Author
Topic: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?
(Read 6218 times)

longhorn320 · « **Reply #42 on:** May 22, 2023, 09:52:17 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 09:35:13 AM

I'm just tired of longhorn reading that I like chocolate ice cream and then his reply is asking me why I hate vanilla.
Evolve, man!

but you never said you like chocolate only that vanilla is very bad for various reasons

Im the one who asked if you are a chocolate ice cream liker

if you find capitalism creates a bad situation and rich people think only of themselves it appears you favor socialism

so thats when I asked you if you were a socialist

you have never answered my question

Cincydawg · « **Reply #43 on:** May 22, 2023, 09:53:12 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 20, 2023, 03:47:17 PM

I guess it didn't happen. Sorry I don't search through pages of posts every time you go "huh?"

You make a claim, like this one, and then run for cover when asked for an example and claim you don't want to go back and support your obviously faulty claim. It's a habit, not a good one.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #44 on:** May 22, 2023, 10:01:16 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on May 22, 2023, 09:20:59 AM

Again, are we sure of this? I tend to find that a bigger a company becomes, the less agile and innovative they tend to be. If not for their own core competency, for the ability to do anything outside it (and react to anything that might disrupt it). And when they become less agile and innovative, they have a harder time serving customers. And a business which stops serving customers well loses market share to businesses that are better at it.

The only way for a "business" to be a monopoly, bad at serving customers, and remain in business is if that "business" is government.

This.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #45 on:** May 22, 2023, 10:07:15 AM »

A major player in a retail business can "restrain trade" pretty easily, and develop into a near monopoly as a result. This is especially true when the consumer has marginal ability to assess the goodness of a product, let's use laundry detergent as an example. If the product has no major deficiencies, like say it doesn't leave residue for example, how do you know it cleans better than X?

So, one could sell "Tide" for example and use the power of that brand to suppress other brands and replace them with your own, say "Gain", and penalize any retail outlets that don't feature your products on the top shelves or end of aisle or run promos on them and not others. It's doable. Then you threaten to short ship a retail chain with say Pampers if they don't discount Tide and run the promo you want.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #46 on:** May 22, 2023, 12:02:06 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 09:28:46 AM

I THINK in some business areas unrestrained "capitalism" would result in monopolies, for a period of time. Size is both an issue and an advantage. Where I worked there were clearly "noncompetitive" approaches to business that were technically illegal because they would promote monopolization. The company often skirted those, narrowly, depending on whether the FTC was paying much attention. Companies like GM at one time probably could have forced Ford and Chrysler out of business. I suspect later on, companies like Honda would have found a way to break that. Facebook is a virtual monopoly today, I think. "Utilities" often tend in that direction for obvious reasons.

Would Apple be a monopoly without FTC concerns? Probably not.

Facebook is a monopoly? Only if you define things very narrowly. If you define social media more generally, including things like TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, etc, I think you'll find that there is plenty of competition in the market. And the alternative to being "forced" to use Facebook because they're a monopoly is to do what I do... NOT HAVE A DAMN FACEBOOK ACCOUNT! I know I'm not alone on this board as simply not participating at all.

It reminds me of when Sirius and XMRadio were merging and I was arguing with my neighbor that it should be blocked because it creates a monopoly. Yes, that's correct, if you NARROWLY define a monopoly as only relating to satellite radio. But Sirius nor XM were competing in a vacuum against only each other. They were competing with (free!) terrestrial radio, competing with all the other ways you could get music in your car at the time (CDs, MP3s, etc), and over the next decade now find themselves competing with a whole host of streaming radio services that didn't even exist in 2005.

I think you could point to monopolies as being bad if they are making it difficult to obtain essential goods and/or services, like Martin Shkreli who obtained the patent to Daraprim and then jacked up the price. However, that is ALSO an issue of government granting a monopoly in a certain drug in the first place. We can argue over the effects of intellectual property protections in the market, but absent government being able to stop everyone else from manufacturing that drug, Daraprim couldn't exploit that monopoly.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #47 on:** May 22, 2023, 12:08:33 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 10:07:15 AM

A major player in a retail business can "restrain trade" pretty easily, and develop into a near monopoly as a result. This is especially true when the consumer has marginal ability to assess the goodness of a product, let's use laundry detergent as an example. If the product has no major deficiencies, like say it doesn't leave residue for example, how do you know it cleans better than X?

