WSJ now openly calling for plutocratic oligarchy

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

At least they stopped pretending.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Murdoch-owned paper supports corporate oligarchy. In other news: grass is green.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cory Booker says you shouldn't be so hard on Wall Street.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Murdoch-owned paper supports corporate oligarchy. In other news: grass is green.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's Peter Thiel - one of the lead investors in facebook and opponent of Women's suffrage.

[AggregateDemand]

Dumb article that attempts to create sympathy for monopolistic pricing power by foiling against the straw man of perfect competition. Perfect competition doesn't exist, and competition is the motivating factor that causes firms to seek price leverage.

It's just shock journalism.

[Person Man]

You could even be more cynical and say this really is why rich people are rich and why poor people are poor. Rich people don't actually care about things like "socialism", "capitalism" and "freedom". The ends justify the means for them. Poor people won't form unions and have to be forced into universal health care because "it's stealing", "I'm a MAN"/"a good wife and daughter" and so on.

You can even say that problems today are not based on rich people being greedy but poor people that are not greedy. The striking fast food workers, though its hard to see them as being reasonable, (rich people aren't reasonable) are doing what they need to do for capitalism to work.

[pbrower2a]

Dumb article that attempts to create sympathy for monopolistic pricing power by foiling against the straw man of perfect competition. Perfect competition doesn't exist, and competition is the motivating factor that causes firms to seek price leverage.

It's just shock journalism.

We no longer have a predominantly-competitive economy. Cartels and trusts are the norm in the "new" America, and they own nearly half of the political system. Competition has become a command toward working people who are expected to compete to see who is most willing to suffer for economic elites. What we get from the non-competitive economy is suspect.

Although I can accept the idea of a monopolist operating in a naturally-constricted market (there might be room for only one business in the activity, and monopoly pricing is the only way for someone to participate in the local economy because a business owner must make a living -- there might be room for only one grocer, repair shop, or gas station in that market), I cannot accept it as an excuse for class privilege  except out of fear of consequences to my bodily integrity or personal freedom. (Basically, support plutocracy or go on trial for treason or meet a death squad with my name on its execration/execution list).

Monopolies get high profits by constricting supply -- creating shortages that allow high prices, prices above market. Monopolies raise costs upon all other businesses and reduce the ability of other businesses to compete in the world market.  Monopolistic pricing operates much like a tax upon those who need the monopolist's output as inputs. Thus, suppose that American steel costs $150 a ton in contrast to $40 on the world market. An American-built vehicle made in the United States has a built-in disadvantage of $110 per ton of steel. So if the steel business is non-competitive and the rail-car manufacturing business is competitive, American rail-car manufacturers will have a difficult time exporting.

Monopolists ordinarily give very poor service, even to the extent of an adversarial relationship with its customers.  By constraining supply they as a rule create unemployment.

The excuse that monopolies foster innovation is a sham. Monopolists do everything possible to ensure that they get no competition. They lavish funds on politicians who promise to enforce monopoly conditions.  Innovation by any other than themselves is a hazard to monopolists with captive markets.

 

[Oakvale]

The ramblings of noted loon Peter Thiel that happened to be published in the WSJ do not == the WSJ.

[pbrower2a]

The ramblings of noted loon Peter Thiel that happened to be published in the WSJ do not == the WSJ.

But what about Rupert Murdoch?

[KingSweden]

I suppose it's a silver lining that Thiel is being openly mocked as a hack in that article's comments section.

[pbrower2a]

An entrenched monopoly is good for one boom one time and then consistent underperformance. 

[Linus Van Pelt]

The ramblings of noted loon Peter Thiel that happened to be published in the WSJ do not == the WSJ.

This is a recurring issue on the forum (thinking that opinion pieces in a newspaper represent the paper's actual position).

[AggregateDemand]

We no longer have a predominantly-competitive economy. Cartels and trusts are the norm in the "new" America, and they own nearly half of the political system. Competition has become a command toward working people who are expected to compete to see who is most willing to suffer for economic elites. What we get from the non-competitive economy is suspect.

The terms you're searching for are "oligopoly" and "monopolistic competition". While I'm highly skeptical of oligopoly, I don't see it as the cause for the recent abuse of the American middle class. Instead, we are all laboring under the yoke of inefficient taxation and benefit price inflation caused by reckless demand subsidies.

Thiel is nuts, but I don't think he's arguing that monopoly breeds innovation, rather innovation breeds monopoly and monopoly pricing leverage. "By "monopoly," I mean the kind of company that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute. "

The sheer idiocy begins when he starts ranting about America's misplaced faith in business competition. Competition is what spawns pricing leverage, and inefficient duplication of processes by competing interests is what keeps us employed and constantly innovating.

[Foucaulf]

Most economic research these days deal with monopolistic competition and optimal contracts anyway. What Thiel's arguing is basically Schumpeter's argument for a right to monopoly, made about 70 years ago.

His whole analogy with restaurants is weird: PayPal may end up having more customers than any individual restaurant, but that doesn't mean the restaurant is satisfying some people's wants. Nor are restaurants exactly "fighting for survival," as it's clear there's differentiation between what they offer.

The idea of growth can be twisted in different ways by different people. As an accounting identity, a Silicon Valley startup that gets $10 million in revenue contributes as much to GDP as 100 new restaurants each earning $100000 in revenue. What is equivalent in accounting seems vastly different to a techno-utopian, which I find rather silly. Just because you think your idea will change the world doesn't mean everyone should flock toward it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

What oakvale and Linus said.

[MaxQue]

The ramblings of noted loon Peter Thiel that happened to be published in the WSJ do not == the WSJ.

This is a recurring issue on the forum (thinking that opinion pieces in a newspaper represent the paper's actual position).

They decided to publish it. Nobody forced them. They could decline.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The ramblings of noted loon Peter Thiel that happened to be published in the WSJ do not == the WSJ.

This is a recurring issue on the forum (thinking that opinion pieces in a newspaper represent the paper's actual position).

They decided to publish it. Nobody forced them. They could decline.

If that logic is used to justify that every editorial published represents that paper's view then countless (if not every) paper has contradictory views on some issue. Also if we extend the same logic to letters to the editor that are published...

[GaussLaw]

This is odd.  Virtually every radical libertarian uses "competition" as a way to argue that the free market has no shortcomings.  Any shortcoming is just the gubmint impeding a true free enterprise system, according to these people.

So I'm a little confused about this article......