We can't stop the media monopoly now, yet RP's policies will create even more monopolies!?

[hat]

It seems ironic that Ron Paul is against monopoly regulation, yet has spent his entire political life as a victim of one in the form of the media. He says consumers are smart. But look at how they've let the media rule and the trickle down consequences that has had on our society.

Is the media monopoly a preview of what a RP presidency would look like, but for ALL "monopolizable" industries?

I'm voting for RP. But I don't agree with him always.

[The Gold Standard]

This is the one area that I have concerns about in Austrian economics because monopolies and oligopolies distort the free market in the same way government does. I do believe there has to be some kind of regulation of that aspect, but the points you made have nothing to do with my concerns about a monopoly forming on its own in the free market. The monopolies and oligopolies we have today were formed because of government, not the free market, and most of them would be bankrupt by now without the government bailing them out. The government gives special privileges to certain companies and regulates away their competition. The government and Federal Reserve bail out the biggest companies rather than let them fail. These things would change under Ron Paul's ideal world. In fact most instances, if not all, of monopolies in our history came about because of government intervention. Without subsidies, tax loopholes, corporate welfare, and bailouts, you wouldn't have had the development of these monopolies in the first place. Theoretically they could occur even in a true free market, which I have concern with, but we haven't had a free market economy for over 100 years, so those concerns have no bearing on today.

[newbitech]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

There hasn't been a "natural" communications monopoly since at least 1934, IMO. A centralized regulatory agency is what creates modern monopolies IMO. I'd look deeper in to these laws.

I think the internet has done a fine job in finding ways around the FCC, but then you have to look at the response to that as well. IN fact it was a pretty early central planning response before the internet even took off. These are forward thinking people. The telecom act of 1996.

[newbitech]

//

[Guitarzan]

I don't understand what the first two posters are getting at.


The media hasn't become a monopoly because of market forces, but rather because of gov't regulation of our airwaves.

And to member Gold Standard....show me a monopoly or oligopoly that has come to fruition out of market forces alone.

[The Gold Standard]

And to member Gold Standard....show me a monopoly or oligopoly that has come to fruition out of market forces alone.

I can't, that's why I said in my post that most if not all instances of monopolies in our history were due to government involvement. They are theoretically possible though in a free market, which is the one point with Austrian economics that I am concerned with. It has nothing to do with what we have today though because we don't have a free market economy and haven't for a long time.

[Tarzan]

It seems ironic that Ron Paul is against monopoly regulation, yet has spent his entire political life as a victim of one in the form of the media. He says consumers are smart. But look at how they've let the media rule and the trickle down consequences that has had on our society.

Is the media monopoly a preview of what a RP presidency would look like, but for ALL "monopolizable" industries?

I'm voting for RP. But I don't agree with him always.

I don't want to get overly technical... but, Hore$#@!!
There seems to be a lack of understanding of how monopolies are created and perpetuated by government... some research into the subject is really needed. Regarding media monopolies... the government "owns" (just ask them) and regulates the airways. If those regulations were eliminated we might well see a broad range of new media outlets throughout the country. At one time media stations were locally owned. Thanks to the government awarding 'who gets what' we have seen these media giants eradicate the small, local station owners. Most are now well healed affiliates who parrot the position of the parent company (FOX, ABC, NBC, etc.). There are very good arguments that the government actually created these media giants... yes, really!

Go do some reading about monopolies and government intervention... intervention that stifled innovation and competition and thus gave these monopolies government sanction. Do power hungry capitalists exist and want to rule everything... sure! Put them out of business... don't buy their products.

Like so many of these issues there are no simple answers that will cure all ills and change human nature. But, get government out of the equation then let the market decide who wins and loses. There is no perfect answer... but Ron Paul's position is better than the rest.

History has proven that government control of the economy becomes just as bad, or worse, than run away capitalism. You get to vote every day... if you don't like our trade imbalance with China, don't buy Chinese goods... if you think McDonald's is unhealthy, don't shop there (not even for a salad)... if you think some company is becoming a monopoly, stop buying their goods or services. Want to end the media monopolies, turn off the TV and cancel your cable subscription. There is a common perception (largely because it is taught in public schools and spewed regularly by leftists) that monopolies are evil and the government saves us from them. The fact is this is not true... going technical again, its plain Horse$#@!!

