• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Robber Barons

KevinKohler

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
27,839
Reaction score
13,655
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does anyone know why we call our anti monopoly laws "antitrust" laws? It's because several small companies would combine their resources to transfer them to a group of people, "trustees", in order to form a larger company, called a "trust". The purpose for doing this? Rather than compete with each other, it was deemed more profitable to join forces, and gain greater control of that market. Srt prices, control labor costs, etc. We called the folks that got unimaginably rich from doing this, robber barons. To combat this, we created a series of laws called the Sherman anti trust. Designed to combat business practices that stifled competition, wage growth, and building undue political power.

Fast forward to today. At last reporting, over 50% of all consumer spending is coming from less than 10% of the population. Which is a data driven way of saying, the only ones really buying houses and cars are rich people, because the not rich people can't afford those things. By virtue of pay that doesn't keep up with ever increasing COL, which of course, is controlled by the very same rich people who also set the pay scales for the jobs within their companies. They would defend this, of course, by saying that they have a fiduciary, legal responsibility, to increase shareholder gains year over year. And they'd be correct.

I bring this up as the Trump administration continues to refuse to force Elon Musk, a man worth over 400 billion USD, to divest from his companies for the duration of his time in the DOGE. As the Trump administration surrounds itself by leaders of industry, charging fees up to 5 million to get one on one time with the president to bend his ear. Very oligarchical.

And I ask a question of you all now....what's the difference between then and now? When's the last time we used anti trust to break up giant companies that have consolidated control of entire markets into the hands of less than a dozen people? We just let BlackRock try to purchase waterways used for international shipping, which are vital to entire countries and their people. Owned by a company that openly espouses corporate globalism in fancy language. What's the difference? Walk into your local grocery store and start flipping packages to find things not produced/owned by nestle, Purdue Tyson, or swift. Good luck. Telecommunications? Same. Gas and oil? Pretty close. Whats the difference?

The average American works more hours now than they did pre great depression, and certainly more hours than any other so called wealthy nation. But the average American is no better off for it, when we can't even account for 49% of the consumer spending.

My final thought I'll leave everyone with....on BOTH sides of the aisle....what do you think will eventually happen if nothing changes, or improves? Looked to me like there were a lot of dry eyes when that insurance executive was murdered.

Maybe it's time for America's wealthy to read the room, and decide that more for them and less for us isn't better? Presumably, before the fire is lit, and the guiloteens come out.
 
Bill Gates is the biggest robber baron imaginable.

Democrats don't care.
 
BirdinHand said:
😂😂😂😂

You mean all those super rich folks we saw at the Inauguration?

After Trump told the poor too bad, so sad…go over there and watch via a Jumbotron?
Click to expand...
You are unquestioning and hyper-partisan by nature, so fail to admit who the Gates and Zuckerberg of the world support.
 
Gardener said:
You are unquestioning and hyper-partisan by nature, so fail to admit who the Gates and Zuckerberg of the world support.
Click to expand...
Where have you been? I can’t speak for Gates, but wasn’t that Zuckerberg ogling Bezo’s skank, just behind Trump, in front of the Cabinet nominees?


1742489123734.webp

I guess the brother was joining him….
 
Gardener said:
You are unquestioning and hyper-partisan by nature, so fail to admit who the Gates and Zuckerberg of the world support.
Click to expand...
Gates and Zuck and all the billionaires - they care about their money.

They don’t give a flying rat’s ass about you.

If you think they do, you believe a lie.


And 😂 as for me being “hyper partisan”. I voted across the aisle many times prior to 2021.

My partisanship has been earned because the GOP is a god damned cesspool led by billionaires, bigots and religious zealots.
 
Gardener said:
Bill Gates is the biggest robber baron imaginable.

Democrats don't care.
Click to expand...
Not true.

That was Steve Jobs. While I agree that Micrsoft needs to flamethrower enema, and they need to fire most of their executives, they are not robber barons. They are common thieves.

