What does a lack of competition in a free market imply?

[ck4829]

Usually, in a free market, there is plenty of competition.

OK.

But, what does it mean when the corporations are NOT competing with each other? But rather, they are sharing notes, officers, information, etc.?

We are seeing this in two markets:

With Big Oil. They passed around a memo saying how curbing production could pump off the profits.

And with the Contractors. Blackwater and another contractor are very close, one, the CEO of the Smith Consulting Group is also a VP of operations for Blackwater.

[bryant69]

1. Well in theory you have Ant-Trust legislation to deal with this

But since the current administration is not interested in holding corporations accountable, we are sort of out of luck.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EstimatedProphet]

4. Trusts - that's it exactly

Oil in particular is acting in trust fashion. Competition between oil companies has been replaced by competition between all the oil companies and the consumers.

[guitar man]

2. one word

fascism.

[goddess40]

3. The free market flat-lined years ago

it's now just raising prices as high as they can and pushing the limits not caring if they destroy the country as long as they make as much profit as possible.

Edit: It died when Republican and too many elected Democrats decided that Capitalism was our form of government and democracy was something we impose on other countries by violent methods.

[originalpckelly]

I would say that we have a fascist system, because the government and the corporations...

are one. The government was bought out by the companies.

The free market system is a far cry from what we have. It's a system where ordinary people control their own destiny. It'd be nice if we could get a free market around here.

[The2ndWheel]

5. Competition for production can only lead to one thing

Monopoly.

It can only lead to one wage; the lowest possible for maximum production and consumption.

[MissMarple]

6. That would lead to the end of democracy and a rule by oligarchy?

As I understand it the "free market" is a myth, it simply can't be applied to today's societies. The market is a human construct and is prey to all the vagaries of human behavior. The market must be regulated for it to function, especially in our global economy. This melamine scandal is a case in point.

I struggle to understand economics, but since it is directly affected by human behavior, to me, it is an area that demands oversight. Some folks would like that oversight to come from a group of favored oligarchs, not a democratic government. So I guess that a "free market" without competition would be ruled more by an oligarchy and not a democratic government. In a sense the market could be considered "free" from an oligarch's point of view. There would be no oversight from pesky regulators.

Does that make sense? I'm just trying to figure this out. I'm just a stay at home mom person. :)

[originalpckelly]

7. AHAHAHAHA! You must be smoking some good shit to think regulation will help...

just look at the FDA. All of these regulatory agencies have been bought off.

Regulation. :rofl:

Don't you realize that even many Democrats in Congress have been bought off? Why do you think you're probably paying more of your income in taxes than a rich asshole?

[MissMarple]

10. So we have fallen, or are falling into a fascist oligarchy.

That certainly seems to make sense especially with regard to the oil industry. And, yes, I do understand that about the Congress. They are just people. But I do think that in a democratic republic, although regulation waxes and wanes, it is present. The question is just how far have we fallen away from that. Approximating a democratic republic is probably all we have been able to do. Especially now.

And, yes, right now taxes are for the "little people", not for the likes of Leona Helmsley and Paris Hilton. And George wants to keep it that way.

[originalpckelly]

12. The problem is that we all need to refuse to buy any product...

if we don't know where it came from or what's in it. That's not an easy thing to do, that's why we need regulation that derives its power from consumers.

I propose a system of independent regulators controlled by consumers. If companies refuse to follow the regulations and the inspections regime, then their products will be boycotted.

The good thing about a private regulatory organization is that Republicans can never get control over it, like they can with a government organization. We would have continuous protection from regulation, even during Republican administrations. No one can force anyone to buy anything and still claim to be a free market capitalist. People have an inalienable right to refuse to purchase a product.

That right is also a profound power, without consumers, companies die.

[MissMarple]

13. So... Consumers' Report on steroids?

A broader availability of the information now offered at Consumers Report would be good. And, of course it would have to be more comprehensive. How to disseminate the information is the problem. Who pays? As it is, no one really wants to pay for much of anything at all, at least in the context of the common wealth, or the common good. You have, however, a good point.

[Roland99]

8. Could also be barriers to entry. Kind of hard to start up a phone or cable company

back in the days when they were first starting.


A free market society is like marxism. Sounds great on paper but completely unachievable in reality due mainly to human nature and the greed that eventually rises.

[porphyrian]

9. Lack of competition in a free market can mean a number of things.

Here's a short list:
- The product/service appeals only to a very small audience or not at all.
- The product/service is extremely rare and/or unique.
- Those offering the product/service have a monopoly.

[Sir Jeffrey]

11. Collusion nt