Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

Instead of trying to control the monopoly, why not solve the problem that created the monopoly in the first place?

 

Nonsense. Monopolies are a guaranteed outcome of unfettered capitalism. A GUARANTEE. We have seen this time and time and time again - hence why laissez faire is an utter and abject failure.

You NEED regulation to protect consumers. The right doesn't believe that. The right believes that the market will solve the problem. Nonsense. Unregulated, uncontrolled markets ARE the problem.

The fundamental issue here is you ignore all the evidence against capitalist markets and the monopolies they create, and instead construct a fake picture of what your outcome "may be". In historical perspectives, that outcome is never what you assert it is, and it never has, nor will it ever be that.

You live in a fairy tale.

 

The difference is still there. ISPs don't own the internet while telecoms own their networks.

 

LOL, there are already laws against monopoly. Where have you been?

 

It would give ISPs more control over us if we allowed them to dictate prices by site, content, platform etc. The government was just ensuring that we continue to use the internet the same way we've always been. The ISPs wanted to propose packages that would charge people differently depending on various things.

Your second paragraph ... you'd bypass the ISP and net neutrality issues of course. If you wanna avoid the local food market and all its issues, you could always farm and eat your own food. That’s analogous to what you're saying here, but it doesn't address the issues with undermining net neutrality.

I don't understand how the library example helps your side of the argument either. The library accepts books from donors and lets anyone have access to any available book. It doesn't charge you different prices for checking out books from different sections.

 

Tell us more!

 

One of us. Not necessarily. Not necessarily.

There you are.

 

^ Not getting it.

 

Monopoly and collusion, yes.

 

^ Still not getting it. Not even close.

 

This is simply economically illiterate. There are different types of monopoly, but all require government to persist.

https://mises.org/library/fear-monopoly

 

You are mistaken

Most areas of the country have more than one internet provider

And those that dont probably have liberal progressive government do not believe in capitalism and competition

 

Nothing can be considered a right if it has to be provided by someone else. Electric service is not a right, telephone service is not a right, natural or propane gas service is not a right, cable is not a right, so internet is not a right. The interstate highway system is not a right, which is why some parts of it have tolls.

 

I feel like this video might actually mislead people into believing that net neutrality is about cable packages that provide faster and slower internet speeds. The video tries to simplify net neutrality for the viewers, but I think it oversimplifies it. First thing people need to understand is that net neutrality isn't about cable companies making THEIR services slower, but rather making their competitors' websites and streaming services run slower. For example, Netflix is now a major competitor for cable companies, which in effect gives cable companies/internet providers the incentive to slow down or block user access to Netflix. Under net neutrality the internet is an open and free market, cable providers are not allowed to play favorites and make certain websites run slower than others, but they can still offer different internet speed packages.

 

I read that netflex consumes 60% of the bandwidth

 

The Netherlands is about the size of Maryland, with a population almost three times as high. Plus the Dutch government owns every square inch of land. The two nations are not comparable.

 

What's illiterate is assuming laissez faire has any logical conclusion other then monopoly. Government doesn't cause monopoly. Without government monopoly was rampant.

Your stance is not supported by history. In fact it is disproven.

 

It's not an assumption. It's well documented.

https://thecultureofreasoncenter.com/articles/a-brief-examination-of-monopolies-and-laissez-faire

Every instance of a Laissez faire monopoly that supposedly had to be broken up by the government was in fact an instance of Government prohibiting competition and intentionally creating a coercive monopoly. There's 4 main types of monopoly. They are natural, geographic, technological, and the last, ironically, is government itself. GOVERNMENT IS A MONOPOLY.

Natural monopolies arise through zoning regulations. Under the auspices of protecting the environment, or reducing blight, government restricts private access to natural resources. This gives companies that have been granted permits unfair competitive advantage over companies that do not have the ability to procure a permit. Big oil, the massive electric companies, the telecoms, the hardwired ISPs are all this type of monopoly. Their natural monopoly is directly enforced by the government itself.

Geographic monopolies have to do with the amount of resources and number of consumers in a limited area. Juno Alaska doesn't have a lot of peach trees, or a lot of people around to eat peaches. Someone who creates the infrastructure to supply peaches to Juno might be able to establish a peach monopoly. But that doesn't give the peach monopolist the ability to treat the good people of Juno unfairly. If the peach mogol tries to charge too much for peaches this will be a signal to other peach growers that there's good money in peaches in Juno despite the geographic difficulties, and they will begin to supply them there as well.

Technological monopolies require government enforced patents and copyright to maintain their edge against their competition. Microsoft, Google, Big Pharma, they all need a government hammer to prevent their competition from bringing competitive products to market. But even with that hammer, if Microsoft charged too much for Office 2018, then people would switch to a competitive product that uses a different technology.

That's the whole point really. The best thing that could happen to the solar industry is for big oil to become a true coercive monopoly. That would make solar economically viable. That would make it competitive. The same thing with the cable companies. You keep talking about hardwired ISPs being so giant as to not have to attend to the demands of their consumers, but the only reason that is is that they have government backing up their power to do so. Get government out of the way, and suddenly the competition between the types of ISP providers will solve the problem you have.

Copper cable is not the only way to access the internet after all. DSL, Satellite, cellular wireless, fiber optic, maybe even some way that hasn't been designed yet. Who knows? We can't know if we allow the government to stand in the way of it.