want to enter the business, and rip us off too? WalMart may run everyone out of business, but still must keep prices low enough so no one dares try to re-enter the business. If they dont, competition returns.

7. 

   luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @CommandoDude Oil was transported by trains. Competitors, and SO shipped oil. You didnt need to live next to a well.

8. 

   luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @CommandoDude YOU mentioned SO after I asked anyone for a sensible example of Anti trust action. Breaking up a corp because it is cheaper than the competition is not sensible, unless you prefer to support ineficient businesses over the consumer. Do you? Govt itself protects untilities (PG&E) Which non- govt protected sector of GE has no competition, and GE owns that market while overcharging what others could charge?

9. 

   luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

   @CommandoDude Utilities are a special category, and if several corps had to lay different sets of electric lines, that would be duplication of costs. So, the govt gives a monopoly, and then regulates prices. In Calif, electric companies are always telling us not to use their product, and shortages occur during hot days with rolling blackouts. If capital is free to move, any corp is vulnerable to new competition, and poor products, high prices open the door to others entering the market.

10. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Since when is it against the law to keep someone off your property? To buy another company? Big companies buy smaller ones all the time, and you gain customers, and merge the costs into your existing systems, and so you make more money, are more competitive. Breaking SO into 34 companies raised costs. Customers paid those costs. BTW, SO market share was declining, fell already from 90% to 60% by time of breakup. That is not a monopoly. Over 60 competitors.

11. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    How is capital restricted on moving? If there is profit to be made, capital will flow there. Explain how that is stopped, here, in the US?

12. 

    CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 There is no profit to be made if it is made impossible to profit from a venture. Aside from the fact start up costs to compete with a monopoly are enormous you have to compete against a brand that is solidified nationally or globally. Not to mention, big monopolies often times use unscrupulous tactics you can’t.

13. 

    CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 You prefer to pay less. But when the manufacturer decides to raise prices, you don’t. And you still buy from them because by that time, there is no alternative.
    Monopolies like SO were not successful because of their prices alone. They were successful because of their unscrupulous business practices.
    When a company owns 90% of the market, consumers for the most part no longer can chose between SO and a competitor. Based on geography.

14. 

    CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 Funny that all of your comparisons happened long after the anti-trust battles of the early 1900’s. Why? Because anti-trust legislation prevented huge monopolies from shunting the market against competitors (Like SO did). Look at General Electric. Do you think you can actually enter the market against them or PG&E? You can’t, they’re a monopoly, and the only reason they can’t hike prices is because of strict gov regulation. Monopolies are uneffected by competition.

15. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @CommandoDude If I NEED something, I prefer to pay less. So does the majority.

16. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @CommandoDude As long as capital can move, and the govt maintains law and order so a competitor can sell his product too, people will buy the cheaper product. GM was the largest manufacturing corp in the world, lost market share because others competed. Zerox was a major high tech corp in the US, today, it is nothing. Everyone connected to the internet with AOL, yet it is now insignificant. Ask Time Warner. History is littered with huge corps declining to competition.

17. 

    CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 If you say monopolies don’t exist you really don’t know much about economics. If you are unable to understand why monopolies hurt the little guy, you really don’t know much about economics. If you think that just because a monopoly can sell at better prices is really a good thing, you ought not complain when it’s impossible for you to seek alternatives when price is no longer the reason you purchase from that monopoly, but instead, need.

18. 

    CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 I’m sorry, but I don’t think you actually know how a monopoly works. You see, by owning 90% of the market, SO forces customers to purchase from them because competitors are unable to reach those customers. And, at the same time, by owning such a high percent of the market, it makes it impossible to enter that market at all.

19. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @CommandoDude If you want to say 90% is a monopoly, fine, and my point is not that monopolies dont exist. If monopolies form by selling at better prices, breaking them up hurts the little guy. It only helps businesses that cant compete, and there is the reason for Anti trust. Politicians helping businesses against another, not helping the poor, little consumer.

20. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @CommandoDude “Owning” 90% of a market because your prices are lower than the competition is good for consumers, but bad for other businesses that cant compete. Anti- Trust screws consumers, and aids other businesses. If Standard Oil would jack up prices to an unreasonably high level, their competitors would now be able to compete, and take market share back. If you assume no competitors exist, capital would flow into competition, to reap the high profits they would be making, competition

21. 

    ez3002008 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 No.

22. 

    CommandoDude May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @luvcheney1 They were unable to gain market share because standard oil owned 90% of the market. You call that NOT a monopoly? What happens when SO decides to start arbitrarily jacking up the prices? Nobody can compete with them because most people are FORCED to buy from SO.

23. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @ez3002008 Name a monopoly, past or present that is/ was a good candidate for breaking up.

24. 

    luvcheney1 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @CommandoDude Standard Oil had over 60 US competitors when it was broken up. The pressure for it to be broken up came from competitors, who were unable to gain market share because Standard was able to sell at lower prices. Anti Trust laws protect businesses who are inefficient, not consumers. The operative word in my question was “sensible”. Defend breaking up a company, so consumers have to buy from less efficient, more expensive sources. Later, I`m out of time for now.

25. 

    mikez565 May 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    They know what they are doing cenk, they are just playing dumb. They should be chased down in the streets, what they did to this country is just plain evil.