Former FCC chairman: Mass-media derugulation is a right-wing power grab

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

The FCC is set today to relax mass media cross-ownership rules. The last time those rules were relaxed (for radio stations), Clear Channel went from 40 to 1,200 channels, 1,000 more than its closest competitor.

It seems obvious that this move by the Bush administration is designed to further cement their control over the mass media and further ensure that the mass media is owned by a handful of large corporations instead of independent companies. For the conservatives on this board, that may be superficial good news, and there may be a tendency to reject Reed Hundt's arguments in this article because he was with the Clinton administration.

But try to separate the politics and look at this objectively. One of our great freedoms in this country is supposed to be an independent media (freedom of the press). The free press has done favors for conservatives as well as liberals over the years; it's one of the best guardians of our democracy.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/31/fcc/print.html

Salon.com

Former FCC chairman: Deregulation is a right-wing power grab

Reed Hundt says Monday's historic vote is "the culmination of the attack by the right on the media."

By Eric Boehlert

May 31, 2003 | The Federal Communications Commission will meet in Washington on Monday for a historic vote on the future of media ownership in the United States. By all accounts, the Republican-dominated commission will ease long-standing rules so that more and more of the nations newspapers and broadcast stations can be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt sees something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.

For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hunt told Salon this week, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. "Conservatives," he said, "hope … that the major media will be their friends."

In today's political and media environment, there's plenty of evidence that those hopes will come true. ABC News recently appointed conservative commentator John Stossel to co-host its primetime magazine "20/20." "These are conservative times...," an ABC source told TV Guide. "The network wants somebody to match the times."

The FCC's two Democrats have strongly opposed the deregulation measure that's been pushed by current FCC chairman Michael Powell, a close ally of the Bush White House, and public response to the proposal has been heavily opposed. But Hundt's radical critique is all the more striking because he is an establishment lawyer thoroughly versed in the diplomatic niceties of high government office. He attended prep school with Al Gore and law school with Bill Clinton and served as FCC chairman under Clinton from 1993 to 1997. He is now a senior advisor at McKinsey and Co., the international consulting firm.

The FCC has long had rules regulating media ownership, based on the assumption that the number of broadcast frequencies is limited. The regulations were designed to ensure that radio and television stations remained diverse, independent voices and could withstand predatory conglomerates. But on Monday the FCC is expected to dump those rules.

A company like the News Corp., owned by conservative world-media mogul Rupert Murdoch, will be able to hold newspapers, television stations and radio stations in the same market. Conglomerates such as the News Corp. (Fox TV, Fox News, Fox Sports, 20th Century Fox Studio, the New York Post, HarperCollins Publishers) and Viacom (CBS, MTV, Paramount Studios and the Infinity radio network), would be allowed to snatch up more and more local TV affiliate stations nationwide. And, critics say, small and medium-size broadcast companies and newspaper publishers will likely be swallowed up by bigger competitors.

In the telephone interview Wednesday, Hundt warned that the massive media deregulation will exacerbate the dangerously close relationship that's emerged between sprawling U.S. media companies and the government. "If Dwight Eisenhower were alive today," he said, "he'd be warning us about the dangers of the military-industry-media complex."

During Hundt's term as FCC chairman, the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As originally drafted by Republicans in Congress, the legislation would have virtually stripped away all media-ownership limits. In the end, Clinton signed into law a compromise version that allowed only the radio industry to be deregulated.

At the time, Hundt was among the few to warn of the consequences. The new laws would allow "a few companies to buy all the radio licenses in the country," he said then. "I don't believe that's good for this industry or for this country."

His words proved prophetic. Since the law's passage, Clear Channel Communications, which in 1995 owned approximately 40 radio stations, has expanded to approximately 1,200 outlets, nearly 1,000 more than its closest competitor. Together with Viacom-owned Infinity Broadcasting, it dominates an industry once made up of hundreds of competitors. Few people -- other than employees of Clear Channel and Viacom -- would suggest that radio as a source of news, information or entertainment has improved in any way because of consolidation. In fact, most would say it's become noticeably worse.

And that, Hundt told Salon, plays directly into conservatives' agenda.

What do you think is behind the push for deregulation?

I think that fundamentally what we have here is a political debate. And let's just say that the [bush] administration does not think that the big winners in the media consolidation game will be either the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Who will be the big winners?

Well, the conservative movement owns the FCC, the courts, Congress, the White House.

So you think that politics is more than a small part of what's going on?

Politics is always the greater part of all antitrust, and the debate now is, How do you apply antitrust to the media, which traditionally has been the job of the FCC? So it's not surprising that politics is the greatest single shaping influence on the outcome here.

Michael Powell and the proponents of deregulation say, "Look, if we don't do this, if we don't change the ownership rules, the courts will" -- and that federal courts have already struck down a number of the current ownership limits.

Well, it's the same crowd. The courts we're talking about here are made up of just a handful of people who are throwing parties in their Georgetown mansions for the commissioners who are casting the votes. It's the same club. It's not some kind of independent, objective authority we're talking about.

You seem to see much larger forces at work here.

I'm seeing democracy at work. People are getting what they voted for or what they let other people vote for.

But back to Powell's argument -- how as chairman would you handle this differently?

Any competent appellate lawyer could build a case for media diversity and win it in any fair court in the country. Period.

So you don't think the FCC has doggedly pursued a legal challenge?

They haven't even taken it to the Supreme Court. When the Court of Appeals votes the right way -- pun intended -- then this FCC doesn't take the case to the Supreme Court, which is a much closer call on all issues. They don't ever try.

If you were chairman would you have taken them to the Supreme Court?

Big matters should go to the big court.

Back to 1995 when the Telecom Act was pending: A lot of the ownership limits about to be implemented were part of that proposed legislation, correct?

When Newt Gingrich was running the House of Representatives, effective in the fall of 1994, he called all the media owners together in a room down on Capitol Hill, and according to what people who were there told me, he told them he'd give them relaxed rules allowing media concentration in exchange for favorable coverage. Now I wasn't there, but that's what they said they understood he meant.

But in the end, those provisions for cross-ownership for newspaper and television, they didn't survive the Telecom Act, right?

In the end, President Clinton allowed only the radio industry to be consolidated. Not because he wanted it, but because he used up his political capital fighting consolidation in the other media groups.

And why was he opposed to cross-ownership for newspaper and television?

Because he believed all different points of view should have a voice in the mass media. That's not a very radical idea. In times past, Republicans believed in that also.

Did he have any practical experience in his past that led him to that?

He used to tell people there were only two major media outlets in Arkansas and if they were both owned by the same guy who hated him, then neither he nor any other progressive would ever get their message across.

But this is a different world today. Progressives would be better off going to a Ouija board to channel the spirits of Upton Sinclair and Ida Tarbell, rather than trying to shake the conservative majority at the FCC. There's no way the three votes there are going to be altered in any way by any kind of popular protest. You can walk the streets of the United States and you will never find a single person who's in favor of more consolidated media, unless by chance you happened to bump into one of Rupert Murdoch's children.

So the vote on Monday will be a culmination of what Newt Gingrich set in motion nearly 10 years ago after the Republican Revolution?

It's the culmination of the attack by the right on the media since the independent media challenged and helped topple Richard Nixon.

But in a sense aren't conservatives suspicious of the media? Why would they want media companies to become more powerful?

Conservatives hope, with some reason, that the major media will be their friends. That's what Dwight Eisenhower was talking about when he warned against the military-industrial complex in his last speech before leaving office. If Dwight Eisenhower were alive today he'd be warning us about the dangers of the military-industrial-media complex.

The concern was that that complex would not be a separate stand-alone one, and that it would soon morph into a quasi-governmental one?

Ever since the invention of the printing press, governments have tried to make an ally out of owners of the means of information distribution. That's as old a story as when the powers that be tried to suppress Gutenberg's Bible. Not because they didn't believe in the Bible, but because they didn't believe everyone should be able to get one.

This is a 600-year-old story. It's not a new story. But it's news to the United States that one side should get this close to that goal.

When did the FCC in effect get out of the regulation business?

I don't think it's out of the business, at least not until the June 2 vote. It's regulation to insist on market structures that provide multiple voices. That's good, healthy regulation. We don't need regulations that tell people what to say. But antitrust policy has always been used to promote diversity in all industries. And there's never been any industry where that's been more important than the media.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer

Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.

[aREDSKIN]

ASF,

You are really one warped dude. If you aggregate all the "left" winged entities out there in information land you'll find , if you really want to, a disporportionate representation. This is nothing more than a veiled attemp of the "lefties" to obstruct the marketplace of ideas out there because they are getting thier asses kick by Fox, talk radio etc. The left cannot win a rational reasoned argument within the marketplace of ideas and can only be persuasive to the ill-informed by changing the subject, name calling, ad hominin attacts and specious tangentional tripe.

What "diverse" viewpoint via TV, radio etc. did the US population have before Fox and talk? None really. They were spoon feed through the National print media and the big 3 TV networks. And don't even pretend to tell us that they were objective or even presented a view that they didn't subscribe to.

The left are masters at name calling and pigeion holeing opponents but, at least IMO, not very good at much else.

Look at what's happened at the NY Times and CNN recently. This should provide for, the objective analysis, how warped and myopic the left is.

Sincerely yours,

A fellow Skins fan

[Riggo-toni]

First off, Reed Hundt is a putz. One of my favorite quotes from the 90s was from one of the cable company's CEOs (I can't remember which one, but for some reason I think the company was Canadian...). When asked what could be done to best speed up the development of the information highway, he said, "Put a bullet in the brain of Reed Hundt."

This is not a case of the government abridging free speech. The govenrment isn't buying any stations/newspapers - whereas that has been the case for decades in so many of the semi-socialist European countries you admire so much. The fact is that the media have been out of touch with the viewpoints of most Americans, and are now adjusting their formatting to compete with the enormous success of cable news networks.

quote:

ABC News recently appointed conservative commentator John Stossel to co-host its primetime magazine "20/20." "These are conservative times...," an ABC source told TV Guide. "The network wants somebody to match the times."

translation: "We're losing our audience, and Stossel (who by the way is Libertarian, NOT conservative, and is also my FAVORITE TV journalist along with the very conservative George Will) may help our ratings"

The fact that you can constantly dig up so much conspiratorial, "Jews are taking over the universe", left-wing lamentations and drop them on our board is actually a very healthy sign that free speech is alive and well. Hundt is just a left-wing elitist like Robert Reich who can't handle the fact that the failures of the 70s alienated America from the 60s counter-culture.

[Romo]

ASF,

Have you seen the movie Network ? First off I think its a great movie deals with this topic. Also I think you would be a great modern day Howard Beale aka 'the mad prophet of the air-waves'.

[bubba9497]

In the 1930's Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party made the cost of radios in germany to drop to almost nothing, they basically gave away radios so every household owned the previous expensive luxury item.

Why? because he control the radio stations in Germany, and control the content the stations broadcasted. Insuring that only his propaganda, and misinformation was heard by every German citizens. He rallied a country into starting world war 2. It also allowed the nazi's to basically due whatever they want without the fear of being exposed.

Controlling the media was the one of the single most important moves by the Nazi's to get a stranglehold of power in Germany. By the time the germans realized what was really going on, it was too late.

I don't think the Re-Pubs are going to create death camps, but I wanted to show the dangers of one political party controlling the media.

[Kilmer17]

Like NPR?

[The Evil Genius]

Yeah because deregulation has worked so many times in other forms of media.

Pretty soon, Clear Channel is going to own nearly every redio station. And anyone who doesnt walk their party line, won't get played. Or hired.

That's certainly good for Radio - huh?

[aREDSKIN]

Bubba9497-

I don't think the Re-Pubs are going to create death camps, but I wanted to show the dangers of one political party controlling the media.

The left has had it's turn doing this and continues to this day. ( to varying degrees) Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and your example Hitler. So using the Re-Pubs juxtaposed to Hitler is incorrect. Many of millions people have died this past century by the left.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

This is not a case of the government abridging free speech. The govenrment isn't buying any stations/newspapers - whereas that has been the case for decades in so many of the semi-socialist European countries you admire so much. The fact is that the media have been out of touch with the viewpoints of most Americans, and are now adjusting their formatting to compete with the enormous success of cable news networks.

I find Fox News creepy as all hell, but I defend their right to exist, and their high ratings are testimony that they're serving an audience.

I also am not a defender of the "big three" TV networks, because I think their news operations already suck for the most part. There are some isolated exceptions, like "60 Minutes" and the occasional "Nightline" when Ted Koppel isn't just admiring himself in the mirror. As far as TV news goes, it's gotten so bad that the only American TV news I watch regularly anymore is the brilliant "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. (This of course is a spoof of a news show, but they do manage to sneak in more actual news that most American TV news shows.)

What I'm defending most of all is the relative independence of newspapers from cross-ownership by TV stations and networks. This is absolutely vital. It's also important that TV stations themselves (at least many of them) stay independent from the networks that they carry. It gives them at least a chance to second-guess the "official story". It means there's a whisper of a chance that some enterprising reporter might actually report an important and original story that might not be in the interest of the media gods or the federal government.

You guys should read this article again. I'm not complaining (here) about Fox News. I'm complaining about the consolidation of all media, especially newspapers, under the control of a few corporate entities.

And Riggo, you're being a bit naive about "it's not government abridging free speech". It most certainly is that as a defacto result, by concentrating mass media in a few corporate hands. It creates a duopoly between the mass media and government. Duopolies are just as dangerous as monopolies, because the usual result is that the two dominant duopolists (such as Microsoft and Intel, to name another example) decide on a mutual cooperative strategy that amounts to a monopoly.

You may not be aware that the broadcast networks and local TV stations are using massive amounts of our airwaves for free. The value is worth many billions of dollars. One reason the TV networks tend to do the government's bidding is because the government holds a perpetual multi-billion-dollar hammer over their heads. At any moment they could revoke the free license and charge billions for airwave use.

This is less of a threat during times of divided government, but when a single political party controls congress and the presidency, you bet your grandma's hot donuts that the TV networks will click heels to the dominant party.

Finally, there is the brutal reality that "patriotism sells". The double-whammy message that "the enemy is evil and out to get us" and "our country is great and strong" is the time-tested formula of propaganda, never more clear than in "1984" -- but confirmed again in the months since 9/11. To the extent that our mass media is consolidated into a few corporate hands run for profit motive above all, there will be tremendous pressure to broadcast this kind of phony patriotism. In a media industry with more diversity, there are more openings for niche players who might find a smaller but viable audience for other messages, such as "our government is being run by criminals."

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Romo sits to pee

ASF,

Have you seen the movie Network ? First off I think its a great movie deals with this topic. Also I think you would be a great modern day Howard Beale aka 'the mad prophet of the air-waves'.

I keep meaning to see this movie. I hear it's brilliant.

I'll keep your comment in mind when I see the movie.

[Romo]

ASF,

I mean it with the highest honour. And yes you must see Network! I was shocked when i realized the movie was made in 1975.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

Bubba9497-

The left has had it's turn doing this and continues to this day. ( to varying degrees) Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and your example Hitler. So using the Re-Pubs juxtaposed to Hitler is incorrect. Many of millions people have died this past century by the left.

Stalin was a Democrat? Damn Liberal Media

I didn't call Republicans, the Nazi's.... I was using an extreme example of what happens when one political party controls the media. I don't care if if it's Republican, Democrat, or The Bull Moose Party, it ain't a good thing.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

The fact that you can constantly dig up so much conspiratorial, "Jews are taking over the universe", left-wing lamentations and drop them on our board is actually a very healthy sign that free speech is alive and well.

Riggo, it's true that the Web provides an important counterweight to the mass media. But that doesn't change the fact that most people get most of their news and information from the mass media.

As for the "Jews are taking over the universe", my issue is with right-wing Zionism, which is a political movement and a set of policies in the Middle East pursued by the Likud in Israel and rarely questioned by U.S. mass media. As I've said repeatedly, I don't have issues with Jews per se. (I'm slightly Jewish by blood myself, if it matters.)

And as for "left-wing lamentations", I'm not left-wing either. I happen to share Ralph Nader's deep suspicion of corporate influence, but I'd be just as happy to throw the entire Democratic party overboard, as long as the Republican party went with it.

My political philosophy starts with Jeffersonian libertarianism, and shares elements today with people all over the political map -- including Reagan's belief in a strong but libertarian America with a small federal government and low taxes; Bill Archer's movement to abolish income taxes and replace them with a consumption tax; Perot's grass-roots movement against the modus operandi of the major political parties and news media; Nader's rejection of corporate influence on the democratic process; McCain's attack on the corruption of campaign finance and the excessive influence of lobbyists; Buchanan's suspicions of foreign entanglements, multinational corporations and neoconservatives; and Powell's belief in a strong but reactive military.

Add this up: it's not a leftist profile. In fact, there's no political party or movement that represents all these positions. In practice, I've tended to vote for Republican presidential candidates, and never a Democrat.

[phishhead]

I'm trying to figure out how anyone could agree with what is happening. Even if you are a crazed right-winger.

I can just see it now.. on every channel, we'll have little tiny flags waving in the corner, while some republican talking head is complaining about that oh so deadly left media, and his co-anchor "Susan Jones"(who will have tons of makeup on, and sound just like everyother news woman) will just nod away in complete "patriotic" fashion.

Tonight at 11: "How the internet is a breeding ground for left-wing terrorists(thought criminals)"

[fansince62]

yawn........

that *amn catherine graham....minion to the pols.......

friedman? another Rummy puppet. and Cohen, and Ivens, and Means, and Dowd, and Ignatious...and on and on.......

btw...it might be interesting to ask where most people get their politically oriented information from: newspapers, magazines, TV, social groups, workplace, professional societies, conferences, universities, colleges, trade schools, professional papers, book stores, over seas, the Internet? actual participation where "been there done that" has valid meaning.......

ASF is apparently omnicient and superior enough to know that none of us have alternative information sources or minds that function with the same razor sharp acumen as his does. he has all the facts. odd...but he must trust some sources..........could this be a self affirming sort of deal?

the more I read ASF...the more I read his private desires and phobias than any special grasp of the "truth"

as for the Patriotism non-sense.......of course it sells........there are those who aren't as fixed as you are at setting straw-man definitions reflecting the paranoias that dominate your waking hours.......

sometimes you're pretty sharp ASF...many times you're an elitist, arrogant rube who fancies himself better informed and blessed with higher ideals than you truly are........but I leave it to others

to arrive at the same conclusion

while we're at it...instead of these friggin gross generalizations you repeatedly toss with evil hypotheticals that are supposed to substitue for reality, how about actual metrics? I live in a military town, Norfolk, yet the main newspaper here has a decidely left-leaning editorial policy (especialy irt domestic issues) and has more than the duty spewing from the "other side of the fence" as columnists.......

[Kilmer17]

It's a free market. What's amazing (not really) is how the left doesnt want or like the free market that may cast them in a negative light. They prefer the safe havens of NPR.

[Riggo-toni]

ASF,

I did not call you a leftist; I merely stated that many of the pieces you choose to share (such as this topic) are taken from leftist sources. In all fairness, i admit you glean conspiratorial paranoia from fringe groups of both ends of the spectrum.

As long as there are free markets and an information age, no corporation is going to have a stranglehold on mass media.

Take the music industry, for example. Radio has been practically ruined, IMHO, by computer programmed playlists that latch on to narrow playlists for an identified format. Gone is the independent AOR format, the crown jewel of FM radio that made Rock the music of America. Record Companies have consolidated, replacing adventurous experimentation with mind-numbing cloning of current band du jour clones to maximise profits. *Sigh* All is lost..... But wait, there's hope. Suddenly, one can download an innumerable variety of material from independent sources. Bands no longer have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to get recorded and make their material accessible to the public. Satellite and Internet Radio have popped up out of nowhere to fill demand for fresher formats.

The same type of revolution will occur among the mass media. As Kilmer noted, it’s the free market at work. If the media were to become entirely dominated by conservatives (which I truly doubt), a left-wing channel will pop back up to find its own market niche – Just as Fox popped out of nowhere as an island of conservatism in a once endless sea of left-leaning TV news stations/networks/programs.

I for one get most of my news these days off of Internet news services like yahoo, Reuters, CNN.com, and yes, FoxNews.com.

By the way, ASF, I can’t help but notice the rampant use of the word suspicious/suspicions when describing all your political influences….

[luckydevil]

"One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics - propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen - is the notion that the development of monopolies in an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."

-- Nathaniel Branden

It is amazing the lack of faith in the free market.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by luckydevi

"One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics - propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen - is the notion that the development of monopolies in an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."

-- Nathaniel Branden

Well, move over Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan: here comes NATHANIEL BRANDEN.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/fs/new.html

With a Ph.D. in psychology and a background in philosophy, Nathaniel Branden is a practicing psychotherapist in Los Angeles, and, in addition, does corporate consulting and offers seminars, workshops, and conferences on the application of self-esteem principles and technology to the problems of modern business.

The name Nathaniel Branden has become synonymous with "the psychology of self-esteem," a field he began pioneering over thirty years ago. He has done more, perhaps, than any other theorist to awaken America's consciousness to the importance of self-esteem to human well-being.

And people question my sources.....

lucky, I'd hate to break it to you, but unbridled capitalism certainly breeds monopolies. This isn't a controversial position. Just look at the birth of industrial capitalism in the late 19th century. It's why we have a Sherman Antitrust Act.

That said, a little regulation goes a long way. It's very unusual when government interference is needed, but it *does* happen, and usually it's at the vital chokepoints of the economy -- railroads, steel industry, oil, telephones, computers, and (yes) mass media.

[fansince62]

"there he goes again"...twisting a slogan into a platitude; rounding the square into a circle....

unbridled capitalism....means?

as opposed to a socialist state, which ASF favors, in which the government owns or regulates near everything

and please correct your one sentence historical sanitization...much of the anti-trust law evolved from the notion that there existed "natural monopolies" such as power and telephony that had a place in the economy due to economies of scale (and therefore socially advantageous low average/marginal costs) but required regulation due to consequent market pricing power.....

I direct those who are interested to Joseph Schumpeter, a brilliant Harvard economist from the last century, for a more accurate notion of entrepreneurial based capitalism. In particular, his work Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, though dated in the sense of the enemies it addresses (one hopes), still presents a wonderful analysis of the "gales of Capitalist Destruction". Schumpeter, btw, admired Marx greatly. As do I for the magnitude of his intellectual accomplishment: the first great socioligist. Too bad his whole idea structure was built upon the ultimately unsupportable foundation of Ricardian labor theory.

[luckydevil]

Let me make myself clear, a monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing. The biggest monopoly we have in this country is government; some view it as a good thing.

A coercive monopoly cannot exist under laizze faire capitalism. The reason is very simple: Producers are free to enter the market.

I view antitrust laws to be immoral. They penalize the good for being the good. They also hurt the consumer, because the most productive companies are punished. They are forced to be less productive.

The truth is ASF( hate to break it to you) there are few if any oligopolies/monopolies that exist without the aid of government through such institutions as tax loopholes, franchise licenses, zoning laws, the political power to be yielded through lobbying, etc. The only monopolies to ever exist have been enforced by government. Look at our history with an open mind (contrary with what our schools books tell us). There has never been an exception. I’m sure you also believe the great depression was the by product of laissez faire capitalism, which is another misconception.

The only way that a private monopoly can remain a private monopoly is if there is a limited demand for the product and therefore not much incentive for others to enter OR if the monopoly is profitable by charging low prices which it can do by continuously increasing its productivity (the monopoly actually "competes" against itself) this is how to make others not want to enter. And even still others are still free to enter if they want too. Like I said before a monopoly can be good thing, only through the means of economic competition (gained by competition).

[The Evil Genius]

I hope you guys are defending Microsoft tooth and nail.

Please remember, the only good monopolies are the one's that your Party supports. Otherwise, its just bad business.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

unbridled capitalism....means?

as opposed to a socialist state, which ASF favors, in which the government owns or regulates near everything

and please correct your one sentence historical sanitization...much of the anti-trust law evolved from the notion that there existed "natural monopolies" such as power and telephony that had a place in the economy due to economies of scale (and therefore socially advantageous low average/marginal costs) but required regulation due to consequent market pricing power.....

"unbridled capitalism"... hmm... term is one of the older economic expressions in the language.... 2,800 citations in Google. I'm hardly coining a new term.

"a socialist state, which ASF favors" -- fan, do you even read? I'm not at all socialist. In fact libertarianism (the closest movement to my political views) is arguably the opposite of both socialism and fascism.

As for the Sherman Antitrust Act, it was used to break up the Northern Securities Company, Standard Oil, American Tobacco and AT&T, among others. It was also used as leverage to achieve consent decrees with IBM and Microsoft at their respective moments of zenith.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0844878.html

Sherman Antitrust Act

Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890, first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts; it was named for Senator John Sherman. Prior to its enactment, various states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. Finally opposition to the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns led Congress to pass the Sherman Act. The act, based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, declared illegal every contract, combination (in the form of trust or otherwise), or conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade. A fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for one year were set as the maximum penalties for violating the act. The Sherman Act authorized the federal government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them, but Supreme Court rulings prevented federal authorities from using the act for some years. As a result of President Theodore Roosevelt's “trust-busting” campaigns, the Sherman Act began to be invoked with some success, and in 1904 the Supreme Court upheld the government in its suit for dissolution of the Northern Securities Company. The act was further employed by President Taft in 1911 against the Standard Oil trust and the American Tobacco Company. In the Wilson administration the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) was enacted to supplement the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was set up (1914). Antitrust action sharply declined in the 1920s, but under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt new acts supplementary to the Sherman Antitrust Act were passed (e.g., the Robinson-Patman Act), and antitrust action was vigorously resumed. The Hart-Scoss-Rodino Anti-Trust Improvement Act (1976) made it easier for regulators to investigate mergers for antitrust violations, but few mergers were blocked during the merger boom of the 1980s. As a result of a suit filed in 1974 under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) monopoly was broken up in 1982. Antitrust legislation is primarily regulated by the Antitrust Division of the Dept. of Justice and the FTC. In the 1980s these authorities adopted a looser interpretation of antitrust legislation. By the 1990s, still a time of large corporate mergers, the FTC became more litigious in antitrust actions, and the Justice Dept. aggressively pursued the Microsoft Company (see Gates, Bill).

[Yomar]

I work for a monopoly (although others would merely call it an advantageous market position) and a lot of clients would like to see some competition, but it would cost anyone who wanted to try millions of dollars in startup costs making it a mug's game. So while many clients resent the fact we have an advantageous market position and complain about a lack of options, there is in fact very little they can do about it since they need my company's product to survive. Thats not to say we don't make a serious effort to give them the type of service where it makes it difficult for them to complain, but the bottomline is that even though some of them would like to see an alternative, various attempts to start one have failed and there is no alternative.

At least in this case you can always shoot your TV.

The field if you were wondering is television ratings

[fansince62]

ASF...

- you have made frequent posts speaking approvingly of the European socialist model when it suits your purposes

- please don't continue to distort the issue.....when you get down to the economic analysis natural monopolies were a consideration and played a role in how the legislation eventually took shape. you are talking about symptoms. I'm referring to the thought process that guided much of the legislation - they obviously weren't done away with. their market pricing power was controlled. you're also missing the point that, unlike your train of thought, not everything is clear black and white (conspiracy/lie and revered truth if you prefer) or reducable to a single quotation: there's actually a history (no kidding ASF...kinda like in Iraq).........the fact is that the legislation that took shape had to address the economics involved..that is how we got to the regulatory framework that exists/prevailed for the power industry, as an example.

- i'll have to go back and review my Samuelson, Friedman, Smith, Pigou, Schumpeter, Henderson/Quaundt.....etc....etc.....I don't recall any first order calculus or 2-dimensional graphics capturing the economic semantics of "unbridled"...I always thought that was a term intended to capture/describe, in a pejorative way, disapproval from a soical and political pov the "ravages" of capitalism as seen through the eyes of those such as Galbraith.....

yea, yea, yea...I found 12,000 listings in google.........of every stripe and intention...playing tit for tat....random quote for random quote:

what exactly does it mean?

one snippet: Consider the three parts of the "triple bottom line" in reverse order of mischief. "Social justice" immediately raises a red flag (in every sense of the term) because it is a euphemism for egalitarianism; adding the adjective "social" to the idea of justice does not meaningfully inform the principles of justice, which have stood on their own for millennia. In fact, "social" justice, if it has any distinct meaning at all, is a disingenuous attempt to turn justice on its head by claiming legitimacy for a redistributive agenda. The people who use the undefined vocabulary of "social justice" are usually the same people who speak of "unbridled" capitalism without defining in any serious way what exactly is meant by "unbridled," let alone acknowledging that "bridled" capitalism is better known as either fascism, statism, or corporatism.