Friedman on Antitrust

[@professorcurly]

I would say the establishment of temporary monopolies are indeed a major benefit of research and innovation. Take the example of the Colt revolver - a marvel, and a monopoly until his patents expired, and he became quite wealthy. But no matter how great an idea, people can come up with something better given the chance (Winchester, Browning, Gatling). Monopolies will be toppled by innovation unless subsidized and assisted by government action, which is what Dr. Friedman's point here was.

[@elizaring3354]

Google. But they’re an temporary monopoly giving people a service that didn’t exist like that before. One day a competitor will seriously rival them and those who ads in the ring already they’re constantly checking googles monopoly

[@abcd123906]

The title is WRONG. It should be "Friedman on Monopolies" not "Friedman on Antitrust". There is a difference.

[@yitzhakmalul]

i can get the title. Friedman argues that anti-trust is harmful to the economy because there are virtually no market-made monopolies, only goverment-made.

[@elwoodwinn]

music to my ears. we have been taught so much crap about monopolies and the 'evil' of big business for so long. government enforced monopolies are really the only ones that survive for any amount of time.

[@PabloIzurieta]

How would Friedman tackle Google? I think this example falls under the category of the NYSE. De Beers is no longer a monopoly.

[@ReeceMarshallPersonal]

1:19 haha, Debeers is propped up heavily by Botswana govt (the people of Botswana benefitted heavily) which is why Debeers is thriving!

[@flexolos]

It is such a pleasure to see someone speak who has dedicated his life to freedom

[@kriskats19]

@Saebeck32 Before Medicare doctors used to make house calls. Guess what we have now? We have corporate medicine. We pay thousands of dollars to get stitches because there are a million layers of bureacracy between you and the doctor. This is what happens when the government gets involved in ANYTHING. The cost explodes. This can be seen in education, housing, and medicine.

[@Satimy]

I would rather have government limit monopolies than have Chinese and Saudi Oligarchs competing in domestic energy markets

[@user-221i]

How did that work with former soviet countries?

[@CH-qc8ez]

This man is a genius.

[@shone1178]

He forgot to mention the gov't's monopoly on money: FRNs.

[@williamgregory1848]

Monopolies (especially when it’s protected by governments) is poison for markets and consumers.

[@rjcolarusso4764]

Not if the goods or services are being "dumped" to undermine domestic production.

[@TheWizardGamez]

Okay. You don’t like cheap goods?

[@hamnchee]

Foreign trade is a great check on domestic monopoly and prices in general, but I am in favor of, not tarrifs, but of banning trade with countries who dont have some basic parity with our labor and finance laws. Otherwise we could be outpriced by corruption and slave labor, etc. and worse, supporting them, which flies in the face of our free market in the first place.

[@MrGiggity890]

@LordShandor then what was the revolutionary war?

[@DiseasedMoss]

I am a free market capitalist, but I have a problem; wouldn't subsidies to competition and extra taxes on a given firm reduce its monopoly? Again, I do not advocate this, I'm just seeking a counter argument.

[@135Patriots]

@Saebeck32 mid 90s revenue levels wouldn't cover future costs, unless we do something w/ regards to hc costs programs like medicare will literally eat our budget alive...No western nation can afford to spend 20% of gdp of healthcare, that's just insanity. The tax increases you're talking about would be fairly substantial, for most americans. The honesty you show is rare, so I applaud you for that. very, very few liberals are willing to honestly discuss broadening the tax base.

[@Anti-CornLawLeague]

Where is this foreign company that can take on Amazon?

[@TheWizardGamez]

Alibaba… checkmate. But Amazon is a pretty good company. At least for the general economy. They don’t act in a way that is detrimental to the average consumer.

[@professorcurly]

You would indeed reduce the monopoly, but the problems arise for "what then." Who gets to decide what competition gets subsidized? What happens if a competitor then, using the benefit of government money and support, rise to a position of monopoly? Are they then taxed? At the end what you're doing is encouraging poor performance by subsidizing it - monopolies are not built by bad business. You are helping the less successful topple the more successful, and at that point where do you stop? (cont)

[@PFB1994]

There's no such thing as free trade. You can stop all tariffs and laws here in the US, but it's not free trade if the other countries still have tariffs and government assistance on their end.

