Rockefeller didn't force anything on anyone. He lighted the homes of millions cheaply, and invented gasoline. The government had no right to tear down his company. He made his way to the top by providing good products at low cost, fair and square. As for the railroad company - they could deliver his products more cheaply because he came up with a method to allow it with reduced cost. What was done to standard oil is an embarrassing monument for human envy and suspicion.
Thanks for the video. I found it at the right time. When you listen to the official economists from the ivy league universities, they always are big on the notion of efficiency even over profitability. That sounds crazy but that is what they say. What I have been meditating on is whether the issue is control of market or market share is the objective and thus supply and production.
The libertarian are hitting the same political walls in the last 8 months as their brothers did 100 years ago.
OK a couple things here, first learn some economics. second, Ida Tarbell's horribly one sided and biast muckracking attempt at history is absolutely absurd. Third, whether Mr. Rockeffeller atempted to be more efficient or not he wasn't only a little more efficient he blew everyone out of the water. He also basically invented R&D which now a days we take for granted. I don't have much room left here but I suggest you read more then one source on a subject, not to mention learn some economics.
oh, and i would like you to name ONE single example of when an industry won a coercive monopoly without government assistance and then effectively screwed the consumer by jacking up the price... (tapping foot) oh. you don't have an example? you know why you don't have an example? because youre full of shit. voluntary cartels don't last. somebody always undercuts because businessmen are greedy.
Since to this point no major industry has been able to be created outside of a civilized society I am just wondering what your point is? All large business has to have the support of the government to exist. My point in this video is unregulated business (free market) can create a monopoly on it's own without the government creating the monopoly directly.
right. and my point is that a voluntary cartel has never existed and a coercive monopoly can't be maintained without government. by "can't" i actually mean can't. it can't happen. somebody can always enter in the industry, undercut you, and win the market share. if a monopoly exists, it is only because the businessman is doing a good job serving the consumers. your assertion is a fallacy. economists dont believe it anymore. there are no historical examples. it doesnt happen. again, youre wrong.
Only an organized society can produce businesses large enough to be worth talking about. So your argument is that in a world without government there are no monopoly's and no voluntary cartel's. You must add to this view that there would be no major industry either. Since there is no major industry I can see why there would be no Monopoly's.
"So your argument is that in a world without government there are no monopoly's and no voluntary cartel's." yes. "You must add to this view that there would be no major industry either." that's just as stupid and wrong as all of your other assertions.
every inch of this earth currently exists under the patronage of a thieving, murdering, parasite, so obviously i cant give you any contemporary examples. 17th century pennsylvania was a successful "anarcho-capitalist" society, but it doesn't matter. all i must prove is that major industries can exist without state patronage. that has already been proven. it would be inconceivable to suggest that EVERYSINGLE successful industrial venture was in part funded by the state. that is simply not true.
"it would be inconceivable to suggest that EVERYSINGLE successful industrial venture was in part funded by the state" Every single successful business is dependent on the infrastructure of a society. That infrastructure is publicly funded, so you are wrong.
nope. wrong again. the rapid socialization of road production didn't happen until the new deal. in the early twentieth century, industrialists and independant entrprenuers built roads with profit incentives in mind. state and local governments certainly got into the production of roads as well, but many roads were produced and provided through entreprenuership without subsidization. i'll send you a video explaining the mechanics of free market roads.
"If I am wrong, show me a place on this earth where there is no government and a major industry."
Your understanding of history should tell you that people always form governments. So the roads in the Roman Empire were built by the gov't. There is always GOVT! Did not ISRAEL demand that God give them a King?
To answer your question, the only answer would be the Royal Family Saad of Saudi Arabia: yes govt + private industry. There is always government - the people have demanded so!!!
oh and by "no historical examples" i actually mean that there are no historical examples of a successful voluntary cartel or a successful coercive monopoly screwing the consumer. you can bet your ass it has been tried, but it NEVER works unless government is involved in price fixing or tarrifs or patents, etc. there must be protectionism in order for it to happen.
...they don't exist, since all civilized societies believe to some extent that individual rights must be defended. you can only see real production in a society in which personal economic incentives are allowed to manifest themselves.
ooohhhh... i see. yes, rockefeller was part of a big conspiracy. screw over the consumer by cornering the market and then jacking up the price, eh? rockefeller's business practices were utlimately good for the consumer. you can not maintain a coercive monopoly without government assistance. tarrifs, licensing, patenting, price fixing, industry regulations, etc. in a free market, if rockefeller jacked up the price, which he didn't, somebody else would simply come in and undercut him.
The whole point of Rockefeller's company was to gain monopoly control. He did a nice job of that. He gained 91% of the market. Since at this time his industry was almost totally unregulated your just plain wrong.
that's the point of any company! to get as great of a market share as possible. how do you get a large market share? you serve the consumer. if you don't serve the consumer well, or if you jack up your prices, someone is going to come in and undercut you unless there is regulation in the economy. im still waiting for that example. you still dont have one because you are still full of shit.
You are asking for an impossible example. It is like asking for me to show you a company that runs without people. It does not exist. Just like large industry can't exist without at least some foundation of infrastructure provided by government.
the fallacy that you must coerce people into purchasing services they would purchase voluntarily in a free economy is just as prevalent and retarded a myth as the one of the evil robber barrons screwing over consumers. the market can duplicate all of the services the government provides as of now and provide them on a contractual basis. only 15% of murderers ever face criminal repercussions because the government has no incentive to provide a good service when they can just steal your money.
pay or get shot is the business practice of the mafia it is completely illegitimate and completely immoral. you'll have to read hoppe or rothbard for further explanation though, but you are wrong about the "free market monopolies" that have never existed and never will exist.
have you ever asked yourself the question why >99% of cars today run on fossil fuels? by your standards that would be a monopoly of energy, right? and you should therefore send government over to break that up?
the reason for this is oil provides the CHEAPEST fuel on the market regardless of what governments think is right. my point is that markets are more powerful than any other force in the world. government will never dictate the markets. NEVER! but they will do LOTS of harm trying.
"Markets are more powerful than any other force in the world" This statement is just nonsense. How can a service be more powerful than those that use it. Markets are just a tool used to exchange goods. People can decide what that market place is like. If people decide that that market does not include the sale of slaves they can. If they decide that it does not include oil, they can.
what free market? the "free market" of the gilded age was not a free market. you dont ask yourself the question, "how do railroads get and maintain monopolies in the first place?" answer: licensing laws and other regulatory legislation that protects big business. the only difference between the gilded age and the 21st century is that back then all the regulatory lobbying by big business was conducted on a local and state level. roosevelt just made the federal government for sale as well.
Excellent. Since big business is a product of government regulation, lets add some additional regulation that does not allow any one business to take a monopoly hold of a market. Oh wait that is what we did. Job done.
you are outright determined to preserve the statust quo and defend monstrous thieving corporations aren't you? heres a novel idea. how about NO SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH! NONE! they are the biggest beneficiaries of the welfare state. what they do destroys society and destroys the middle and poor classes. they are constantly expropriating the costs of conducting business onto society and looting the public treasury.