So, one could sell "Tide" for example and use the power of that brand to suppress other brands and replace them with your own, say "Gain", and penalize any retail outlets that don't feature your products on the top shelves or end of aisle or run promos on them and not others. It's doable. Then you threaten to short ship a retail chain with say Pampers if they don't discount Tide and run the promo you want.

Yes, and this is what "big beer" has been trying to do for decades, up to and including acquiring successful craft breweries, all the while losing market share.

And P&G, facing inflation pressure, is fighting competition and having to offer discounts to protect market share. They may have a dominant place in the market, but they are absolutely NOT a monopoly nor are they safe from competitors:

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/tide-maker-pg-dialing-up-discounts-us-consumers-pull-back-2023-04-20/

Cincydawg · « **Reply #48 on:** May 22, 2023, 12:11:45 PM »

Well, that's my point, they aren't a monopoly in large part because "unfair trade practices" are illegal. I think they could wipe other brands out if that were not the case. They really get worried when their market share goes past 65%, seriously, it's an issue when it happens.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #49 on:** May 22, 2023, 12:45:23 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 12:11:45 PM

Well, that's my point, they aren't a monopoly in large part because "unfair trade practices" are illegal. I think they could wipe other brands out if that were not the case. They really get worried when their market share goes past 65%, seriously, it's an issue when it happens.

Yeah, and I'm sure that when the market share gets up there, they're more worried about regulation than market competition. I get that it's a thing.

That said, it keeps being said that unbridled capitalism will lead to monopoly as if it is a foregone conclusion. And also that it's bad if it does.

My view is that the first statement is unproven (that capitalism in a truly free market leads to monopoly). And that the second statement is specifically what disproves the first--if a company tries to exploit its monopoly to the detriment of consumers, that is the way that competitors develop the niche to break the monopoly.

If P&G were to obtain a monopoly in laundry soap, and were harming customers by doing so, new entrants would attempt to unseat them. Yes, they could buy up new entrants or engage in predatory pricing to destroy them, but then they're just going to spend a ton of time lopping the heads off every snake that pops up.

And even beyond that, P&G might obtain that monopoly, but P&G can't be a monopoly in everything, right? What if Amazon decides "hey, P&G is making an absolute killing in laundry soap because there's no competition; it's time for us to enter that market"? P&G may be a gigantic company, but you can't just wipe out other gigantic companies if they go all-in to beat you.

The free market is dynamic. Per this thread, someone upthread said that "generational wealth" isn't truly a thing because it always gets diluted over a few generations due to various factors. I argue the same is true in the free market. It's dynamic. There are winners and losers, but you can only remain a winner if you are satisfying customers. If you stop that, it doesn't matter if you're P&G, or Ford, or Amazon, Apple, or Facebook. You stop satisfying customers, and they WILL seek out alternatives.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #50 on:** May 22, 2023, 12:50:45 PM »

The funny thing, to me, was how P&Gers would complain about how Walmart would screw them over. We had a "Walmart Team" (and others) to deal with them, they were pretty vicious I was told, and had the heft to be that way. Costco is brutal also, from the standpoint of a supplier.

I think monopolies are possible in SOME areas, not others. I view FB as a monopoly because I view it as different from Twitter in kind. There was "My Space" back in the day. Amazon is nearing monopoly status in some respects.

Some products like paper towels etc. require a LOT of capital for any new entry. And that financial burden lasts a long time. It's a tough business to start from nothing, which is why it doesn't happen often at all.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #51 on:** May 22, 2023, 01:26:22 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 12:50:45 PM

The funny thing, to me, was how P&Gers would complain about how Walmart would screw them over. We had a "Walmart Team" (and others) to deal with them, they were pretty vicious I was told, and had the heft to be that way. Costco is brutal also, from the standpoint of a supplier.