Good for you for voting RP... but, look a little more into this issue...
things are often more complicated than they seem (and, sometimes, simpler).

[cucucachu0000]

Yea don't you need a license to broadcast on tv or radio ? I would imagine if they allowed you to start your own network without a licene you would have much more competition. Along with tha because of government control of those licenses they could revoke them or impose fines to punish media that doesn't Push the government agenda, FDR was the first to do this and I would be fine voting for the guy who stops it.

[brandon]

Sorry I don't see how the media is a monopoly at all. There are thousands of media companies competing. Do you know what a monopoly is OP? Perhaps you aren't wording your complaint right.

[CaptainAmerica]

You have no one to blame but society.

[Elfshadow]

Actually if you think about it the mainstream media outlets are the remains of a government granted monopoly that the market is in the process of destroying. How relevant do you think these shows and networks will be in five, ten, or twenty years? Yay free markets!

[Diurdi]

This is not just an Austrian view.



If a natural monopoly would arise, it would have to be a corporation that captures all customers of a particular need. There really aren't any natural monopolies, it's usually not profitable. A government protected monopoly would be profitable though.

[FreeTraveler]

Actually if you think about it the mainstream media outlets are the remains of a government granted monopoly that the market is in the process of destroying. How relevant do you think these shows and networks will be in five, ten, or twenty years? Yay free markets!

Thanks, you just saved me a lot of typing.

What Elfshadow said.

[The Free Hornet]

As a business person, I wouldn't want every customer! First, we can't service all of them profitably because they are outside our core competence. Second, we are on mostly good terms with much of our competition. I.e., we will buy from them and sell to them (despite competing for the same business). If they have a better mousetrap in some areas, we are not going to burn a bridge and go head-to-head (especially since we can buy from them usually at lower cost than most). Much of our business is based on the relationships built among customers and not necessarily the best price although, hopefully we provide that and the best value.

Anyone trying to get every customer is going to find themselves spending more-and-more in acquisition costs to get less-and-less profit. The time just does not come when you can stroke your white cat, laugh at your competitor's death, and mercilessly raise prices*. E.g., "Always Low Prices" Wal*Mart will always have low prices (not necessarily the best value).

* if you do, victory will be short lived yet praised throughout time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales#Business

[hat]

I don't want to get overly technical... but, Hore$#@!!
There seems to be a lack of understanding of how monopolies are created and perpetuated by government... some research into the subject is really needed. Regarding media monopolies... the government "owns" (just ask them) and regulates the airways. If those regulations were eliminated we might well see a broad range of new media outlets throughout the country. At one time media stations were locally owned. Thanks to the government awarding 'who gets what' we have seen these media giants eradicate the small, local station owners. Most are now well healed affiliates who parrot the position of the parent company (FOX, ABC, NBC, etc.). There are very good arguments that the government actually created these media giants... yes, really!

Go do some reading about monopolies and government intervention... intervention that stifled innovation and competition and thus gave these monopolies government sanction. Do power hungry capitalists exist and want to rule everything... sure! Put them out of business... don't buy their products.

Like so many of these issues there are no simple answers that will cure all ills and change human nature. But, get government out of the equation then let the market decide who wins and loses. There is no perfect answer... but Ron Paul's position is better than the rest.

History has proven that government control of the economy becomes just as bad, or worse, than run away capitalism. You get to vote every day... if you don't like our trade imbalance with China, don't buy Chinese goods... if you think McDonald's is unhealthy, don't shop there (not even for a salad)... if you think some company is becoming a monopoly, stop buying their goods or services. Want to end the media monopolies, turn off the TV and cancel your cable subscription. There is a common perception (largely because it is taught in public schools and spewed regularly by leftists) that monopolies are evil and the government saves us from them. The fact is this is not true... going technical again, its plain Horse$#@!!