Wow I am at a lose as to how you think my view point on not allowing businesses to create monopolies is Socialism for the rich. A few comments ago you were supporting Rockefeller and everything he stands for. I believe in regulating the monster we have created for the benefit of our civilized society.
protectionism, welfareism, inflation, bailouts, patenting, price fixing, suspension of tort law, lobbying, socialized medicine, tarrifs, eminent domain, subsidies, socialized transportation/garbage, state contracts, licensing/industry regulations, corporatism, etc. is socialism for the rich. it only helps the rich. it hurts everyone else. i do support rockefeller and everything he stands for because i am pro-consumer. did the price of oil go down or up? anti-trust is anti-consumer.
and it's not for the benefit of society. it is for the benefit of the rich. you need to look at who REALLY lobbies for interventionism. it is always big corporations.
the reason is because the federal government has created such conditions that it is now easier to loot the public treasury than it is to actually provide a good or service. and thanks to your buddies, they are jacking up prices because there is less competition in a protectionist economy in which government and business work in collaboration to concentrate wealth and influence into the hands of a minority. you do not have any morals.
I have strong morals. I believe in competition in business. When the balance of competition is broken by the monopoly practices of a business like standard oil we as a society should use the power of government to break up that business.
but it is immoral to expropriate the costs of conducting business onto the public. you say you like the system we have now with the lobbying and the public looting and the state contracts and the subsidies, bailouts. this regulation really only helps big business and hurts consumers. rockefeller was the cosumer's best friend. look at the price of oil? it went down. and i dont think you understand this. a coercive monopoly can NOT exist without state intervention. it cant. never has. never will.
Her work seems to be a nice overview of Standard oil practices. Here claims about Standard Oil seem to have been born out in years of court proceedings.
Imagine if the stupid US GOVT had invested its citizens Social Security contributions in the largest corporations rather than spending it on current expenses...
Here is the problem with Social Security. It started out as a system that paid from reserves. Then it became a system that was pay as you go. The reason for this is it is just too politically beneficial to raise the payout so that there are no reserves. Social Security is for the people that do not plan for retirement. For those that plan they can use 401k's and Roth's to retire rich.
whose fault is it that people don't plan for their own retirement?
let me make it a little more simple for you:when you cross the street on red and you get hit by a bus whose fault is it?
SS is another example of your government in action.
now that SS is bankrupt I must say that was your last chance, commies, to fool the gullible people with your government crap! there will never be another retirement program in america after they shut SS down. yuppiee! government has always been self-destructiv
Before FDR started Social security. 50% of the elderly population was living in poverty. This was a major problem. Social Security was his solution. It is a major success today. According to a study of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.
Wow! Have you seen the latest statistics on SSA? Do you read the letter that SSA sends to you every year? Let me quote to you what mine says in case you missed it: "... Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted..."
So, yes, while more people may be living in less poverty now this doesn't negate the fact that people's SS benefits will be worth nothing in another 10 years.
Look, the system is broken and is a fraud and it needs to end.
How is lowering the poverty level to 11.9 percent from 47.6 percent a broken system. I think it works well. It just needs additional funding while there are fewer working than retired. Oh by the way your crappy market left 47.6 percent of the elderly in poverty. That is a broken system.
Since you mention them all the time - can I see these statistics for 47.6% & 11.9%? Besides, I'd never trust the government for giving me a correct statistics on poverty levels. It would be like trusting the fox to install a good security alarm on the chicken pen.
Oh, I see - so 12.4% income tax over my career life would not help?! gee! Maybe the fact that the SS trust has a bunch of IOU's as opposed to dollars would explain why we have that shortage. Did you think about that?
Census data show that without Social Security, nearly half — 47.6 percent— of the U.S. population age 65 and older would have been poor in 1997.(1) Social Security reduced the poverty rate among elderly people in 1997 by three-quarters, to 11.9 percent. Social Security lifted 11.4 million elderly people out of poverty in that year. In 1997, the poverty level for a single elderly person was $7,698 and the poverty level for an elderly couple was $9,712.
The four largest oil companies (XOM, CVX, RDS, COP) are together worth a cool trillion dollars. What has OPEC done with its trillions of petro wealth besides funding terrorism and building beautiful display cities? Did you hear the toilet flushing during the last five decades?
(I know that Shell bought parts of Standard Oil, it was not a part of the original. Many companies of the original went scattered to others, just trying to even up the valuation amount).
ExxonMobil has about forty billion in profits (accounting profits).
Would you feel secure as a pension recipient of XOM? Compare this to the Social Secury Admin. Wanna know why they have ROTH IRA's? It has to to with reducing the number of SS recipients for the future? That's some future!
Would you feel secure as a pension recipient of Enron? The problem with investing in companies is few last 70 years to retirement.
Would you feel secure... YES.
The retirement funds should be placed in a private corporation (think of mutual fund, e.g.). The big unions have pension funds. They do not depend on the underlying corporations (except for new funds - diff. matter). A mutual fund based on the S&P500 (with Treasury Bills for cash/risk level) represents rock solid security - NOT SSA!
sabot96 just got powned! again. sabot96, advice from me - just shut up and get back to the drawing board lol. you just showed us with your big mouth that you know nothing about markets and the economy.
There needs to be a system for those that reach the end of their lives and have nothing to show for it. Social security is that system. It is an emergency system put in place to keep the elderly out of poverty. I support this system.
Standard Oil (all oil companies) ARE a big deal because it has been the backbone of the American Industrial Revolution.
Standard Oil, et al, has produced tremendous wealth for its shareholders. Go look up a long term chart. And the 'intelligent' geologists & scientists predicted a demise of Big Oil for the year 2000 (wishful thinking).
How do you define efficiency? The notion of monopoly seems so subjective. Also current child labor laws prevent children from becoming financially independent sooner, and better technology eliminates the need for inhuman working conditions.
Another point: well, I am surprised this kind of stuff is still discussed.
The main goal of competition is to end this competition.
Competition is a stress and as such, will be looked for being removed.
So if you want to maintain a competitive environment, you have to organize it.
From what I observed, monopoly (or oligopolies) precede the status of corporations. A firm which has achieved a monopoly like status can get a gov to vote the firm competitive advantages.
Wow, I was just reading the comments. Remind me never to do a business vlog unless I'm in the mood to argue with people, LOL. The kickback thing actually does sound like the way things usually work as far as higher volume/lower prices. I'm astonished though that the kickback applied to *ALL* the oil shipped and very surprised Rockefeller was able to get away with that. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the ATT breakup. Cont.
Personally I feel that the U.S. *possibly* could have a MUCH better phone/communications system had it not been for that breakup. Right now South Korea of all places leads the world in communications infrastructure and we're far behind. I'm not smart enough to know what government policies exactly have led to that but without question we've dropped the ball somewhere along the line. The ATT breakup may be a part of that.