[@TheWizardGamez]

Opening up our economy would asst a good ecample

[@cch312]

Being dominant in the industry doesn't mean monopoly. Monopolies are behavior like what Microsoft did with their Internet Explorer on their Windows system. They made other internet browsers slower than they originally would be, so users will have a bad experience and turn back to IE. And that's an example of how monopolies are committed. And it's unjust. On the other hand, Amazon is an example where Amazon proposes ideas to investors. And investors would only give Jeff Bezos the money if the proposals sound promising. And clearly, Jeff got it nailed down and he got a good hold on those fund from thousands of investors. Then, for future funding, Amazon has to perform and shows they are getting things done in order to convince investors. See, Theodore Roosevelt committed to anti-trust for a reason. Corporations were secretly making deals that omitted competition. e.g. control pricing. And although Amazon is dominating, if you look carefully, there are thousands of small online stores run by ambitious business owners who are making a profit. Free Trade is so easily misunderstood if one doesn't dig deep into what it means philosophically.

[@GTdnrSTANG]

This man is a genius, but what about pharmaceuticals? Or other products that require research and development? If we do not protect these as temporary monopolies, why will they participate in the development it takes?

[@heavym3tal]

@cannotbebothered100 Look at the alternative, in your example of the insurance company. When you cap the price an company can charge a consumer, you limit its profit margin, and stop it from growing, and being able to provide more insurance at possibly lower rates. Any Microeconomics textbook will show that when the government sets a price control, there is an excess demand, which results in a rationing of the given commodity. Does this help those that need the commodity?

[@thegoonist]

well with free trade google and facebook and now amazon are still monopolies so...

[@cch312]

Being dominant in the industry doesn't mean monopoly. Monopolies are behavior like what Microsoft did with their Internet Explorer on their Windows system. They made other internet browsers slower than they originally would be, so users will have a bad experience and turn back to IE. And that's an example of how monopolies are committed. And it's unjust. On the other hand, Amazon is an example where Amazon proposes ideas to investors. And investors would only give Jeff Bezos the money if the proposals sound promising. And clearly, Jeff got it nailed down and he got a good hold on those fund from thousands of investors. Then, for future funding, Amazon has to perform and shows they are getting things done in order to convince investors. See, Theodore Roosevelt committed to anti-trust for a reason. Corporations were secretly making deals that omitted competition. e.g. control pricing. And although Amazon is dominating, if you look carefully, there are thousands of small online stores run by ambitious business owners who are making a profit. Free Trade is so easily misunderstood if one doesn't dig deep into what it means philosophically.

[@nsjx]

Will Cheung Google is being fined by the EU for anti-trust by way of Android OS and Facebook is being investigated by Germany as a monopoly. Being a monopoly gives a dominant position.

[@SteveSmith-wv8sg]

@@nsjx the EU passes so many ridiculous laws and investigations all it does is kill business

[@1974dormouse]

We haven’t had free trade in many decades. Those tech companies aren’t real monopolies, but they do only have the power they have because of getting tax money and protection from the government

[@RippIemagne]

You, sir. I like you.

[@MrDanielfff777]

Good point

[@flasponge]

And GOOGLE.

[@dibaterman]

@LordShandor If you continue that argument you are left with either the disgusting proposition of being okay with fascism, genocide and then say there is no reason to deter or prevent those things or the side that says "I'm right and everyone else is self-brainwashed" both of which are Chomsky arguments and I wont go any further than that. Good night and good conversation.

[@dibaterman]

@LordShandor And what substance would that be? That the US is a member of the UN security board and is promised to support human rights as is understood by the ICC? That there were five points outlined by the US for the invasion of Iraq seems to be an unsubstantial point for your argument though, that three of those reasons as per the Geneva accord gave legal warrant for revoking Iraqs sovereignty on their own merit just isn't enough. Oh because they didn't have WMD's, in hindsight that's sad.

[@135Patriots]

@Saebeck32 though I vehemently disagree with you on many of those things, touche...couldn't help but smile, few liberals have the stones to actually take principled positions with zest. What concerns me is not the gap between "rich" and "poor", but the decreasing economic mobility that western nations are facing. And as for the 80s, that Reagan character outside of cutting income taxes did very little to reduce the size of the public sector....He's the liberal boogie man, but i'm not sure why.