Howard Hughes was a robber baron. Edolf Muskrat is a robber baron, Rockefeller was a robber baron.
 
KevinKohler said:
And I ask a question of you all now....what's the difference between then and now? When's the last time we used anti trust to break up giant companies that have consolidated control of entire markets into the hands of less than a dozen people? We just let BlackRock try to purchase waterways used for international shipping, which are vital to entire countries and their people. Owned by a company that openly espouses corporate globalism in fancy language. What's the difference? Walk into your local grocery store and start flipping packages to find things not produced/owned by nestle, Purdue Tyson, or swift. Good luck. Telecommunications? Same. Gas and oil? Pretty close. Whats the difference?
Click to expand...
Like most everything in this world, it’s money. The people of this country and hence the government, have allowed both people with extraordinary amounts of money and corporations to take over.

What do these two groups crave? Deregulation. That gives them the ability to make more money. The drive by the Republican Party and their politicians to paint deregulation somehow as a good thing for the people of this country has always been a con job. Then they get suckers behind them who don’t know any better and cry liberty at every turn. And in the process, antitrust enforcement goes in the toilet.

Just look at what’s going on today with this administration. The dismantling of agencies under the disguise of efficiency is nothing more than wholesale deregulation. Less regulation plus DoGE equals less services and less protections for citizens and consumers.
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
Does anyone know why we call our anti monopoly laws "antitrust" laws? It's because several small companies would combine their resources to transfer them to a group of people, "trustees", in order to form a larger company, called a "trust". The purpose for doing this? Rather than compete with each other, it was deemed more profitable to join forces, and gain greater control of that market. Srt prices, control labor costs, etc. We called the folks that got unimaginably rich from doing this, robber barons. To combat this, we created a series of laws called the Sherman anti trust. Designed to combat business practices that stifled competition, wage growth, and building undue political power.

Fast forward to today. At last reporting, over 50% of all consumer spending is coming from less than 10% of the population. Which is a data driven way of saying, the only ones really buying houses and cars are rich people, because the not rich people can't afford those things. By virtue of pay that doesn't keep up with ever increasing COL, which of course, is controlled by the very same rich people who also set the pay scales for the jobs within their companies. They would defend this, of course, by saying that they have a fiduciary, legal responsibility, to increase shareholder gains year over year. And they'd be correct.

I bring this up as the Trump administration continues to refuse to force Elon Musk, a man worth over 400 billion USD, to divest from his companies for the duration of his time in the DOGE. As the Trump administration surrounds itself by leaders of industry, charging fees up to 5 million to get one on one time with the president to bend his ear. Very oligarchical.

And I ask a question of you all now....what's the difference between then and now? When's the last time we used anti trust to break up giant companies that have consolidated control of entire markets into the hands of less than a dozen people? We just let BlackRock try to purchase waterways used for international shipping, which are vital to entire countries and their people. Owned by a company that openly espouses corporate globalism in fancy language. What's the difference? Walk into your local grocery store and start flipping packages to find things not produced/owned by nestle, Purdue Tyson, or swift. Good luck. Telecommunications? Same. Gas and oil? Pretty close. Whats the difference?

The average American works more hours now than they did pre great depression, and certainly more hours than any other so called wealthy nation. But the average American is no better off for it, when we can't even account for 49% of the consumer spending.

My final thought I'll leave everyone with....on BOTH sides of the aisle....what do you think will eventually happen if nothing changes, or improves? Looked to me like there were a lot of dry eyes when that insurance executive was murdered.

Maybe it's time for America's wealthy to read the room, and decide that more for them and less for us isn't better? Presumably, before the fire is lit, and the guiloteens come out.
Click to expand...
There's another factor that I've been considering, which is, as the number of competitors declines, there a sort of prisoners dilemma that occurs.

That is, without ever coordinating our actions, we can fix the market.