The solutions technology can offer have their limits, limits that cannot be beaten.
A free market will not find a more efficient fuel than oil.
Take a look at South Korea. Take a look at the US. Conclude.
Transportation is a function of the superficy of the area to cover.
SK can benefit from a highly dense high quality network because of its size. This network will always cost (energy wise) much less than the same network in the US. Free market or not.
I think one of the best things we could do to catch up in the telecommunications arena is to publicly fund fiber optics to each and every house in the US. Then lease access by speed to every company and home that wants to use the new network.
Moreover, your statement that he recieved a Kickback just demonstrates your abject igornance of economics.
Today, if you offer to buy 10 widgets from a store or 1000 widgets from a warehouse, who do you think will give you a lower price per good.
That was no different with the railroads. Rockefeller had more oil to ship, so he got a lower price. That is not a kickback; it is economics, which you have no understanding of.
So now I don't have a clue about economics. Just because I dont' support Standard Oil getting a "rebate" on their oil and on their competitors oil being shipped. I guess the people of the time did not like it much since they made it illegal. The correct analogy is you buy 1000 widgets at a rebated price. Then when I buy my 100 you get a rebate payed to you for my purchase.
The people at the time who made it illegal were wrong.
Your analogy is absurd. He gave the most amount of oil to be shipped, and so he should be given the greatest discount/ rebate/ margin/ kickback/ whatever you want to call it.
If someone shipped less oil, they should have to pay more per barrel of oil. I could care less of the reason why they shipped less oil, the Railroad companies shouldn't have to have a standard rate for everyone.
You are the one who is wrong. The reason why this practice was made illegal is their is no way for the other companies to get the same rebate! They can't ever beat standard oil because Standard oil is getting payment for their shipments. How in your great judgment of the past could they ever beat the price of Standard oil to get enough business to ship more oil?
You really don't give a shit about people do you. The fact is anyone not blinded by ideology could look at this situation, and say this is not right. It is in my benefit to have more than one competitor in the market place. That is just what these people in history did. Today we have many American oil companies competing to provide us refined oil.
We have more competitors than we had under Standard oil. At their peak they had over 90% of the market. Also, their was little or no regulation of the industry at that time.
I am still trying to figure out your point. Standard Oil brought lower prices to the masses, thereby benefiting society. This led to real wages increasing 20% because the price of everything could be produced at a lower price.
Right now we are not allowed to increase supply, and the industry is overregulated leading to a de facto monopoly of just a few oil companies that really do not compete with one another.
The point of this video was to point out that markets could be monopolized without hardly any government regulation. The point of my conversation with you is to point out that government needs to regulate business so that monopolys do not take over a market place.
What do you mean by a free market? Do you mean one that does not have any government regulation at all? You know that no large businesses can exist without government infrastructure:money, roads, laws, army. Since large business are the child of civilization why in the world should we not regulate our own creation?
You know we did try none regulated markets in the 1800's. Since you know history. You do know the outcome right. The people at the time that were working 15 hours a day 7 days a week voted to limit hours and remove child labor. So you would like to return to the good old days.
The outcome of the 1800's was regulation of business: hours, safety, child labor. The people that lived under the conditions that you want to bring back fought tooth and nail to remove those condition. You speak from total ignorance of "free markets". They have spoken from first hand experience, and I stand by their decision to regulate business.
In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, better known as the Federal Wage and Hour Law. We sit here today with little child labor and most people working close to 40 hours a week. It had it's intended effect.
You asked for one policy, and I gave it to you. I expect you to change your opinion now about government polices working. No matter if you think it is stupid. It did work. You can't go around in your same ignorant state anymore.
the idea that the Fair Labor Standards Act killed child labor is preposterous! if solutions were that easy why don't we pass a law that says "starting tomorrow everybody is rich"? then I don't have to worry about working. ever!
this law was another of FDR's brain-farts. the reason people could afford to not work their kids was because the standard of living went so high up that less people working could maitain the same lifestyle and it was brought by free markets not your moronic governments.
rumcho your ignorance of basic supply and demand are something to behold. If you remove the cheap labor of children off the market, the wages of those still in the market go up, and you don't have to have helpless kids being worked to death. Your example law does not even deserve a comment.
sabot96, first of all, The Federal Government has no business regulating labor! Read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Second of all, the Fair Labor Standards Act did NOT eliminate child labor. Child labor was going down all along during the industrialization. For example, in 1880 32.5% of boys ages 10-15 worked. In 1930 that number was 6.4%.
I like how you, socialists, like to attribute the goodness that free markets create to your efforts. Please go back to the drawing board!
rumcho, so in your mind the federal government is helpless to regulate labor. Your wrong and the current legislation regulating labor has not been overturned by the supreme court. Your kind of blind ignorance of the evil's of the marketplace would allow slavery and every other market evil to continue without end.
"in your mind" - no, it's not in my mind. I said it's in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment. Do you read my posts or you are just stupid? Do I have to repeat the same thing over again?
Several states had child labor prohibition laws before FDR decided to chime in and overrun the 10th Amendment by creating a federal ban. It wasn't the first time that FDR overran the Constitution. FDR was the most blatant destroyer of the Constitution in the 20 century, this wife-cheating piece of crap.
To answer your question. The way it is handled today is a single employer can only work you 40 hours. If you want to work more you can get a second job. The punishment is only for employers that wish to work people more. That punishment is overtime pay. For child labor a large fine. I support the current laws.
Why should I have to get a second job if I want to work 45 hours in one job?
Also, I've worked jobs where the employer told me to leave because I was close to overtime, so I got nothing for the 41st hour. In fact, that is how most jobs are. You want that?
Most of the "child labor" laws, which were intended to prevent children for working manual labor now prevent children from working in air conditioned offices. You support that?
competition means nothing if you can't provide better value buddy! the oil business is prone to monopoly because of the product - nobody cares about how it tastes, smells, feels, runs, jumps, etc. all people care about is cheap oil. why don't we have restaurant monopolies? because cheap food is not all that matters. we want variety - foods that taste different, high quality, smells good,chinese, indian, french, italian, etc. if all we cared about was cheap food we'd have monolies there too.
Total ignorance again. The reason the refining business is prone to monopoly is because of the cost of building a refinery and it is a nice bottle neck in the fuel production market. Anyone can did a hole for oil, but not everyone can build a monster refinery. Almost anyone can open a restaurant, thus few monopolies.
sabot96, there were many refineries - they just fell because they couldn't compete with Standard Oil. If, as you claim, the cost of entering the industry is so high, how come nobody monopolized the auto industry yet? I'm having hard time remembering when the anti-trust commies had to get involved in breaking up a big auto factory monopoly.
You prove again you don't know what you're talking about.
In my lifetime GM had the chance to buy Ford and Chrysler. The reason they did not was because it would not pass the monopoly test the government has. That would have been a good sized monopoly. So I guess us commies were involved. You are wrong again.
Oh, I am wrong again? have you checked the GM stock price today? $12. ROFL! The greatest monopoly of the world, the epitome to world automobile domination costs $12/share. ROOOOOOFL! GM is struggling to gather some cash to save its poor soul right now. Too bad the government subsidies during all those years didn't help a bit.
Do you see how ridiculous your argument for GM's domination is? GM was never a prepared company. And now that gas prices are up, GM is really fucked!
Let me walk you through this so your simple mind can comprehend. Socialist means you want government to own the means of production. Regulating industry so that it acts in a socially responsible way is not the same thing. Setting work weeks at 40 hours, child labor laws, and safety laws are not socialist.
Democracy decides what is socially responsible. The power rests in the hands of voters. I am just one of those voters. My voting power is also limited by the bill of rights. I can't put laws in place that infringe on others constitutional rights. This is far from Socialist ideas.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".
Democracy is a nice word but it's like communism - it doesn't work. Just look at our elected officials. Congress is at an all-time low approval rating, the President is running us to the ground. It will not stop with Obama until this country is dead because of people like you!
So if I put a gun to your head and take all your money and put you out of business, and as a result I corner a market, the solution is for the government to force me to sell my shares which would make me rich and justify thoses same illegal means? Would it not be more efficient to prosecute people for commiting crimes in the first place? What about Rockefeller? Did he ever do time for these crimes?
Isnt breaking up a monopoly simply money laundering where you have people making money through illegal means where that money becomes clean through a break up of their company, after which they are free to invest that money and start all over again?
Also the railroad monopoly was created in large part of a collusion with govenment, either through the growth of the west, which govenment gave property rights away in a noncompetative manner, or bying influence in govenment. Either way this also does not constitute a free market. At the same time eventully all these competative advantages would be obselete.
Now Im no expert on this, but bare with me. As you elluded to standard oil was breaking the law in many instances, therefore its not free market by definition. also they could have been prosecuted with out the need for anti trust laws. So if there was enforcement of current laws this could of hindered standard oils uncompetitive growth.
I would like anyone to prove any monopoly can exist without the help of government. Now if we can discuss weather or not a purley free market is possible that would be great. I would also like someone to explain what is better.
The simple fact is that you really can't build much of a business unless you have the infrastructure of a government. Without a government you have some farmers and that is about it.
So if government is the cause of monopolies, governments are also its solution? But I am not convinced that your assertion is correct that in the abenence of government there is no business. But even if that is true you could still prevent such join endeavors between government and business.
So the argument is that a free market can't exist, but to prevent government and business working together against the good for all is more government?
Government allows large businesses to be created. It can also create monopolies directly and indirectly. It is best for the market if the government has laws that do not allow anti-competitive practices by the large businesses it creates.
Well I think that the historical record shows that a more involed government will stifle growth, both economiclly and as a whole. I don't think that there is any evidence or even theory that states government creates and maintains business and markets. In fact the closest theory to that is socialism and that has been shown to fail
We all look at this and say bad bad man, but through regualtion and a greater govenment infulence in business we have allowed they same thing but on a larger scale. Now business can corner the market to a point and also influence public policy. Not a good direction we are going in.
Not enough time to offer a solution in this video, but the solution that came about at the time of Standard Oil was the Sherman Act. Markets with legislation that bans anti-competitive practices seems to be the best solution.
lol standard oil can be so easily seen as not a monopoly with just two pieces of evidence:
1. The price of oil - that went down precipitously in absolute terms all throughout standard oil's tenure
2. Standard Oil's market share - that went down to 60% in 1911 after peaking at 90% in 1880 IIRC.
fringeelements 6 months ago
That is the most simpleminded and idiotic statements I've ever heard. Kill yourself.
AhYaOk 2 years ago
@AhYaOk ROFL lololo.lllllololololol
trilerkiler 6 months ago
Rockefeller didn't force anything on anyone. He lighted the homes of millions cheaply, and invented gasoline. The government had no right to tear down his company. He made his way to the top by providing good products at low cost, fair and square. As for the railroad company - they could deliver his products more cheaply because he came up with a method to allow it with reduced cost. What was done to standard oil is an embarrassing monument for human envy and suspicion.
ifatglassman 2 years ago
Thanks for the video. I found it at the right time. When you listen to the official economists from the ivy league universities, they always are big on the notion of efficiency even over profitability. That sounds crazy but that is what they say. What I have been meditating on is whether the issue is control of market or market share is the objective and thus supply and production.
The libertarian are hitting the same political walls in the last 8 months as their brothers did 100 years ago.
eotto2001 3 years ago
You are drunk.
poopstreek 3 years ago
OK a couple things here, first learn some economics. second, Ida Tarbell's horribly one sided and biast muckracking attempt at history is absolutely absurd. Third, whether Mr. Rockeffeller atempted to be more efficient or not he wasn't only a little more efficient he blew everyone out of the water. He also basically invented R&D which now a days we take for granted. I don't have much room left here but I suggest you read more then one source on a subject, not to mention learn some economics.
mrstang85 3 years ago
By chance, sabot96, do you hang around Evolutionists? It's the language thing that gives you away.
(...after their kind--->species---???)
OIHtrader 3 years ago
oh, and i would like you to name ONE single example of when an industry won a coercive monopoly without government assistance and then effectively screwed the consumer by jacking up the price... (tapping foot) oh. you don't have an example? you know why you don't have an example? because youre full of shit. voluntary cartels don't last. somebody always undercuts because businessmen are greedy.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Since to this point no major industry has been able to be created outside of a civilized society I am just wondering what your point is? All large business has to have the support of the government to exist. My point in this video is unregulated business (free market) can create a monopoly on it's own without the government creating the monopoly directly.
sabot96 3 years ago
right. and my point is that a voluntary cartel has never existed and a coercive monopoly can't be maintained without government. by "can't" i actually mean can't. it can't happen. somebody can always enter in the industry, undercut you, and win the market share. if a monopoly exists, it is only because the businessman is doing a good job serving the consumers. your assertion is a fallacy. economists dont believe it anymore. there are no historical examples. it doesnt happen. again, youre wrong.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Only an organized society can produce businesses large enough to be worth talking about. So your argument is that in a world without government there are no monopoly's and no voluntary cartel's. You must add to this view that there would be no major industry either. Since there is no major industry I can see why there would be no Monopoly's.
sabot96 3 years ago
"So your argument is that in a world without government there are no monopoly's and no voluntary cartel's." yes. "You must add to this view that there would be no major industry either." that's just as stupid and wrong as all of your other assertions.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
If I am wrong, show me a place on this earth where there is no government and a major industry.
sabot96 3 years ago
every inch of this earth currently exists under the patronage of a thieving, murdering, parasite, so obviously i cant give you any contemporary examples. 17th century pennsylvania was a successful "anarcho-capitalist" society, but it doesn't matter. all i must prove is that major industries can exist without state patronage. that has already been proven. it would be inconceivable to suggest that EVERYSINGLE successful industrial venture was in part funded by the state. that is simply not true.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"it would be inconceivable to suggest that EVERYSINGLE successful industrial venture was in part funded by the state" Every single successful business is dependent on the infrastructure of a society. That infrastructure is publicly funded, so you are wrong.
sabot96 3 years ago
nope. wrong again. the rapid socialization of road production didn't happen until the new deal. in the early twentieth century, industrialists and independant entrprenuers built roads with profit incentives in mind. state and local governments certainly got into the production of roads as well, but many roads were produced and provided through entreprenuership without subsidization. i'll send you a video explaining the mechanics of free market roads.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"Every single successful business is dependent on the infrastructure of a society. That infrastructure is publicly funded, so you are wrong."