Good for you for voting RP... but, look a little more into this issue...
things are often more complicated than they seem (and, sometimes, simpler).

I agree RP's ideas are the best. Do the others even HAVE ideas? That's why I would vote for him. We may never get an opportunity to fight the federal reserve again. But I'm also trying to learn. For this, I'm still not convinced. It sounds like we agree (sort of) that monopolies would not be a good thing. You just don't think they could be created in a free market and would likely require the assistance of governmental regulations? That sounds a little too idealistic for me.

It's easy to say "don't buy their products", "don't buy Chinese goods", etc. But you're talking about when alternatives are available. My point is what about when there is no alternative? Wealthy ABC company buys up all of a scarce product. Then charges an exorbitant price. Now what? Or a handful of the biggest companies buy up and conspire, as is the case with the the media today. What do you do? Sure in a perfect world everyone would act with personal responsibility and unite and fight and all that, but we get to see, first hand, right now with the media monopoly, the realty of how that plays out. "Want to end the media monopolies, turn off the TV and cancel your cable subscription." Exactly my point. And how has that worked out so far? With monopolies, it's easier for the majority to bring down the responsible minority. How is society doing at standing up against this? It's been over 100 years!

[Foolness]

I think media monopoly is the wrong term. It's more like there's a media cartel.

Monopolies mean people have no choice. Cartels mean people's choices are being redirected to an artificially built megalomedia that simply circles and panders on what news is. Ironically enough, even things like the Daily Show would be subject to this if Jon Stewart never claimed he was a comedian. Still it's a fine line. People want to be entertained, they don't want global news 24/7. They want news that interests them, they just think pre-internet global or country wide news was the solution to being more informed.

[Sola_Fide]

I can't, that's why I said in my post that most if not all instances of monopolies in our history were due to government involvement. They are theoretically possible though in a free market, which is the one point with Austrian economics that I am concerned with. It has nothing to do with what we have today though because we don't have a free market economy and haven't for a long time.

So?

Do you want to live in a country where monopolies are maybe, possibly, rarely, for a short time, in the market....or in a country where government regulation ensures them and entrenches them?

Anyway, Rothbard has a great chapter in Man, Economy, and State on monopolies. They can't survive in a market that is free. It is impossible. So you wanting "regulation" is only, once again, going to produce the opposite of the desired effect.

[Foolness]

I disagree...they can survive in a free market just like religion doctrines can be bastardized in a free market and become cults. They just can't be artificially propped up because their resources are less and one misstep can make them lose their position and with no bail outs, they better hope they are providing some true value to their consumers but I think natural monopolies are not only a good thing but they are the peak of a free market.

A sports organization for example that gains a monopoly-like standing would have gathered more talent which in turn would provide the best product to the consumers.

The internet is another place that while not quite a perfect analogy to a free market has established walled gardens that kills competition until they totally collapse and yet more and more people are not only gathering inside the walled gardens, even people who are not supportive of such concepts use it as a place of spreading their message.

I think the beauty of the free market is not that it is immune to monopolies but that it establishes a principle where the biggest monopoly (federal gov't) is supportive of the market rather than in league with bailing out the monopolies.

[Tarzan]

This is not just an Austrian view.



If a natural monopoly would arise, it would have to be a corporation that captures all customers of a particular need. There really aren't any natural monopolies, it's usually not profitable. A government protected monopoly would be profitable though.

I agree RP's ideas are the best. Do the others even HAVE ideas? That's why I would vote for him. We may never get an opportunity to fight the federal reserve again. But I'm also trying to learn. For this, I'm still not convinced. It sounds like we agree (sort of) that monopolies would not be a good thing. You just don't think they could be created in a free market and would likely require the assistance of governmental regulations? That sounds a little too idealistic for me.

It's easy to say "don't buy their products", "don't buy Chinese goods", etc. But you're talking about when alternatives are available. My point is what about when there is no alternative? Wealthy ABC company buys up all of a scarce product. Then charges an exorbitant price. Now what? Or a handful of the biggest companies buy up and conspire, as is the case with the the media today. What do you do? Sure in a perfect world everyone would act with personal responsibility and unite and fight and all that, but we get to see, first hand, right now with the media monopoly, the realty of how that plays out. "Want to end the media monopolies, turn off the TV and cancel your cable subscription." Exactly my point. And how has that worked out so far? With monopolies, it's easier for the majority to bring down the responsible minority. How is society doing at standing up against this? It's been over 100 years!