The Walmart point is important as well... Walmart does NOT want to only have one supplier of household goods to sell. That puts them at the mercy of that supplier. A company like Walmart will do everything in their power to make sure that a second source is available, if ONLY to keep them healthy with enough market share to be leverage against a supplier like P&G.

If P&G starts raising their wholesale prices, Walmart will buy from a competitor and display them on the shelves for cheaper if they can get a couple extra points gross out of that sale than what they get from a P&G product.

There are non-regulatory brakes in the marketplace on monopoly, and your Walmart example is perfect for illustrating it.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #52 on:** May 22, 2023, 01:33:47 PM »

They would IFF there is another competitor. Imagine I make paper towels and toilet paper and over time drive out or buy up every competitor.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #53 on:** May 22, 2023, 01:36:19 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 09:53:12 AM

You make a claim, like this one, and then run for cover when asked for an example and claim you don't want to go back and support your obviously faulty claim. It's a habit, not a good one.

It is a habit.
I'm not going to spend the time to find the post(s), say "look!", and then have it ignored anyway over and over again.
IF there was any reasonable belief it would make any of you acknowledge the point, I'd do it.
Alas, I have a bad habit of not wasting my time every time someone says "nuh uh."
Character flaw, for sure.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #54 on:** May 22, 2023, 01:40:14 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on May 22, 2023, 12:45:23 PM

Yeah, and I'm sure that when the market share gets up there, they're more worried about regulation than market competition. I get that it's a thing.

That said, it keeps being said that unbridled capitalism will lead to monopoly as if it is a foregone conclusion. And also that it's bad if it does.

My view is that the first statement is unproven (that capitalism in a truly free market leads to monopoly). And that the second statement is specifically what disproves the first--if a company tries to exploit its monopoly to the detriment of consumers, that is the way that competitors develop the niche to break the monopoly.

If P&G were to obtain a monopoly in laundry soap, and were harming customers by doing so, new entrants would attempt to unseat them. Yes, they could buy up new entrants or engage in predatory pricing to destroy them, but then they're just going to spend a ton of time lopping the heads off every snake that pops up.

And even beyond that, P&G might obtain that monopoly, but P&G can't be a monopoly in everything, right? What if Amazon decides "hey, P&G is making an absolute killing in laundry soap because there's no competition; it's time for us to enter that market"? P&G may be a gigantic company, but you can't just wipe out other gigantic companies if they go all-in to beat you.

The free market is dynamic. Per this thread, someone upthread said that "generational wealth" isn't truly a thing because it always gets diluted over a few generations due to various factors. I argue the same is true in the free market. It's dynamic. There are winners and losers, but you can only remain a winner if you are satisfying customers. If you stop that, it doesn't matter if you're P&G, or Ford, or Amazon, Apple, or Facebook. You stop satisfying customers, and they WILL seek out alternatives.

Are you suggesting monopolies aren't bad? As if one company is the only one selling deodorant (or better yet, chicken), that they wouldn't price it much higher? That their quality control wouldn't suffer? That any and all complaints wouldn't be met with a shrug and a "tough shit"?
And for your last paragraph, the large company with pissy customers can prevent competition with ease (given an unregulated economy). Or they could improve things for 5-10 years and wait out the other company's failure as they spread monies around to protect their own interests.
.
I get that most of your argument is that monopolies aren't automatic, but if you're going further and saying they're not obviously bad for the masses......that's a lonely island.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #55 on:** May 22, 2023, 01:44:25 PM »

He pretty clearly is arguing that monopolies are not an inherent end point of capitalism. I'm pretty sure he understands a monopoly is nearly always bad for consumers. He seems like a pretty bright guy, to me.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

longhorn320

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

Cincydawg

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

847badgerfan

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

Cincydawg

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

Cincydawg

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

Cincydawg

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

Cincydawg

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?

Cincydawg

Re: Critical Issue: What is "rich"?