GOVERNMENT does not exist in a vacuum.
Gov't requires people (private people).
The Vatican in Rome has government (disclaimer: I am not a memeber of that Church).
OIHtrader 3 years ago
"If I am wrong, show me a place on this earth where there is no government and a major industry."
Your understanding of history should tell you that people always form governments. So the roads in the Roman Empire were built by the gov't. There is always GOVT! Did not ISRAEL demand that God give them a King?
To answer your question, the only answer would be the Royal Family Saad of Saudi Arabia: yes govt + private industry. There is always government - the people have demanded so!!!
OIHtrader 3 years ago
oh and by "no historical examples" i actually mean that there are no historical examples of a successful voluntary cartel or a successful coercive monopoly screwing the consumer. you can bet your ass it has been tried, but it NEVER works unless government is involved in price fixing or tarrifs or patents, etc. there must be protectionism in order for it to happen.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I would like for you to show me one example of a large industry created outside of a civilized society.
sabot96 3 years ago
...they don't exist, since all civilized societies believe to some extent that individual rights must be defended. you can only see real production in a society in which personal economic incentives are allowed to manifest themselves.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
ooohhhh... i see. yes, rockefeller was part of a big conspiracy. screw over the consumer by cornering the market and then jacking up the price, eh? rockefeller's business practices were utlimately good for the consumer. you can not maintain a coercive monopoly without government assistance. tarrifs, licensing, patenting, price fixing, industry regulations, etc. in a free market, if rockefeller jacked up the price, which he didn't, somebody else would simply come in and undercut him.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
The whole point of Rockefeller's company was to gain monopoly control. He did a nice job of that. He gained 91% of the market. Since at this time his industry was almost totally unregulated your just plain wrong.
sabot96 3 years ago
that's the point of any company! to get as great of a market share as possible. how do you get a large market share? you serve the consumer. if you don't serve the consumer well, or if you jack up your prices, someone is going to come in and undercut you unless there is regulation in the economy. im still waiting for that example. you still dont have one because you are still full of shit.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
You are asking for an impossible example. It is like asking for me to show you a company that runs without people. It does not exist. Just like large industry can't exist without at least some foundation of infrastructure provided by government.
sabot96 3 years ago
the fallacy that you must coerce people into purchasing services they would purchase voluntarily in a free economy is just as prevalent and retarded a myth as the one of the evil robber barrons screwing over consumers. the market can duplicate all of the services the government provides as of now and provide them on a contractual basis. only 15% of murderers ever face criminal repercussions because the government has no incentive to provide a good service when they can just steal your money.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
pay or get shot is the business practice of the mafia it is completely illegitimate and completely immoral. you'll have to read hoppe or rothbard for further explanation though, but you are wrong about the "free market monopolies" that have never existed and never will exist.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Infrastructure?
Like Rail, built privately (and arguable more efficiently and cheaply than their publicly funded counterparts at the time )?
or electricity and its flow?
or the privately built roads?
Now there are things that truly disturb me about Rockefeller, Edison and Vanderbilt, but it wasn't their "monopolistic tendencies."
xoxgodofgodsgodxx 6 months ago
have you ever asked yourself the question why >99% of cars today run on fossil fuels? by your standards that would be a monopoly of energy, right? and you should therefore send government over to break that up?
the reason for this is oil provides the CHEAPEST fuel on the market regardless of what governments think is right. my point is that markets are more powerful than any other force in the world. government will never dictate the markets. NEVER! but they will do LOTS of harm trying.
rumcho 3 years ago
"Markets are more powerful than any other force in the world" This statement is just nonsense. How can a service be more powerful than those that use it. Markets are just a tool used to exchange goods. People can decide what that market place is like. If people decide that that market does not include the sale of slaves they can. If they decide that it does not include oil, they can.
sabot96 3 years ago
what free market? the "free market" of the gilded age was not a free market. you dont ask yourself the question, "how do railroads get and maintain monopolies in the first place?" answer: licensing laws and other regulatory legislation that protects big business. the only difference between the gilded age and the 21st century is that back then all the regulatory lobbying by big business was conducted on a local and state level. roosevelt just made the federal government for sale as well.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Excellent. Since big business is a product of government regulation, lets add some additional regulation that does not allow any one business to take a monopoly hold of a market. Oh wait that is what we did. Job done.
sabot96 3 years ago
you are outright determined to preserve the statust quo and defend monstrous thieving corporations aren't you? heres a novel idea. how about NO SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH! NONE! they are the biggest beneficiaries of the welfare state. what they do destroys society and destroys the middle and poor classes. they are constantly expropriating the costs of conducting business onto society and looting the public treasury.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Wow I am at a lose as to how you think my view point on not allowing businesses to create monopolies is Socialism for the rich. A few comments ago you were supporting Rockefeller and everything he stands for. I believe in regulating the monster we have created for the benefit of our civilized society.
sabot96 3 years ago
protectionism, welfareism, inflation, bailouts, patenting, price fixing, suspension of tort law, lobbying, socialized medicine, tarrifs, eminent domain, subsidies, socialized transportation/garbage, state contracts, licensing/industry regulations, corporatism, etc. is socialism for the rich. it only helps the rich. it hurts everyone else. i do support rockefeller and everything he stands for because i am pro-consumer. did the price of oil go down or up? anti-trust is anti-consumer.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
and it's not for the benefit of society. it is for the benefit of the rich. you need to look at who REALLY lobbies for interventionism. it is always big corporations.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
the reason is because the federal government has created such conditions that it is now easier to loot the public treasury than it is to actually provide a good or service. and thanks to your buddies, they are jacking up prices because there is less competition in a protectionist economy in which government and business work in collaboration to concentrate wealth and influence into the hands of a minority. you do not have any morals.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I have strong morals. I believe in competition in business. When the balance of competition is broken by the monopoly practices of a business like standard oil we as a society should use the power of government to break up that business.
sabot96 3 years ago
but it is immoral to expropriate the costs of conducting business onto the public. you say you like the system we have now with the lobbying and the public looting and the state contracts and the subsidies, bailouts. this regulation really only helps big business and hurts consumers. rockefeller was the cosumer's best friend. look at the price of oil? it went down. and i dont think you understand this. a coercive monopoly can NOT exist without state intervention. it cant. never has. never will.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Your fifteen minutes of fame is over.
