Definitely a case where some businessmen have decided to use political muscle to deal with a competition. Crony Capitalism.
Tag: monopoly
How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Net Neutrality (via Web 2.0 – Instructional Systems – FSU)
This is a very straightforward explanation of the case for net neutrality.
James Pilant
Are Our Homes Just Monopoly Board Houses?
Standing as a monument to the credit crunch, this life-sized Monopoly house was created as an ironic statement on the global financial crisis.
Created by Canadian artist An Te Liu, 44, the 36ft by 44ft work called ‘Title Deed’ was built in Willowdale, in the Canadian province of Ontario.
Art is a political statement. The artist wants to let us know that what we find to be important in our lives, something we hold in affection and dear in our memories is now just a toy for financiers. First a chip in the global securities market, then a bailout bad debt to get money from the government, then a cash cow to be mortgaged not refinanced because while refinancing makes sense, the numbers on paper are more important. In brief, the homeowner gets it in the shorts, every time, with any possible exception.
Seeing property as a home, a loan, a debt, an investment and something that is more monetised than we realise, the artist wanted to use the iconic board game as a metaphor.
‘Just as the sub prime mortgage crisis hit America and was caused by traders and bankers playing their games in Wall Street, so the common man was squeezed because of that,’ he said.
‘Our homes are not necessarily what we think they are. They are property just like in Monopoly to be remortgaged and used as collateral.
I admire the sentiment and I like the artist’s willingness to send a message. Surely, we need more messages, more senders and less compliance with a state of mind that allows mind boggling evasion and contempt for the law.
James Pilant
Google Faces Inquiry Into Anti-Competitive Practices
From “France 24 International News” –
The European Commission has launched a preliminary inquiry into anti-trust allegations against Google brought by three online companies over how the Internet giant’s search engine operates and the way it sells its digital advertising.
The Commission is acting on separate complaints from three companies – the British price comparison site Foundem, French legal search engine eJustice and Ciao! from Bing, a German online retailer that was bought by Microsoft in 2008. The three have alleged that Google’s search engine artificially demotes the results of competitor sites in its rankings and questioned some of the conditions the company includes in its deals with advertisers.
It is unlikely that Google is only doing this in Europe. “Don’t be evil” is Google’s motto but they seem to have reconsidered especially considering their all out assault on net neutrality.
We have anti-trust laws on the books. Couldn’t we use some of them? Perhaps, the European Union could let us cooperate with their investigation?
We as a society lose a lot when one company clobbers another though anti-competitive practices. We pay more but worse than that a monopoly company can diminish the quality of their product and customer service. In the long term, product development and innovation suffer. So remember, it’s not just the money.
James Pilant
The Problem of Monopoly
The Problem of Monopoly
You are probably aware that one of the airlines will no longer serve food on flights. This is an outgrowth of the concentration of airlines as their numbers diminish. If you don’t have to compete; you don’t have to provide services or make your pricing competitive. Every American who uses air travel will face increasing fees and dismal service because in a monopoly you don’t have to do a good job or provide a decent service. You have to pay them anyway.
James Pilant
This is Edward Lotterman writing in the Pioneer Press –
Increasing monopoly power can get you coming and going, especially at the airport. The decreased competition in air travel resulting from successive mergers among airlines has already increased air fares. Now a pending take-over of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group by either Hertz or Avis promises to reduce competition once you are off the plane.
But these days, questions of monopoly power seem a dead issue in Congress and among the general public. Such apathy is true even in the face of growing concentration in banking and financial services, where just three banks now hold a third of all deposits and are making well over half of new mortgage loans. Teddy Roosevelt must be turning over in his grave.
Jen Lamoureux Writes In Support Of Sustainability
Jen Lamoureux writes with approval of Philip Brookes’ argument about having values greater than money. She also elaborates on her economic and social ideas. It is quite provocative. You should read it. jp
So true! We cannot expect eternal economic growth. At some point, an economy will either stabilize (optimistically) or will decline. A growth of 4%-5% may not sound like much, but compounded over time, it is simply unsustainable. 4% is actually a very large sum of money when one is talking about an economy. One must also consider who the consumers are. One must either export goods and/or services, which means depleting the economy of another country by monopolizing their citizens as our own consumers, or one must continually find new ways to increase the money being spent within the economy of one’s own country. That, in turn, means finding ways to increase efficiency. Typically, increasing efficiency in this country means more deeply exploiting the work of the lower classes so that the higher echelons may earn more money. This causes the disparity between the upper classes and lower classes to widen. At some point, we must see that allowing a small portion of people to control the wealth and monopolize the consumer power in this country is not a sustainable model. At some point, we must realize that this sort of disparity causes social unrest and a dehumanization of those with less earning capability. And, at some point, members of the upper classes will have reached a critical mass in the amount of goods and services they are able to consume, which will lead to a decline in consumer spending, and thus penalization of the lower classes in the forms of pay-cuts and layoffs. I am not necessarily advocating for communism or even socialism; rather, I advocate for a model in which workers are paid a living wage by their employers and people are allowed a fair chance at creating pleasant lives for themselves. While it may be true that a labor force of unskilled workers is easily trainable and thus, replaceable, it is no less true that their labor is what creates the goods and services being sold and managed by those who are “skilled.” The idea of any company, good, or service is absolutely worthless if one does not have the labor capital necessary to change those goods and services from concept to reality. If we continue without acknowledging these very basic truths of labor and commerce, the societal effects will indeed be dire.
Internet Rip Off! Crooks! Thieves! SCUM!
Google and Verizon are working behind closed doors to divide internet service into tiers. That’s right. You’re going to have to pay more money for good service while having your basic stuff will gradually become more and more unpalatable. This will enable some companies (not me!) to pay for premium access (fast connection) while the independents are left in the dust. And the independents is where intelligent commentary and political action have been coming from. Prepare to return to the days when you’re only news is cable news unless you are willing to wait and wait to see a web blog like mine.
This is a disaster for free speech. What’s more, it is going to cost everyone big, big bucks, that is, unless you’re a cable provider in which case you’ll be able to swim in the money.
Only in the United States can a public good like internet access be bought and sold like an old cow. There is no concern for the public, its rights and the future of democracy. These are all small quibbles in corporate largese.
Incredible amounts of money can be made from dividing a public good. The internet is a government creation and the private cable companies have been salivating like so many rabid dogs at the prospect of taking your money and destroying your freedom.
Don’t think for a moment, this is all about the money. The millions of small voices on the web are very annoying to the powerful and they must be silenced.
They will silence us in the name of the free market, in a made up, fradulent, crap argument that there isn’t enough band width while there is plenty, and this will be all the more reason for companies not to invest or develop new internet capabilities because after all, if the good isn’t limited in its service, who’ll pay for premium?
This is disgusting, a rip off, real evidence of how corrupt, incompetent and vicious this society is to those without billions of dollars to play with.
These people did not develop the internet, they preyed on it. These people provide, currently, a rotten service that in most locales is little more than a one cable company monopoly. But this isn’t enough. This isn’t profitable enough. They can’t hold you by the cojones and extract the last dollar, the last dime, the tiniest, thinnest penny.
The internet is yours. It doesn’t belong to these people. But our pseudo representatives and useless media clowns will do nothing. They will have premium service. Their friends in the board rooms will keep the money flowing to our elected comedy acts that pass for legislatures.
We have no defenders. This is absolute positive evidence of the complete helplessness of the general public. This is a complete repudiation of the concept that our government should try in some tiny, almost imperceptible way, to serve our interest and they can’t do it.
Two companies, Google and Verizon, meet behind closed doors to decide the fate of the internet, this is how the business of government is done in this country. You have no one at the table because this isn’t a symbolic issue, this is about dividing you up for the kill. This is about dividing you up into essentially taxable constituents. That’s right. What would you call it when a public good, something paid for and developed with your taxes, something you owned, is distributed among a number of companies?
I would like to say bought and sold. But I can’t. They are not paying for it. They don’t owe us a dime. They get what they get because of who they are and they have no responsibility whatever except to make money and guess who is going to pay that money.
This is so disgusting. You wake up in the morning, go to your computer and find your rights and privileges hocked like old jewelry at a pawn shop. This is not our America. This is the land of “you can buy or steal anything, anytime as long as you have enough influence and the right friends.” This is corporatism writ large.
There is nothing you own, nothing you prize, nothing sacred, that they cannot come and get. And then make you pay and pay and pay.
James Alan Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.