There are some good posts here and I was hoping you would take more than a day to do some research on monopolies... how they were and are created. A nice simple one to review is the Friedman video... pretty short and give a good explanation. I am old and impatient and don't care to go into this in detail (because I am old and grumpy).

But, to your OP...
The media has a monopoly because of government. Government limits the resource of broadcast media and "licenses" the stations and their broadcast strength (coverage) as well as other aspects of their capabilities. The Government also has requirements to insure the airways remain public... and, in doing so, use a method of determining financial viability before awarding the licenses. I am not going to go into whether that is good or bad... that's just the way they do it.

So, with the Government decided who gets the license who do you think they are going to pick? Some poor guy with a love of community and bringing honest reporting and/or entertainment value to the local broadcast area... or, some rich guy with ties to a major media outlet? Yeah, the Government picks the latter. Boom! Government sponsored monopoly in action.

What if local broadcast media (radio & tv) were open to all comers? There would still be business considerations for the owners, obviously. But what if Government was no longer placing requirements on who could own a station? The Government licenses would become a thing of the past and genuine competition could take place. It is Government that has created the media monopoly... get them out of the picture and the stranglehold by the major corporations would almost surely dissipate, if not vanish.

Free trade in general...
You brought up the "no alternative" issue. Once again I say horse hockey. If there is a demand for your "no alternative" product, whether it is non-chinese goods, organic foods, raw milk, Korean sex slaves, oops.. never mind that last one. A producer will arise to meet the need (again, IF there is a need and market driven demand). But, we need Government (ours and theirs) to get out of the way for genuine free trade to take place. Go read some of the "trade deals" that have been signed by this country... it is freaking horrifying. Then, take a look at how US goods are being treated by foreign companies... more horror. Take a look at what was done in New Zealand several years ago... not perfect, but a really good example of how to open markets... and, it was sponsored by the production industries who insisted (and got) major reforms to the NZ governments protectionist trade policies. The very folks who would appear to have a vested interest in maintaining government "protection" figured out that what they needed was for government to get out of their way and let them conduct business.

You are correct... we have been doing this crap for over 100 years. It will take some time to turn things around and those changes will not be without consequences to certain businesses and individuals. But, those changes are the nature of business... IF we can get government out of the way and allow free trade to actually occur... and, STOP creating monopolies through government policy (especially the Media Monopolies). We need to stop doing it wrong and start doing it right.

To quote an old, dead, radical wacko...
"a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." Thomas Paine

[gerryb]

If anyone wants to understand how monopolies are created, I highly recommend The History of the Standard Oil Company http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/MAIN.HTM

It is a good and thought provoking history.

Should we be having a debate about perpetual corporate charters?

[BuffsForPaul]

deleted

[Tarzan]

what about utility monopolies?

What about them?

You have monopolies setup by the federal government (or policies) which is one set of issues.
You have monopolies setup by state and local government (like utilities) which is a separate set of issues. Now, some of the utility monopolies are supported by the federal government (thank god the the DoEnergy)... but, quite a bit of it is a local, regional or state issue.

That's why its important to be involved in local government (regional, state, etc) as well. The smaller the size of government, and the more immediate effect it has on our lives, the more likely we are to get involved and take action. Being a republic takes work. Try to hire the best representatives possible... then, watch those f*ckers like a hawk and be proactive.

This is part of the reason the 17th Amendment should be overturned... that who you send to the state to represent you is important (because they would choose the Senators to represent the state in DC) and makes you pay more attention and be more involved in local elections (long explanation for another place).

But... back to utilities... what is your specific question? Local action and involvement will probably address most of your concerns (though, we ain't doing it now).

Welcome to the forums!

[BuffsForPaul]

deleted

[wayfarinstranger]

What about Monsanto? While they certainly have benefitted from bedfellow status with federal regulatory agencies (i.e. FDA and EPA), they seem to have no problem utilizing the court system to achieve their goals. Given their monolithic presence in the U.S., how would the free market do a better job in regulating them from this point?

[Captain Caveman]

My 'vote' would be to start with one media name.. O'Reilly for example, and start mailing his advertisers voicing discontent and boycott of their product.

The smaller companies that run ads on his show would be a place to start, when one smallish company pulls ads, then move on to the next company.

Can we muster 1000 unique emails?

Vote with your wallet too.

[Tarzan]

What about Monsanto? While they certainly have benefitted from bedfellow status with federal regulatory agencies (i.e. FDA and EPA), they seem to have no problem utilizing the court system to achieve their goals. Given their monolithic presence in the U.S., how would the free market do a better job in regulating them from this point?

These court rulings are a mystery to me!!! How a company could contaminate their neighbors crops with GMO laden spores... then, have the legal system support them in their claims when they have not been able to control their own questionable products is beyond my comprehension. They are like the owner of an out of control male dog that gets loose in your neighborhood... jumps the fence into your private property... then attacks and inseminates your prize winning canine. Any legitimate local court in the country would rule against the owner of the male dog... instead, the courts are ruling in favor of the owner of this wild dog and punishing the owner of the prize winner.

Another example might be a polluter who dumps chemicals into the river upstream of your private property. Then, when you drink water from the now contaminated river on your property, charges you for drinking their chemicals... with the support of government and the legal system... mystifying!!!

It is beyond reason and legal understanding. The only conclusion that comes to mind is that something is amiss in these legal decisions. There should be a review of all of them to determine if any undo influence or other shenanigans have occurred. The word "corruption" comes to mind... but, I can't imagine why.

Apparently, if you can't create a monopoly using government legislation... you can do it by paying off people in the legal system (of course, I mean hiring & paying for lawyers... because no one could every buy off a judge) to achieve the same ends.

[Jandrsn21]

Drudge Tweeted months back that, the major news networks got bailouts! Why is that? They are losing money and market share! In a free market, when you hide the news, you lie, and you deceive, you lose and there is no one to bail you out! Also without government regulations on the internet and with the way media is going online, monopolies won't be much of a problem going forward, unless the government steps in to stop that!

[beardedlinen]

It seems ironic that Ron Paul is against monopoly regulation, yet has spent his entire political life as a victim of one in the form of the media. He says consumers are smart. But look at how they've let the media rule and the trickle down consequences that has had on our society.

Is the media monopoly a preview of what a RP presidency would look like, but for ALL "monopolizable" industries?

I'm voting for RP. But I don't agree with him always.

We currently live in a state of crony capitalism, wherein the Government is in bed with the corporations and vice versa. This is not a free market. A true free market lets the people decide which businesses flourish and which go bankrupt, not the Federal Government. The very idea of bailouts, tax exemptions, and corporate welfare is the antithesis to a free market.

[Enforcer]

Sorry I don't see how the media is a monopoly at all. There are thousands of media companies competing. Do you know what a monopoly is OP? Perhaps you aren't wording your complaint right.

If you can't see a monopoly, you have to be blind. You can watch any news broadcast and record another. Immediately after viewing one, look at the other. How can they think the same, identical things are equally important? I remember when O.J. Simpson was in the news. Long after he was "news" the media kept showing his ugly mug on tv. I had to start renting videos just to keep from seeing that on EVERY station. If it weren't for monopolies, we would have heard about the suppressed news from SOME source.

[erowe1]

It seems ironic that Ron Paul is against monopoly regulation, yet has spent his entire political life as a victim of one in the form of the media. He says consumers are smart. But look at how they've let the media rule and the trickle down consequences that has had on our society.

Is the media monopoly a preview of what a RP presidency would look like, but for ALL "monopolizable" industries?

I'm voting for RP. But I don't agree with him always.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the free market breeds monopolies, and government regulation stands in the way of them?

Do you come from the same planet as Bizarro Superman by any chance?