OIHtrader 3 years ago
Yeah I make videos about Standard Oil for fame. It is such a popular topic.
sabot96 3 years ago
Ida Tarbell? I KNEW this was your source. Shame on you!
OIHtrader 3 years ago
Her work seems to be a nice overview of Standard oil practices. Here claims about Standard Oil seem to have been born out in years of court proceedings.
sabot96 3 years ago
Imagine if the stupid US GOVT had invested its citizens Social Security contributions in the largest corporations rather than spending it on current expenses...
OIHtrader 3 years ago
Here is the problem with Social Security. It started out as a system that paid from reserves. Then it became a system that was pay as you go. The reason for this is it is just too politically beneficial to raise the payout so that there are no reserves. Social Security is for the people that do not plan for retirement. For those that plan they can use 401k's and Roth's to retire rich.
sabot96 3 years ago
whose fault is it that people don't plan for their own retirement?
let me make it a little more simple for you:when you cross the street on red and you get hit by a bus whose fault is it?
SS is another example of your government in action.
now that SS is bankrupt I must say that was your last chance, commies, to fool the gullible people with your government crap! there will never be another retirement program in america after they shut SS down. yuppiee! government has always been self-destructiv
rumcho 3 years ago
Before FDR started Social security. 50% of the elderly population was living in poverty. This was a major problem. Social Security was his solution. It is a major success today. According to a study of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.
sabot96 3 years ago
Wow! Have you seen the latest statistics on SSA? Do you read the letter that SSA sends to you every year? Let me quote to you what mine says in case you missed it: "... Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted..."
So, yes, while more people may be living in less poverty now this doesn't negate the fact that people's SS benefits will be worth nothing in another 10 years.
Look, the system is broken and is a fraud and it needs to end.
rumcho 3 years ago
How is lowering the poverty level to 11.9 percent from 47.6 percent a broken system. I think it works well. It just needs additional funding while there are fewer working than retired. Oh by the way your crappy market left 47.6 percent of the elderly in poverty. That is a broken system.
sabot96 3 years ago
Since you mention them all the time - can I see these statistics for 47.6% & 11.9%? Besides, I'd never trust the government for giving me a correct statistics on poverty levels. It would be like trusting the fox to install a good security alarm on the chicken pen.
Oh, I see - so 12.4% income tax over my career life would not help?! gee! Maybe the fact that the SS trust has a bunch of IOU's as opposed to dollars would explain why we have that shortage. Did you think about that?
rumcho 3 years ago
Census data show that without Social Security, nearly half — 47.6 percent— of the U.S. population age 65 and older would have been poor in 1997.(1) Social Security reduced the poverty rate among elderly people in 1997 by three-quarters, to 11.9 percent. Social Security lifted 11.4 million elderly people out of poverty in that year. In 1997, the poverty level for a single elderly person was $7,698 and the poverty level for an elderly couple was $9,712.
sabot96 3 years ago
The four largest oil companies (XOM, CVX, RDS, COP) are together worth a cool trillion dollars. What has OPEC done with its trillions of petro wealth besides funding terrorism and building beautiful display cities? Did you hear the toilet flushing during the last five decades?
(I know that Shell bought parts of Standard Oil, it was not a part of the original. Many companies of the original went scattered to others, just trying to even up the valuation amount).
OIHtrader 3 years ago
ExxonMobil has about forty billion in profits (accounting profits).
Would you feel secure as a pension recipient of XOM? Compare this to the Social Secury Admin. Wanna know why they have ROTH IRA's? It has to to with reducing the number of SS recipients for the future? That's some future!
OIHtrader 3 years ago
Would you feel secure as a pension recipient of Enron? The problem with investing in companies is few last 70 years to retirement.
sabot96 3 years ago
Would you feel secure as a pension recipient of Enron? The problem with investing in companies is few last 70 years to retirement.
Would you feel secure... YES.
The retirement funds should be placed in a private corporation (think of mutual fund, e.g.). The big unions have pension funds. They do not depend on the underlying corporations (except for new funds - diff. matter). A mutual fund based on the S&P500 (with Treasury Bills for cash/risk level) represents rock solid security - NOT SSA!
OIHtrader 3 years ago
sabot96 just got powned! again. sabot96, advice from me - just shut up and get back to the drawing board lol. you just showed us with your big mouth that you know nothing about markets and the economy.
rumcho 3 years ago
There needs to be a system for those that reach the end of their lives and have nothing to show for it. Social security is that system. It is an emergency system put in place to keep the elderly out of poverty. I support this system.
sabot96 3 years ago
Standard Oil (all oil companies) ARE a big deal because it has been the backbone of the American Industrial Revolution.
Standard Oil, et al, has produced tremendous wealth for its shareholders. Go look up a long term chart. And the 'intelligent' geologists & scientists predicted a demise of Big Oil for the year 2000 (wishful thinking).
OIHtrader 3 years ago
How do you define efficiency? The notion of monopoly seems so subjective. Also current child labor laws prevent children from becoming financially independent sooner, and better technology eliminates the need for inhuman working conditions.
etraise 3 years ago
Wow so your actually here telling me that child labor laws are a bad thing? You must have blacked out during history class.
sabot96 3 years ago
Another point: well, I am surprised this kind of stuff is still discussed.
The main goal of competition is to end this competition.
Competition is a stress and as such, will be looked for being removed.
So if you want to maintain a competitive environment, you have to organize it.
From what I observed, monopoly (or oligopolies) precede the status of corporations. A firm which has achieved a monopoly like status can get a gov to vote the firm competitive advantages.
TheCZMan 4 years ago
Wow, I was just reading the comments. Remind me never to do a business vlog unless I'm in the mood to argue with people, LOL. The kickback thing actually does sound like the way things usually work as far as higher volume/lower prices. I'm astonished though that the kickback applied to *ALL* the oil shipped and very surprised Rockefeller was able to get away with that. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the ATT breakup. Cont.
Blinkazoid 4 years ago
Personally I feel that the U.S. *possibly* could have a MUCH better phone/communications system had it not been for that breakup. Right now South Korea of all places leads the world in communications infrastructure and we're far behind. I'm not smart enough to know what government policies exactly have led to that but without question we've dropped the ball somewhere along the line. The ATT breakup may be a part of that.
Blinkazoid 4 years ago
The solutions technology can offer have their limits, limits that cannot be beaten.
A free market will not find a more efficient fuel than oil.
Take a look at South Korea. Take a look at the US. Conclude.
Transportation is a function of the superficy of the area to cover.
SK can benefit from a highly dense high quality network because of its size. This network will always cost (energy wise) much less than the same network in the US. Free market or not.
TheCZMan 4 years ago
I think one of the best things we could do to catch up in the telecommunications arena is to publicly fund fiber optics to each and every house in the US. Then lease access by speed to every company and home that wants to use the new network.
sabot96 4 years ago
Real Wages went up 20% under Standard Oil.
Moreover, your statement that he recieved a Kickback just demonstrates your abject igornance of economics.
Today, if you offer to buy 10 widgets from a store or 1000 widgets from a warehouse, who do you think will give you a lower price per good.
That was no different with the railroads. Rockefeller had more oil to ship, so he got a lower price. That is not a kickback; it is economics, which you have no understanding of.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
So now I don't have a clue about economics. Just because I dont' support Standard Oil getting a "rebate" on their oil and on their competitors oil being shipped. I guess the people of the time did not like it much since they made it illegal. The correct analogy is you buy 1000 widgets at a rebated price. Then when I buy my 100 you get a rebate payed to you for my purchase.
sabot96 4 years ago
The people at the time who made it illegal were wrong.
Your analogy is absurd. He gave the most amount of oil to be shipped, and so he should be given the greatest discount/ rebate/ margin/ kickback/ whatever you want to call it.
If someone shipped less oil, they should have to pay more per barrel of oil. I could care less of the reason why they shipped less oil, the Railroad companies shouldn't have to have a standard rate for everyone.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
You are the one who is wrong. The reason why this practice was made illegal is their is no way for the other companies to get the same rebate! They can't ever beat standard oil because Standard oil is getting payment for their shipments. How in your great judgment of the past could they ever beat the price of Standard oil to get enough business to ship more oil?
sabot96 4 years ago
I am sure many of them could not. That is too bad. Either they figure out how to go around Standard Oil or they fail.
They also could figure out how to develop alternative technology to oil.
Aluminum was a monopoly for much of the 1900s, but people figured out how to avoid using aluminum by using other technology and products.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
You really don't give a shit about people do you. The fact is anyone not blinded by ideology could look at this situation, and say this is not right. It is in my benefit to have more than one competitor in the market place. That is just what these people in history did. Today we have many American oil companies competing to provide us refined oil.
sabot96 4 years ago
Competitors?!
Our Government has created "Big Oil" via overregulation of the marketplace.
You are also failing to make any arguments against Libertarianism.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
We have more competitors than we had under Standard oil. At their peak they had over 90% of the market. Also, their was little or no regulation of the industry at that time.
sabot96 4 years ago
I am still trying to figure out your point. Standard Oil brought lower prices to the masses, thereby benefiting society. This led to real wages increasing 20% because the price of everything could be produced at a lower price.
Right now we are not allowed to increase supply, and the industry is overregulated leading to a de facto monopoly of just a few oil companies that really do not compete with one another.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
The point of this video was to point out that markets could be monopolized without hardly any government regulation. The point of my conversation with you is to point out that government needs to regulate business so that monopolys do not take over a market place.
sabot96 4 years ago
The railroads were largely monopolized because of government.
Moreover, monopolies overall are virtually impossible in a free market, because there are always alternative goods with increased technology.
What good would a monopoly in typewriter patents be worth today?
There is a difference with controlling a market via lower prices and better goods and preventing all other businesses from entering.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
What do you mean by a free market? Do you mean one that does not have any government regulation at all? You know that no large businesses can exist without government infrastructure:money, roads, laws, army. Since large business are the child of civilization why in the world should we not regulate our own creation?
sabot96 4 years ago
Yes. I mean not regulation at all.
Japan has totally private highways; if there are demand for roads, private industries can build them better than tax dollars.
Laws do not necessarily mean regulations; torts are not regulations.
Military does not mean regulations.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
You know we did try none regulated markets in the 1800's. Since you know history. You do know the outcome right. The people at the time that were working 15 hours a day 7 days a week voted to limit hours and remove child labor. So you would like to return to the good old days.
sabot96 4 years ago
What is your point that people voted to limit their working hours?
What about the people who wanted to work more than 40 hours? Who is going to ban them from doing so? You? What is the punishment?
Moreover, child labor only occurs when alternatives are so much worse that child labor is better than the Status Quo.
There is no labor more harsh than farming.
What is the difference between children working on a family farm and starving, or working in a factory to feed the starving family?
Advocate1234 4 years ago
The outcome of the 1800's was regulation of business: hours, safety, child labor. The people that lived under the conditions that you want to bring back fought tooth and nail to remove those condition. You speak from total ignorance of "free markets". They have spoken from first hand experience, and I stand by their decision to regulate business.
sabot96 4 years ago
You base your belief in these policy decisions on the intent of programs rather than their results.
Name one Big Government policy that has had its intended effect. In fact, name one that did not have the opposite effect.
But, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again:
What about the people who wanted to work more than 40 hours? Who is going to ban them from doing so? You? What is the punishment?
Advocate1234 4 years ago
In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, better known as the Federal Wage and Hour Law. We sit here today with little child labor and most people working close to 40 hours a week. It had it's intended effect.
sabot96 4 years ago
It was stupid. Most people who want to work overtime are told to go home early to prevent the company from having to pay the person overtime.
See above or below for child labor.
Advocate1234 4 years ago
You asked for one policy, and I gave it to you. I expect you to change your opinion now about government polices working. No matter if you think it is stupid. It did work. You can't go around in your same ignorant state anymore.
sabot96 4 years ago
the idea that the Fair Labor Standards Act killed child labor is preposterous! if solutions were that easy why don't we pass a law that says "starting tomorrow everybody is rich"? then I don't have to worry about working. ever!
this law was another of FDR's brain-farts. the reason people could afford to not work their kids was because the standard of living went so high up that less people working could maitain the same lifestyle and it was brought by free markets not your moronic governments.
rumcho 3 years ago
rumcho your ignorance of basic supply and demand are something to behold. If you remove the cheap labor of children off the market, the wages of those still in the market go up, and you don't have to have helpless kids being worked to death. Your example law does not even deserve a comment.
sabot96 3 years ago
sabot96, first of all, The Federal Government has no business regulating labor! Read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Second of all, the Fair Labor Standards Act did NOT eliminate child labor. Child labor was going down all along during the industrialization. For example, in 1880 32.5% of boys ages 10-15 worked. In 1930 that number was 6.4%.
I like how you, socialists, like to attribute the goodness that free markets create to your efforts. Please go back to the drawing board!
rumcho 3 years ago
rumcho, so in your mind the federal government is helpless to regulate labor. Your wrong and the current legislation regulating labor has not been overturned by the supreme court. Your kind of blind ignorance of the evil's of the marketplace would allow slavery and every other market evil to continue without end.
sabot96 3 years ago
sabot96,
"in your mind" - no, it's not in my mind. I said it's in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment. Do you read my posts or you are just stupid? Do I have to repeat the same thing over again?
Several states had child labor prohibition laws before FDR decided to chime in and overrun the 10th Amendment by creating a federal ban. It wasn't the first time that FDR overran the Constitution. FDR was the most blatant destroyer of the Constitution in the 20 century, this wife-cheating piece of crap.
rumcho 3 years ago
To answer your question. The way it is handled today is a single employer can only work you 40 hours. If you want to work more you can get a second job. The punishment is only for employers that wish to work people more. That punishment is overtime pay. For child labor a large fine. I support the current laws.
sabot96 4 years ago
How is that punishment for just the employer?
Why should I have to get a second job if I want to work 45 hours in one job?
Also, I've worked jobs where the employer told me to leave because I was close to overtime, so I got nothing for the 41st hour. In fact, that is how most jobs are. You want that?
Most of the "child labor" laws, which were intended to prevent children for working manual labor now prevent children from working in air conditioned offices. You support that?
Advocate1234 4 years ago
competition means nothing if you can't provide better value buddy! the oil business is prone to monopoly because of the product - nobody cares about how it tastes, smells, feels, runs, jumps, etc. all people care about is cheap oil. why don't we have restaurant monopolies? because cheap food is not all that matters. we want variety - foods that taste different, high quality, smells good,chinese, indian, french, italian, etc. if all we cared about was cheap food we'd have monolies there too.
rumcho 3 years ago
Total ignorance again. The reason the refining business is prone to monopoly is because of the cost of building a refinery and it is a nice bottle neck in the fuel production market. Anyone can did a hole for oil, but not everyone can build a monster refinery. Almost anyone can open a restaurant, thus few monopolies.
sabot96 3 years ago
sabot96, there were many refineries - they just fell because they couldn't compete with Standard Oil. If, as you claim, the cost of entering the industry is so high, how come nobody monopolized the auto industry yet? I'm having hard time remembering when the anti-trust commies had to get involved in breaking up a big auto factory monopoly.
You prove again you don't know what you're talking about.
rumcho 3 years ago
In my lifetime GM had the chance to buy Ford and Chrysler. The reason they did not was because it would not pass the monopoly test the government has. That would have been a good sized monopoly. So I guess us commies were involved. You are wrong again.
sabot96 3 years ago
Oh, I am wrong again? have you checked the GM stock price today? $12. ROFL! The greatest monopoly of the world, the epitome to world automobile domination costs $12/share. ROOOOOOFL! GM is struggling to gather some cash to save its poor soul right now. Too bad the government subsidies during all those years didn't help a bit.
Do you see how ridiculous your argument for GM's domination is? GM was never a prepared company. And now that gas prices are up, GM is really fucked!
rumcho 3 years ago
ok, here it comes. sabot96 is a socialist and he just admitted it: "You really don't give a shit about people do you.". i knew that was coming lol.
rumcho 3 years ago
Let me walk you through this so your simple mind can comprehend. Socialist means you want government to own the means of production. Regulating industry so that it acts in a socially responsible way is not the same thing. Setting work weeks at 40 hours, child labor laws, and safety laws are not socialist.
sabot96 3 years ago
"Regulating industry so that it acts in a socially responsible way is not the same thing"
And YOU & your socialist kind will be the definers of "socially responsible." (Of course!).
Nice deception, sabot96.
OIHtrader 3 years ago
Democracy decides what is socially responsible. The power rests in the hands of voters. I am just one of those voters. My voting power is also limited by the bill of rights. I can't put laws in place that infringe on others constitutional rights. This is far from Socialist ideas.
sabot96 3 years ago
sabot96,
Yeah? Do you know that the word "democracy" is
not present in the Constitution? Do you know why?
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".
Democracy is a nice word but it's like communism - it doesn't work. Just look at our elected officials. Congress is at an all-time low approval rating, the President is running us to the ground. It will not stop with Obama until this country is dead because of people like you!
rumcho 3 years ago
So if I put a gun to your head and take all your money and put you out of business, and as a result I corner a market, the solution is for the government to force me to sell my shares which would make me rich and justify thoses same illegal means? Would it not be more efficient to prosecute people for commiting crimes in the first place? What about Rockefeller? Did he ever do time for these crimes?
enape311 4 years ago
Isnt breaking up a monopoly simply money laundering where you have people making money through illegal means where that money becomes clean through a break up of their company, after which they are free to invest that money and start all over again?
enape311 4 years ago
Also the railroad monopoly was created in large part of a collusion with govenment, either through the growth of the west, which govenment gave property rights away in a noncompetative manner, or bying influence in govenment. Either way this also does not constitute a free market. At the same time eventully all these competative advantages would be obselete.
enape311 4 years ago
Now Im no expert on this, but bare with me. As you elluded to standard oil was breaking the law in many instances, therefore its not free market by definition. also they could have been prosecuted with out the need for anti trust laws. So if there was enforcement of current laws this could of hindered standard oils uncompetitive growth.
enape311 4 years ago
I would like anyone to prove any monopoly can exist without the help of government. Now if we can discuss weather or not a purley free market is possible that would be great. I would also like someone to explain what is better.
enape311 4 years ago
The simple fact is that you really can't build much of a business unless you have the infrastructure of a government. Without a government you have some farmers and that is about it.
sabot96 4 years ago
So if government is the cause of monopolies, governments are also its solution? But I am not convinced that your assertion is correct that in the abenence of government there is no business. But even if that is true you could still prevent such join endeavors between government and business.
enape311 4 years ago
So the argument is that a free market can't exist, but to prevent government and business working together against the good for all is more government?
enape311 4 years ago
Government allows large businesses to be created. It can also create monopolies directly and indirectly. It is best for the market if the government has laws that do not allow anti-competitive practices by the large businesses it creates.
sabot96 4 years ago
Well I think that the historical record shows that a more involed government will stifle growth, both economiclly and as a whole. I don't think that there is any evidence or even theory that states government creates and maintains business and markets. In fact the closest theory to that is socialism and that has been shown to fail
enape311 4 years ago
We all look at this and say bad bad man, but through regualtion and a greater govenment infulence in business we have allowed they same thing but on a larger scale. Now business can corner the market to a point and also influence public policy. Not a good direction we are going in.
enape311 4 years ago
intresting. if freemarket has failed, what is your solution? i sure did not here you make any constructeive ideas.
carlmartine 4 years ago
Not enough time to offer a solution in this video, but the solution that came about at the time of Standard Oil was the Sherman Act. Markets with legislation that bans anti-competitive practices seems to be the best solution.
sabot96 4 years ago
It WILL be a great New Year :)
sillykitty1 4 years ago
It should be a wonderful new year. I can't wait.
sabot96 4 years ago
in another woeds you dont believe in a free market. you want even more socilisam.what is wrong with our system? seems to being the best in the world.
carlmartine 4 years ago
Happy Christmas to you :)
peasforsupper 4 years ago
Great to hear from you. I hope yours was a great one.
sabot96 4 years ago
An early Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you!!!
dragonarmy86 4 years ago
Thank you much. It should be a great New Year!
sabot96 4 years ago