Let's say I undercut your price significantly. I get increased market share, but I run on lower margins, that induces risk, but when it works, I win and you lose. So you react by also slashing prices in order to win back market share, so now, we both have thin margins and we're right back where we were same market share, less profit. So I decide to raise my price for week and watch what you do. You decide to raise yours as well and we realize that no one wins (between you and I) when we compete, we both make more when we both raise prices.


It really doesn't matter if there are 2 or 5 companies dominating the market, things stay the same. What's that, a new company with new ideas looking to undercut the current market? No problem, we'll just purchase it and prevent the competition.

This is classic prisoners dilemma.

Ever wonder why when you go to Lowes or Home Depot the same big brand name tools are the same price, right to the penny? You mean one of the two can't undercut the other by a few dollars? Nope, because competition lowers profits for owners and they are now passively colluding just like you might expect.
 
Econ4every1 said:
There's another factor that I've been considering, which is, as the number of competitors declines, there a sort of prisoners dilemma that occurs.

That is, without ever coordinating our actions, we can fix the market.

Let's say I undercut your price significantly. I get increased market share, but I run on lower margins, that induces risk, but when it works, I win and you lose. So you react by also slashing prices in order to win back market share, so now, we both have thin margins and we're right back where we were same market share, less profit. So I decide to raise my price for week and watch what you do. You decide to raise yours as well and we realize that no one wins (between you and I) when we compete, we both make more when we both raise prices.


It really doesn't matter if there are 2 or 5 companies dominating the market, things stay the same. What's that, a new company with new ideas looking to undercut the current market? No problem, we'll just purchase it and prevent the competition.

This is classic prisoners dilemma.

Ever wonder why when you go to Lowes or Home Depot the same big brand name tools are the same price, right to the penny? You mean one of the two can't undercut the other by a few dollars? Nope, because competition lowers profits for owners and they are now passively colluding just like you might expect.
Click to expand...

The prisoner's dilemma can work the other way, too. Price-rigging, cartels, etc.
 
Grogu said:
Like most everything in this world, it’s money. The people of this country and hence the government, have allowed both people with extraordinary amounts of money and corporations to take over.

What do these two groups crave? Deregulation. That gives them the ability to make more money. The drive by the Republican Party and their politicians to paint deregulation somehow as a good thing for the people of this country has always been a con job. Then they get suckers behind them who don’t know any better and cry liberty at every turn. And in the process, antitrust enforcement goes in the toilet.

Just look at what’s going on today with this administration. The dismantling of agencies under the disguise of efficiency is nothing more than wholesale deregulation. Less regulation plus DoGE equals less services and less protections for citizens and consumers.
Click to expand...


Well said.

110% gif.webp
 
Bill Gates is the quintessential robber baron of his generation.
 
Gardener said:
Bill Gates is the quintessential robber baron of his generation.
Click to expand...
It's even worse than that. Our robber barons aren't even people, they're multi generational corporations. Which, I guess, thanks to citizens united....they ARE people, for campaign finance purposes.

Black Rock controls something like 11 trillion...with a T....in assets and financial holdings.

For reference, total US gdp for 2023 was a little over 27 trillion.

1 single company controls or owns almost half of the entire GDP of the united states.

Food for thought.
 
Gardener said:
This was before the Democrat party attached itself to the technocrat elites.
Click to expand...
It's more like the technocratic elites decided to start spending their unearned wealth to buy political results that benefited them, and both sides accepted their bribes.
Still are, for that matter.
 
The Mark said:
It's more like the technocratic elites decided to start spending their unearned wealth to buy political results that benefited them, and both sides accepted their bribes.
Still are, for that matter.
Click to expand...
Tell me again, how much money did Mark Zuckerberg spend on influencing the 2020 election?
 
Gardener said:
Tell me again, how much money did Mark Zuckerberg spend on influencing the 2020 election?
Click to expand...
If we're picking sides....how much is Musk offering "as a chance to win" for voting in some local elections going on right now?
 
KevinKohler said:
If we're picking sides....how much is Musk offering "as a chance to win" for voting in some local elections going on right now?
Click to expand...
Musk should not be part of the process, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom