MAP Pricing ... the death of capitalism

[Trell]

The East Indian company was basically a government business. You said it all in your last sentence. They operated at the behest of the crown ... until they didn’t armies or not.

East Indian Company was a joint-stock company whose shares could be traded, so to claim it was more or less a government business is an expansive view. It does show that government was needed to curb the excesses of a private company.

 

[Trell]

Do you hold any patents? If not, would you want to spend time and money as you invent something that's unique and useful, but then give it to everyone?

A reminder that patents can be used to help others- patent rights can be granted to others and some corporations, like Proctor & Gamble, donate patents to colleges so they can have perpetual income. Milwaukee School Of Engineering is one of the colleges that has received this kind of gift.

I'm with Irvrobinson that the US patent system (and elsewhere) is not working so well, not that a patents don't have a useful role to play.

 

[R.Elder]

East Indian Company was a joint-stock company whose shares could be traded, so to claim it was more or less a government business is an expansive view. It does show that government was needed to curb the excesses of a private company.

It’s authority was granted by government.
“The company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600, coming relatively late to trade in the Indies.
.....
By contrast, wealthy merchants and aristocrats owned the EIC's shares.[7] Initially the government owned no shares and had only indirect control until 1657 when permanent joint stock was established.[8]
....
Despite frequent government intervention, the company had recurring problems with its finances. It was dissolved in 1874 as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Actpassed one year earlier, as the Government of India Act had by then rendered it vestigial, powerless, and obsolete. The official government machinery of British Indiaassumed the East India Company's governmental functions and absorbed its navy and its armies in 1858.”

 

[Trell]

It’s authority was granted by government.
“The company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600, coming relatively late to trade in the Indies.
.....
By contrast, wealthy merchants and aristocrats owned the EIC's shares.[7] Initially the government owned no shares and had only indirect control until 1657 when permanent joint stock was established.[8]
....
Despite frequent government intervention, the company had recurring problems with its finances. It was dissolved in 1874 as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Actpassed one year earlier, as the Government of India Act had by then rendered it vestigial, powerless, and obsolete. The official government machinery of British Indiaassumed the East India Company's governmental functions and absorbed its navy and its armies in 1858.”

Yes, but there are always some kind of power structure in human societies, and just blame "government" as the cause of all ills I think is oversimplified.

Despite frequent government intervention, the company had recurring problems with its finances.

Prescient description of the banking system.

 

[R.Elder]

Yes, but there are always some kind of power structure in human societies, and just blame "government" as the cause of all ills I think is oversimplified.

The government is a reflection of our need to create hierarchies as a species.

 

[Trell]

The government is a reflection of our need to create hierarchies as a species.

Yes, but a government can be very useful and beneficial to the population at large.

 

[highfigh]

Yes, but a government can be very useful and beneficial to the population at large.

A government can be beneficial, but far too often, the people IN the government steer it in the wrong direction to whatever degree possible.

 

[R.Elder]

Yes, but a government can be very useful and beneficial to the population at large.

I’m not suggesting that governance is unnecessary. Heirarchies are biological for us and that’s there for a reason. We are social creatures also for a reason. These things make governance inevitable in my opinion. The people like my friend that’s an anarchist are ignoring human nature in my opinion.

It doesn’t change that government is chiefly responsibile for interfering in the “free market”. I’m not saying it’s always bad but in the cases of monopoly we should certainly look at the true enabler.

 

[Trell]

I’m not suggesting that governance is unnecessary. Heirarchies are biological for us and that’s there for a reason. We are social creatures also for a reason. These things make governance inevitable in my opinion. The people like my friend that’s an anarchist is ignoring human nature in my opinion.

It doesn’t change that government is chiefly responsibile for interfering in the “free market”. I’m not saying it’s always bad but in the cases of monopoly we should certainly look at the true enabler.

I'm not sure that a "free market" is even possible without regulation and enforcement, and here government have a very important role to play and have done so over time. As an example, pump and dump of stocks as well insider trading are criminal offences.

 

[highfigh]

I’m not suggesting that governance is unnecessary. Heirarchies are biological for us and that’s there for a reason. We are social creatures also for a reason. These things make governance inevitable in my opinion. The people like my friend that’s an anarchist are ignoring human nature in my opinion.

It doesn’t change that government is chiefly responsibile for interfering in the “free market”. I’m not saying it’s always bad but in the cases of monopoly we should certainly look at the true enabler.

Laws are enacted to prevent monopolies, but since they're written by lawyers, lawyers look for ways to go around them. That's a good reason to include people from other fields in government, but the knowledge of the law makes them less effective in some ways.

Those hierarchies may be part of our make up, but the urge to be at the top isn't. Look at the current trend toward removal of real competition in academics, sports and school, in general. Participation awards? People who lose are now called 'non-winners'? We have a couple of generations who don't know how it feels to win and because they weren't raised to, they don't care about it.

While winning at all costs should be avoided in most cases, winning sure feels a lot better than losing. Keeping a business going after people said it would never work is pretty good, too.