[@grraadd]

@paulstroie check meaning of the little smiling face at the end... hint: it's not happiness. Or just ask TimeWarp66 - he got it :-D (now - it's laughing)

[@135Patriots]

@Saebeck32 surely you aren't suggesting that America was "better" off in the 50s than it was in the 90s....By almost any micro or macro indicator, American citizens live healthier, more prosperous lives now than in the WW2 era. And about WW2, we enjoyed artificially low unemployment for the better part of a decade as a result of the largest conflict in history, and something called the draft. Tariffs cannot marshall that capacity without causing serious market imbalances.

[@GTdnrSTANG]

@mzmaj7 Thank you, I'll check it out

[@grraadd]

@TimeWarp66 notice that they are already at "nationalisation" phase (the end of the road to hell) in US with banks, Government Motors and more...

[@grraadd]

@Audiofalcon7 well, I'm lolwtime... (loughing with tears in my eyes) :-(

[@Drivenk]

Milton Friedman has done more harm then good. He has spoken many great words, but his actual role in the government has been more harmful than good. Support of fiat money, withholding tax, and inflationary policies. That is his historical claim to fame.

[@135Patriots]

@Saebeck32 first off, we haven't produced industrial goods in decades, short of enormous import tariffs that ship has sailed. Regardless, you are ignoring the tremendous good free trade has done for americans at all socio-economic levels. There is more competition and more choice. As a result of this, wages in China are rising quite quickly. If you were to raise tariffs, you would just start a trade war. Protecting a specific interest at the expense of general welfare is not smart PBPL. imo

[@135Patriots]

@Saebeck32 check out the purchasing power of the dollar in the 50's. With the current state of the USD, you would see significant macro loss of savings, staple goods would rise in cost significantly. Unless you do not believe in comparative advantage, I don't see the logic in protectionism. Isolating ourselves from trade would reduce us to a pre-Ricardian economic state. mercantilism has never, ever worked in a modern context. The best way to attract business is thru incentive, not punishment

[@mzmaj7]

@GTdnrSTANG Friedman gives an answer to that question here: watch?v=xO7g6Ynz9no

[@MrGiggity890]

@bartek4443 lorshandor is mad because you are correct

[@WBensburg]

Wait -- "you pay into it your entire life, hence it is not an "entitlement". You have given the very definition of an entitlement -- you're entitled to it, because you have paid into it. How can it NOT be an entitlement?

[@Patience1138]

Yeah, we all know how well THAT went...

[@dibaterman]

@LordShandor You can trade blows on youtube all day if you'd like but at least stop using Chomsky definitions for words. status quo forces cannot be at the same time imperialistic. Secondly it is safe to say that for 50 of the states 4 of which are common wealth states the US has an Empire however since the acquisition of Hawaii has not been Imperialistic. You should do quite a bit more research on Iraq by the way, and there's no room on you tube for me to give you sources.

[@135Patriots]

@Saebeck32 couldn't agree more, but I think you aren't properly weighing the wholesale benefits that american middle class workers have enjoyed as a result of globalization. Again, there are so many goods and services that almost all americans can afford, that simply wouldn't be the case with union made goods. And as wages rise in developing nations, the competitive balance swings back to the 'States. You fear is totally understandable-this country was built on the middle class.

[@darkcynite]

Free trade didn't work out so well for the united states people, but maybe it's working out better for people else where.

[@JulkerReviews]

Dwayne Knight Amazon? Google? I don't think you've been to USA.

[@darkcynite]

Julker Ninesixteen I don't consider corporations people at this point but the idea of corporations being the unfeeling dominant species of the world strikes me as interesting.

[@JulkerReviews]

corporations are run by people but acts like a single person (A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. from WIKIPEDIA - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) I don't care for opinions, I care for facts and evidence, according to the law, that is a corporation.

[@darkcynite]

Julker Ninesixteen Now that we've established that we aren't talking about the same thing when I said people and I expressed caring about them and not corporations. Do you have some other point to make?

[@JulkerReviews]

you can idolize socialism but at the end of the day, the socialists in Poland, Russia, China and Ukraine dream of capitalism, ask the immigrants, they will tell you socialism sucked balls, you had to wait on line for everything and literally months for a shitty car, free trade was limited and the people suffered, that's why the black market thrived unfortunately, it gave people what they wanted, a superior idea to socialism.

[@Audiofalcon7]

@grraadd lolwut