 

[highfigh]

I'm not sure that a "free market" is even possible without regulation and enforcement, and here government have a very important role to play and have done so over time. As an example, pump and dump of stocks as well insider trading are criminal offences.

Theoretically, insider trading is illegal here, too.

 

[R.Elder]

I'm not sure that a "free market" is even possible without regulation and enforcement, and here government have a very important role to play and have done so over time. As an example, pump and dump of stocks as well insider trading are criminal offences.

Free market as in without constraints. You’re talking about lais·sez-faire

Laws are enacted to prevent monopolies, but since they're written by lawyers, lawyers look for ways to go around them. That's a good reason to include people from other fields in government, but the knowledge of the law makes them less effective in some ways.

Those hierarchies may be part of our make up, but the urge to be at the top isn't. Look at the current trend toward removal of real competition in academics, sports and school, in general. Participation awards? People who lose are now called 'non-winners'? We have a couple of generations who don't know how it feels to win and because they weren't raised to, they don't care about it.

While winning at all costs should be avoided in most cases, winning sure feels a lot better than losing. Keeping a business going after people said it would never work is pretty good, too.

Monopoly can only exist if the government enforces it. The moment they quit ... it ends. See the discussion about the East Indies trade company.

 

[R.Elder]

That doesn’t mean entry into particular markets cant be prohibitive but that’s because of being behind on the investment curve. It’s expensive to endeavor into particular industries or sectors and your competition has already overcome that hurdle. So they are no longer paying for the initial cost and now only have to pay for upkeep and modernization. Markets though have the ability to come up with unforeseen aswers. It’s only a matter of time before cable companies are extinct. When wireless internet has the bandwidth and technology to completely eliminate them, they will. Why? Because government doesn’t make you buy their services, supply and demand does. When a new supply is offered at a better price we will all change.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Theoretically, insider trading is illegal here, too.

It's more than theoretically; I know people who were arrested over it. The SEC is a very aggressive enforcer. Even elected officials get targeted:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/636666323/new-york-congressman-indicted-on-insider-trading-charges

Unfortunately, high frequency trading is still legal.

 

[highfigh]

It's more than theoretically; I know people who were arrested over it. The SEC is a very aggressive enforcer. Even elected officials get targeted:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/636666323/new-york-congressman-indicted-on-insider-trading-charges

Unfortunately, high frequency trading is still legal.

That was sarcasm- it still happens, but someone needs to know about it if they want to enforce the law.

The regulations about some of this stuff are extremely strict- I asked a customer for some info about buying a business and he reeled back, saying "I can't even talk about this" because he works in M&A, for an investment banking corporation. I wasn't asking about where and how to get money or anything outside of valuation and he acted like someone was listening over his shoulder.

 

[highfigh]

That doesn’t mean entry into particular markets cant be prohibitive but that’s because of being behind on the investment curve. It’s expensive to endeavor into particular industries or sectors and your competition has already overcome that hurdle. So they are no longer paying for the initial cost and now only have to pay for upkeep and modernization. Markets though have the ability to come up with unforeseen aswers. It’s only a matter of time before cable companies are extinct. When wireless internet has the bandwidth and technology to completely eliminate them, they will. Why? Because government doesn’t make you buy their services, supply and demand does. When a new supply is offered at a better price we will all change.

Imagine the landscape, without all of the phone and cable TV lines cluttering it.

 

[lovinthehd]

That's just greed. This is a simple definition, from Wiki that explains it pretty well-

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. "

Competitive markets are best for all- greed is what drives one company to gobble up the competition and become, well, ATT, Amazon, etc.

When competition exists in a way that everyone is on friendly terms, business can be fun- there's usually enough for all, everyone can pick the brand they want but if more than one seller has brands, stock can be shifted when the manufacturer approves it (otherwise, it's called 'trans-shipping and it violates the dealer agreement) and if people at one place make up 'facts' about the products or competition, it was possible to stop it by making a phone call. I enjoyed that time in the business- when we had a big Pioneer Truckload sale, we sold so much that Pioneer didn't have enough to supply us for the back-orders, so they arranged for us to pick up what we needed from another dealer in Madison- this was the same place that used to come into Milwaukee to have a big sale and stir up the market, had four stores at the time and was doing hundreds of millions of dollars in annual business. When we arrived, the owner of that company came out to talk to us to find out who was selling so much Pioneer out of one small store. He even came out to our place when he was in town- ever hear of TV Lenny?

My answers were more in line with MAP pricing causing the death of capitalism Capitalism left unchecked does somewhat naturally devolve to winner take all, tho.

 

[highfigh]

My answers were more in line with MAP pricing causing the death of capitalism Capitalism left unchecked does somewhat naturally devolve to winner take all, tho.

Just like Socialism and Communism- the ones who are well-connected to the leaders get more than others.

 

[lovinthehd]

Just like Socialism and Communism- the ones who are well-connected to the leaders get more than others.

Or families.

 

[R.Elder]

Capitalism isn’t a zero sum game. In fact it’s just the opposite. Capitalism is based on voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges .